Watching Hull v Spurs.

[Juan Galonso]

We have scored 6 goals during the first 30 minutes so far this season, the mancs 11 and Chelsea 13.

 

I need to spread the love around Code before repping you again. Your stats are fucking tremendous and kind of prove my point. Good work.

[SpeedyG]

We have scored 6 goals during the first 30 minutes so far this season, the mancs 11 and Chelsea 13.

 

I guess we're lucky goals in the first 30 minutes don't count for double then.

[JK1980]

But we are meant to have better players than these sides at the bottom so 9 times out of 10 quality will tell would it not? 7 times out of 13 this season hasn't served him well really up to now has it? Our home form has fucked our title challenge up would you not say?

 

Maybe. But then we are 2nd, at the end of Febraury. Whens the last time that happened?

[Spy Bee]

Cardie what do you ever contribute to this forum apart from being antagontistic all the time?

Oh that is like the definition of irony!

 

I can't even remember why I used to hate Cardie. He's one of the few on here now who makes any fucking sense at all.

[rebel23]

Stoke, Boro and Hull to go down would be perfect. WBA usually survive and then go down the season after

[Juan Galonso]

Oh that is like the definition of irony!

 

I can't even remember why I used to hate Cardie. He's one of the few on here now who makes any fucking sense at all.

 

Was wondering when you would come across to have a go. Surprised it took this long to be honest.

[TommyW]

sorry to state the obvious but winning a game one nil with a goal in the first minute gets you the same amount of points as winning a game one nil with a goal in the last minute

[Spy Bee]

Stats can prove just about anything you want them to by the way. When randomly selected from a huge selection you can make a case for any point*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*If you are sad enough to spend the time doing so.

[Anubis]

Isn't this a thread about Hull and Spurs. Could we not, just for once, have kept the in-fighting off a thread that has nothing to do with LFC gentlemen?

[Cardie]

Isn't this a thread about Hull and Spurs. Could we not, just for once, have kept the in-fighting off a thread that has nothing to do with LFC gentlemen?

 

It had nothing to do with Spurs.

 

It was all about how great Hull are at losing while we struggle and win.....yeah I know.

[SpeedyG]

Stats can prove just about anything you want them to by the way. When randomly selected from a huge selection you can make a case for any point*

 

 

 

 

 

 

*If you are sad enough to spend the time doing so.

 

Stats are good. The introduction of irrelevant stats which don't support a particular point or have no cause-effect relationship with the hypothesis is what gives them a bad name.

 

A stat listed without the hypothesis it supports is about as relevant as a blade of grass.

[Faustus]

I don't know. Maybe. Maybe Not. Maybe go fuck yourself.

(Sorry, thats a The Departed reference there- no offence)

 

I'll tell you what I do see, very often when we "Go for the jugular" and that is that we get caught on the break and come very close to conceding. It certainly happened on a number of occasions yesterday and its happened in the past.

So who's to say what approach is best?

You can have your opinion but Rafa's ideas of "controlling" games has served him well so far.

 

But what does "controlling the game" actually mean? I remember when we got beat 2-1 by Besiktas a few years ago, Rafa repeatedly used that phrase in his press conference after the match when we did anything bet. Besiktas' gameplan that night worked a treat; they let us have plenty of possession in midfield, pressed in the final third and denied us plenty of space and hit us effectively on the counter attack. For me, they "controlled the game" that night because their gameplan worked and they claimed the win.

 

It's the same this season, you couls argue that Stoke "controlled" both games against us this season because even though we had plenty more possession than what they did in both matches, their gameplan worked because they condensed us centrally and broke up play to stop us getting into any sort of rhythm going. Again, I think they "controlled the game" in both those instances because their gameplan worked to a tee.

 

I would say that City actually "controlled" the vast majority of the second half because once they scored, they all worked for each other, pressed hard and looked to hit us on the counter. Again, we probably had more possession, but they "controlled the game" for about half an hour of the second half.

 

Me and Rafa must have very different definitions of what "controlling the game" actually means because I don't regard having a lot of possession around the midfield and cautiously playing it around the final third hoping to spot a chink in the opposition defence instead of imposing ourselves on them and trying to force the error. For top teams, "controlling the game" should mean dictating everything from the tempo of the game to stretching the game for your benefit to actually forcing yourself on the opposition in their half of the field.

 

To be honest, I absolutely hate the term "controlling the game" because it's such a bollocks term. You could argue that quite a few teams have "controlled the game" against us this season at Anfield because they've exhausted us of ideas in the final third and claimed the result they set out to get.

[Anubis]

It had nothing to do with Spurs.

 

It was all about how great Hull are at losing while we struggle and win.....yeah I know.

Sorry. Came in at the back end and thought it was a thread about the match. Just read the first post. Now leaving.

[ToxtethTerror]

The PL is hardly tactical, you just need good players not complicated tactics.

[Red Mist]

The most damning thing of all, is when Rafa lets the players off the leash with instructions to destroy the opposition, the team invariable goes out and does that. Witness the demolition of our CL opponents last season, the final 3 group games. We had to win all 3 to go through and not only did we win, we annilihated our opponents. And those 3 teams we battered are miles better than most of the shite we've failed to beat in the league this season.

Instead of 'controlling' but failing to win a game, how about Rafa let the team go out and have a right go, rather than this bullshit emphasis on caution? It certainly couldn't do more harm than the current negative mentality we have.

[Karl_b]

Man, I hope Hull stay up, but it's not looking good for them; they're in complete free-fall.

 

Have to love a thread about the Hull-Spurs game being nothing other than a veiled excuse to have a dig at the manager.

[Spy Bee]

A stat listed without the hypothesis it supports is about as relevant as a blade of grass.

 

And the sum of the areas of the two squares on the legs equals the area of the square on the hypothesis. Yeah?

[Cardie]

Got to feel sorry for 'arry bemoaning the fact he has to play Monday, Thursday, Sunday, 'whoever heard of a team having to play games before a cup final"....ummm most top teams redders.

[SpeedyG]

But what does "controlling the game" actually mean? I remember when we got beat 2-1 by Besiktas a few years ago, Rafa repeatedly used that phrase in his press conference after the match when we did anything bet. Besiktas' gameplan that night worked a treat; they let us have plenty of possession in midfield, pressed in the final third and denied us plenty of space and hit us effectively on the counter attack. For me, they "controlled the game" that night because their gameplan worked and they claimed the win.

 

It's the same this season, you couls argue that Stoke "controlled" both games against us this season because even though we had plenty more possession than what they did in both matches, their gameplan worked because they condensed us centrally and broke up play to stop us getting into any sort of rhythm going. Again, I think they "controlled the game" in both those instances because their gameplan worked to a tee.

 

I would say that City actually "controlled" the vast majority of the second half because once they scored, they all worked for each other, pressed hard and looked to hit us on the counter. Again, we probably had more possession, but they "controlled the game" for about half an hour of the second half.

 

Me and Rafa must have very different definitions of what "controlling the game" actually means because I don't regard having a lot of possession around the midfield and cautiously playing it around the final third hoping to spot a chink in the opposition defence instead of imposing ourselves on them and trying to force the error. For top teams, "controlling the game" should mean dictating everything from the tempo of the game to stretching the game for your benefit to actually forcing yourself on the opposition in their half of the field.

 

To be honest, I absolutely hate the term "controlling the game" because it's such a bollocks term. You could argue that quite a few teams have "controlled the game" against us this season at Anfield because they've exhausted us of ideas in the final third and claimed the result they set out to get.

 

When he says controlling game he means playing possession football vs playing on the counter.

[JK1980]

But what does "controlling the game" actually mean? I remember when we got beat 2-1 by Besiktas a few years ago, Rafa repeatedly used that phrase in his press conference after the match when we did anything bet. Besiktas' gameplan that night worked a treat; they let us have plenty of possession in midfield, pressed in the final third and denied us plenty of space and hit us effectively on the counter attack. For me, they "controlled the game" that night because their gameplan worked and they claimed the win.

 

It's the same this season, you couls argue that Stoke "controlled" both games against us this season because even though we had plenty more possession than what they did in both matches, their gameplan worked because they condensed us centrally and broke up play to stop us getting into any sort of rhythm going. Again, I think they "controlled the game" in both those instances because their gameplan worked to a tee.

 

I would say that City actually "controlled" the vast majority of the second half because once they scored, they all worked for each other, pressed hard and looked to hit us on the counter. Again, we probably had more possession, but they "controlled the game" for about half an hour of the second half.

 

Me and Rafa must have very different definitions of what "controlling the game" actually means because I don't regard having a lot of possession around the midfield and cautiously playing it around the final third hoping to spot a chink in the opposition defence instead of imposing ourselves on them and trying to force the error. For top teams, "controlling the game" should mean dictating everything from the tempo of the game to stretching the game for your benefit to actually forcing yourself on the opposition in their half of the field.

 

To be honest, I absolutely hate the term "controlling the game" because it's such a bollocks term. You could argue that quite a few teams have "controlled the game" against us this season at Anfield because they've exhausted us of ideas in the final third and claimed the result they set out to get.

 

What's your point?

 

You know perfectly well what Rafa means when he says controlling the game. He means we have posession and posession means we should have more chances and more goals. And they should have less chances and less goals.

 

It doesn't always work out like that but then no tactic/gameplan will work 100% of the time.

 

We can argue till the cows come home about why it doesn't work but as I've said above "Lets be less cautious" is not gonna cut it. Sorry, but it doesn't actually work like that- not at the top level.

[Faustus]

Yeah, Pretty much.

A flukey set piece goal and then they hit us on the counter for the second- With Carra giving away a free kick on the half way line, and having to run all the way back to defend and then putting the ball into the back of his own net?

 

Ok, I must have been at a different game then. Ah, now I remember, they put all ten men behind the ball, scored from their only two shots of the match and we were really, really, really unlucky because other than those two blips, we "controlled the game"" from first minute to last and were really, really unlucky not to get the win 90 minutes of enterprising free-flowing football deserved.

[TommyW]

The PL is hardly tactical, you just need good players not complicated tactics.

 

yea, we should try that, careful though we dont want other teams to try the same thing, perhaps you should edit your post

[JK1980]

Man, I hope Hull stay up, but it's not looking good for them; they're in complete free-fall.

 

Have to love a thread about the Hull-Spurs game being nothing other than a veiled excuse to have a dig at the manager.

 

Veiled? Barely.

[Dirk]

Man, I hope Hull stay up, but it's not looking good for them; they're in complete free-fall.

 

Have to love a thread about the Hull-Spurs game being nothing other than a veiled excuse to have a dig at the manager.

 

It wasn't even veiled. Hull's effective football whilst our football is ineffective. Hull have the worst home form in the entire Prem.

[Faustus]

What's your point?

 

You know perfectly well what Rafa means when he says controlling the game. He means we have posession and posession means we should have more chances and more goals. And they should have less chances and less goals.

 

It doesn't always work out like that but then no tactic/gameplan will work 100% of the time.

 

We can argue till the cows come home about why it doesn't work but as I've said above "Lets be less cautious" is not gonna cut it. Sorry, but it doesn't actually work like that- not at the top level.

 

Yes, I know Rafa's definition of the term, that's why I said I disagreed with it. As I said, a lot of teams could justifiably say they came to Anfield and "controlled the game" because they executed a gameplan and exhausted us of ideas in the final third despite us having more possession. Having a lot of possession means fuck all unless you know what to do with it and at times, we really do look clueless in knowing what to do with it in the final third.

 

As I said, it's a bollocks term because having a lot of possession without any creative output is hardly a sign of "controlling the game."