We can’t blame Moore for the Forest game.

[sexpistol]

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.

Excellent post

[mcmigo]

3 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. 

 

How can a line up of footballers be progressive?  

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

Shocking team selection 

Shocking tactics 

No motivation at all from the sidelines 

Failure culture just sat there with legs crossed sipping a coffee 

We deserve better than this...

UTO

[sexpistol]

9 minutes ago, happy bunny said:

 

Bull

 

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

 

Although with hindsight it's easy to understand your frustration

 

 

It surely cannot be a coincidence that every manager Rhodes has played under at this club hasn’t played him on a regular basis.

[Stripes or die]

I stopped trusting the players months ago but ask yourself this, can you trust this so called management team with what is essentially the future of our club?

We had one game to save ourselves yesterday and failed miserably, from top to bottom, what makes you think the outcome will be any different next time??

[Jim]

There’s nothing quite like arguing the to$$ on here. I have my opinions like most though but I’m used to being pulled to bits. Monk was way out of his depth but some were convinced he was the second coming of Howard Wilkinson and still believe to this very day we’d be safe had he not been harshly sacked and I got pilloried for having an alternative view.

 

As for now I’m very much in the Moore camp. And I’m totally expecting to get pilloried for this. But I’ll tell you why

I am.

 

Team selections have arguably been consistent in terms of personnel with a couple of changes here and there. Totally in contrast to what Monk and Thompson did. Pulis in all honesty tried to do what Moore has in trying to make the odd personnel change here and there.

 

Formation and tactics have been tweaked like yesterday and it didn’t work yesterday. In such an important game it was one of, if not our worst performance under Moore.

 

Despite this we look a better side with and without the ball. As bad as Harris was yesterday he constantly got into threatening positions. Liam Palmer who played as one of the three centre-backs arguably was on the end of our best chance from open play.

 

Yes we can still be one-paced and ponderous in our play and seem to lack ideas but we are miles better than what we were earlier in the campaign, @Emerson Thome‘s post tells you that.

 

If Moore can get this rag tag and bobtail collection of players performing even to a degree of improvement then that shows he’s got something. Anyway given @Grandad’s call for Big Ron to come back, I’m going to go out on a limb and say our current manager reminds me a lot of him. WBA background, effervescent personality, good man manager, likes to play good football. I think if we give Moore the time, we’ll eventually have our best side since the heady days of the early 1990s,

 

Now please feel free to pull this post to bits

[Belfast Owl 2]

1 hour ago, Grandad said:

Bull

 

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

 

The same Rhodes who has fluffed easy chances in recent games.

 

Green deserved a start based on his performance v Boro

[Belfast Owl 2]

4 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. 

 

 

Whatever your views on Moore its refreshing not to see a thread telling an ill man to fizz off.

[devonshire owl]

2 hours ago, quinnssweetshop said:

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. 

So why can't they(the management)see it?

[farlego]

Moore was in constant contact and possibly had a better idea watching on tv what was going on than if he was pitch side.

it was Moores team and tactics but the players are the ones who looked clueless.

And as for saying Smith is out of his comfort zone, what’s his job title ? Asssistant manager? In that case he should be able to stand in for the manager fully confident of being able to do the job. 
I said in the match day thread he wouldnt look capable of giving the necessary team talk at half time to get the team motivated

[glynnb]

1 hour ago, Freshfish said:

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

 

 

 

He's responsible for the sheeite catering as well is he? Club is rotten from top to bottom, 

[the third man]

2 hours ago, Drewswfc said:

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

 

Who beat Cardiff 5 - 0

[Guest Grandad]

11 minutes ago, Belfast Owl 2 said:

 

The same Rhodes who has fluffed easy chances in recent games.

 

Green deserved a start based on his performance v Boro

Green was completely anonymous in the 2nd half at Boro.

[Bluesteel]

We can’t be slagging a manager who is off on the sick. Especially if we don’t know if he’s giving instructions during a game.

 

I got the impression JS didn’t really want to deviate from a set plan whilst the game was still in the balance.

 

I think rhodes should play but the Rhodes and Windass partnership does seem more effective away from home and on the counter.

[parajack]

3 hours ago, Emerson Thome said:

What team would you have gone with?

Play Shaw instead of Borner,drop Reach for anybody,play 2 up front(JW&JR) start JR from the beginning,Play Patterson in midfield...dont play out,go direct/high press

 

[quinnssweetshop]

12 minutes ago, devonshire owl said:

So why can't they(the management)see it?

You'll have to ask them..? It makes absolutely no footballing sense whatsoever. 

[quinnssweetshop]

1 hour ago, S63 Owl said:

Can you remember when JJ was played at full back?

I can remember some very strange decisions over the 52 years I've been watching em.....  But so many, spread across so many managers, but with one common denominator...... Chansiri. 

 

Makes you wonder just what the hell is happening 

Edited May 2, 2021 by quinnssweetshop

[striker]

I am baffled by Rhodes continued exclusion, our only proper striker and we need to win games. 

 

That said, this squad is gash, we've seen that, notwithstanding the contract situation and players who don't care, they're not very good either. 

 

I thought we'd found a formula with 352, Paterson in midfield and Rhodes, Windass up front. With the players we have, trying to play a variation of 3 up front, just doesn't work.

 

The longer the game went on Saturday, it looked like we didn't want to lose, rather than want to win.

 

I'm sure this isn't the football Moore wants to play, but look around the training ground and (bar Rhodes) what options does he have. Put youth players in and we'd likely lose a few games and he'd be crucified.

 

Considering the circumstances of no transfer window, broken squad, absence due to illness, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I do think we have the right manager, he now needs his players to be able to play football.

Edited May 2, 2021 by striker

[NorthernOwl]

3 hours 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.

 

Don't post anything sensible on here. The baying mob want yet another manager sacked. 

 

We definitely should keep changing manager every 10 games. It's the only way.

[soldierboyblue]

1 hour ago, Grandad said:

Bull

 

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

I totally agree however the lack of actual urgency and intensity was really what did me in. No fight no snapping into tackles (bar Hutch). The gap between midfield and defence was huge. I could go on