We can’t blame Moore for the Forest game.

[shandypants]

Mods - please don’t merge this with another thread. I want to offer some counter perspective and don’t want it to get lost elsewhere.

————————————————

I’ve had some time to think after my anger at our performance against Forest. 
 

We cannot blame Moore for today’s performance. Our manager is laid up with pneumonia and we don’t know how ill he is; he was not at the match today so we can’t blame him. We’re currently being managed by Moore’s assistant, Jamie Smith, who readily admitted in his prematch interview this week that he’s well out of his comfort zone and doesn’t like the job. Smith is clearly “working about his pay grade” and it showed today. We are victims of circumstance in that respect. 
 

The terrible mistakes Smith made were not changing things sooner and not really changing the tactics when he did make changes. Smith is responsible for this, not Moore but I’ll point out again that Smith is a makeshift manager until Moore gets back. 

 

I thought that today’s line up looked progressive and attacking when I first saw it - I was shocked to see Paterson at right wingback but I could see the logic there in terms of getting attacking bodies on the pitch (even though it was proven to be flawed). Some people are saying we should have started with Rhodes but he wasn’t  brilliant when he came on was he? He’s consistently not been played by every manager he’s had at Hillsborough - that tells you a story in itself. 
 

The fact is that bout 7 or 8 players today were throw - that’s far too many to get a win. One problem may be related to the fact that they’re out of contract this season and they just don’t care enough. 

I’m  not happy but I’m not blaming Moore. 

 

[Guest]

What a load of rubbish 

[quinnssweetshop]

The team selection was without doubt one of the strangest I have witnessed in 52 years. It was abysmal. 

[Emerson Thome]

1 hour ago, quinnssweetshop said:

The team selection was without doubt one of the strangest I have witnessed in 52 years. It was abysmal. 

What team would you have gone with?

[Orlando_Trustful]

Moore doesn't get any blame from me at all. We've got a shocking squad and thoroughly deserve to go down. 

[Emerson Thome]

1 hour ago, shandypants said:

Mods - please don’t merge this with another thread. I want to offer some counter perspective and don’t want it to get lost elsewhere.

————————————————

I’ve had some time to think after my anger at our performance against Forest. 
 

We cannot blame Moore for today’s performance. Our manager is laid up with pneumonia and we don’t know how ill he is; he was not at the match today so we can’t blame him. We’re currently being managed by Moore’s assistant, Jamie Smith, who readily admitted in his prematch interview this week that he’s well out of his comfort zone and doesn’t like the job. Smith is clearly “working about his pay grade” and it showed today. We are victims of circumstance in that respect. 
 

The terrible mistakes Smith made were not changing things sooner and not really changing the tactics when he did make changes. Smith is responsible for this, not Moore but I’ll point out again that Smith is a makeshift manager until Moore gets back. 

 

I thought that today’s line up looked progressive and attacking when I first saw it - I was shocked to see Paterson at right wingback but I could see the logic there in terms of getting attacking bodies on the pitch (even though it was proven to be flawed). Some people are saying we should have started with Rhodes but he wasn’t  brilliant when he came on was he? He’s consistently not been played by every manager he’s had at Hillsborough - that tells you a story in itself. 
 

The fact is that bout 7 or 8 players today were throw - that’s far too many to get a win. One problem may be related to the fact that they’re out of contract this season and they just don’t care enough. 

I’m  not happy but I’m not blaming Moore. 

 

 

There's a lot of sense in this. It is terrible what he is going through with the illness, and it is very difficult to lead a team when you can't attend training or being there in the dressing room or on the side of the pitch.

 

Even so, despite this massive disadvantage that the other managers didn't have - the team has clearly got much better since he arrived. We are actually passing the ball and trying to play football, creating chances and pinning teams back. And that's what he's been trying to do with players he didn't recruit or have any say in. Today has been one of our worst performances, but Forest are an improving team. When we played them earlier in the season and they were low on confidence and struggling they comfortably beat us 2-0.

 

He's only had 13 games and unfortunately with such a small number of games, it is a small sample size - we've drawn or lost games where we had three times as many chances as the opposition. Long-range potshots have tended to go in (Rotherham, Bristol) as well as a few freakish deflected goals against us (Barnsley, QPR, Middleboro) or own goals (Huddersfield, Watford). The Watford one was double annoying as it should have been given offside.

 

Whereas earlier in the season we were playing dreadfully but sometimes getting some of that luck (e.g. 1-1 with Reading - we had 3 shots to their 20 and Reading had 3 excellent penalty shouts; 2-1 over Middlesboro - we had 5 shots to their 21). There were games like Swansea and Blackburn away where we barely had a chance all game but scored with that kind of 1 in 50 shot that recently has been going against us.

 

Yes, I know stats have their limitations, but these two below suggest to me that Moore and his team are doing something right:

 

Shots per game (this season)

Under Monk: 10.5 shots per game, 11.2 shots against per game = -0.7

Under Pulis: 6.4 shots per game, 13.1 shots against per game = -6.7 

Under Thompson: 9.0 shots per game, 12.2 shots against per game = -3.2

Under Moore: 11.9 shots per game, 10.5 shots against per game = +1.4

 

xG per game (this season)

Under Monk: 1.00 for vs 1.37 against = -0.37

Under Pulis: 0.53 for vs 1.27 against = -0.74

Under Thompson: 1.09 for vs 1.43 against = -0.34

Under Moore: 1.50 for vs 1.19 against = +0.31

 

I really think if we had appointed Moore instead of Pulis we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

[Guest Hornsby]

2 hours ago, shandypants said:

Mods - please don’t merge this with another thread. I want to offer some counter perspective and don’t want it to get lost elsewhere.

————————————————

I’ve had some time to think after my anger at our performance against Forest. 
 

We cannot blame Moore for today’s performance. Our manager is laid up with pneumonia and we don’t know how ill he is; he was not at the match today so we can’t blame him. We’re currently being managed by Moore’s assistant, Jamie Smith, who readily admitted in his prematch interview this week that he’s well out of his comfort zone and doesn’t like the job. Smith is clearly “working about his pay grade” and it showed today. We are victims of circumstance in that respect. 
 

The terrible mistakes Smith made were not changing things sooner and not really changing the tactics when he did make changes. Smith is responsible for this, not Moore but I’ll point out again that Smith is a makeshift manager until Moore gets back. 

 

I thought that today’s line up looked progressive and attacking when I first saw it - I was shocked to see Paterson at right wingback but I could see the logic there in terms of getting attacking bodies on the pitch (even though it was proven to be flawed). Some people are saying we should have started with Rhodes but he wasn’t  brilliant when he came on was he? He’s consistently not been played by every manager he’s had at Hillsborough - that tells you a story in itself. 
 

The fact is that bout 7 or 8 players today were throw - that’s far too many to get a win. One problem may be related to the fact that they’re out of contract this season and they just don’t care enough. 

I’m  not happy but I’m not blaming Moore. 

 

Both Moore and Smith have mobiles.

[slinger208b]

2 hours ago, shandypants said:

Smith is responsible for this, not Moore

 

Sauce?..

[bladeshater]

The big man needs to make in to work from Wednesday onwards I think we need his presence

[Drewswfc]

6 minutes ago, bladeshater said:

The big man needs to make in to work from Wednesday onwards I think we need his presence

Totally agree but whether it makes a difference with this crock of șhït set of players, who knows. 

[quinnssweetshop]

1 hour ago, Emerson Thome said:

What team would you have gone with?

And by saying that you mean? 

 

He's the manager... ( in name only by the looks of things) but still. 

 

That line up was atrocious, almost comical for such an important game. Majority were out of position. 99℅ of us can see that. 

[quinnssweetshop]

7 minutes ago, bladeshater said:

The big man needs to make in to work from Wednesday onwards I think we need his presence

May as well bring Megson in for one game.. He'd do it for nowt out of love of the club. 

[Django]

Moore needs to have the week off, then hobble into the dressing room at pride park half an hour before kick off with some dramatic music playing in the background like in the movies, deliver a massive emotional speech and hope it rouses this useless set of jokers into putting a performance in for once 

[nethertonowl]

2 hours ago, quinnssweetshop said:

The team selection was without doubt one of the strangest I have witnessed in 52 years. It was abysmal. 

The player s he has to select from more like, that’s not down to Moore it’s DC and previous managers

[S63 Owl]

3 hours ago, quinnssweetshop said:

The team selection was without doubt one of the strangest I have witnessed in 52 years. It was abysmal. 

Can you remember when JJ was played at full back?

[Guest Grandad]

Bull

 

Anybody playing Green instead of Rhodes is fully responsible for us having zero threat up front

[Freshfish]

Team, formation and rolls players were given will have been Moore's call. 
 

Pretty sure even some of the players would have been shaking and scratching their heads...but ...the manager makes the call. 
 

Collective responsibility for that steaming pile of garbage served up yesterday sits sloppy and fresh in everyone's lap but the manager is responsible and we are frequently  told 'they' are in constant 'zoom/phone' contact .

 

Bilge. 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by Freshfish

[happy bunny]

11 minutes ago, Grandad said:

Bull

 

Anybody playing Green instead of Rhodes is fully responsible for us having zero threat up front

 

Bull

 

Rhodes has offered zero threat up front way more times than Green

 

Although with hindsight it's easy to understand your frustration

 

 

[Sefton owl]

1 hour ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

There's a lot of sense in this. It is terrible what he is going through with the illness, and it is very difficult to lead a team when you can't attend training or being there in the dressing room or on the side of the pitch.

 

Even so, despite this massive disadvantage that the other managers didn't have - the team has clearly got much better since he arrived. We are actually passing the ball and trying to play football, creating chances and pinning teams back. And that's what he's been trying to do with players he didn't recruit or have any say in. Today has been one of our worst performances, but Forest are an improving team. When we played them earlier in the season and they were low on confidence and struggling they comfortably beat us 2-0.

 

He's only had 13 games and unfortunately with such a small number of games, it is a small sample size - we've drawn or lost games where we had three times as many chances as the opposition. Long-range potshots have tended to go in (Rotherham, Bristol) as well as a few freakish deflected goals against us (Barnsley, QPR, Middleboro) or own goals (Huddersfield, Watford). The Watford one was double annoying as it should have been given offside.

 

Whereas earlier in the season we were playing dreadfully but sometimes getting some of that luck (e.g. 1-1 with Reading - we had 3 shots to their 20 and Reading had 3 excellent penalty shouts; 2-1 over Middlesboro - we had 5 shots to their 21). There were games like Swansea and Blackburn away where we barely had a chance all game but scored with that kind of 1 in 50 shot that recently has been going against us.

 

Yes, I know stats have their limitations, but these two below suggest to me that Moore and his team are doing something right:

 

Shots per game (this season)

Under Monk: 10.5 shots per game, 11.2 shots against per game = -0.7

Under Pulis: 6.4 shots per game, 13.1 shots against per game = -6.7 

Under Thompson: 9.0 shots per game, 12.2 shots against per game = -3.2

Under Moore: 11.9 shots per game, 10.5 shots against per game = +1.4

 

xG per game (this season)

Under Monk: 1.00 for vs 1.37 against = -0.37

Under Pulis: 0.53 for vs 1.27 against = -0.74

Under Thompson: 1.09 for vs 1.43 against = -0.34

Under Moore: 1.50 for vs 1.19 against = +0.31

 

I really think if we had appointed Moore instead of Pulis we wouldn't be in this mess right now.

Nerd alert

[Freshfish]

When we have an invisible midfield and 5 including Paterson at the back NO striker is going to score.