Negative Nigel - Really? Some Evidence

[William Henry Foulkes]

umm- ok I'll buy it - so how do we turn a team of midgets and no centre halves into a strength?

One of the midgets keeps scoring.

Maybe we could put two of the other midgets one on another's shoulders and have a towering, if perhaps unsteady, centre half.

 

[Bladebri]

I always look at turning any negative into a positive . The positive with lessons learnt , is that we know were we have gone wrong and the season is not yet over . Lets do something about it . However does this apply to the main man , who runs the show .

UTB

It certainly does fall to the main man, I know it's frustrating to see what is going wrong and not being able to do anything about it, what we can do is stay positive in the stands.

 

[Punk Blade]

You dismiss the long term as if its irrelevant, then say full stop, then say every time ie in the long term.

Take a game in isolation. The best scenario is win. Take the next game in isolation. The best scenario is win. No two performances will be the same, but results are always the be all and end all of football. Yes of course it's better to play well more often than you play badly, but trying to play 'well' (whatever your personal definition) consistently so that overall you get more good results than bad (in theory) is not relevant to our current situation. We need good results to take us to the playoffs and then good results to take us up. Playing well and losing is of no use to us right now (and some may wish to argue that's what we've been doing sometimes, and hasn't been any use so far).

I'll just restate that if you win one game jammily that doesn't bode well for the future no matter how many points that one game gets you.

Your views on play well and lose vs play badly and win seem to be based on that one game being an anomaly or a one-off. Let's look at that in more detail.

If those results are anomalies, then standard results are play well and win, and play badly and lose.

If you are playing well and winning most games then play well and lose one game, then you've lost points when usually you'd have won points and it could damage confidence (bad). If after playing well and winning consistently you play badly but still win, then you've gained points that maybe you shouldn't have, and a bad day at the office hasn't cost you (good - this is how leagues are won).

If you are playing badly all the time but then win a game, maybe you've turned a corner or at least given the fans something to cheer about (good). If you are playing badly and losing most games then play well and still lose, you just missed a golden opportunity to stop the rot with a game you could or possibly should have won (bad - this is how you get relegated).

To go back to your last statement, what does or doesn't bode well for the future is general form (both results and performances), not one individual performance. Taking one game in isolation there is no scenario where losing is preferable to winning, however it happens.

The actual point being contested was that three points is all that counts. I don't think it is for reasons stated repeatedly. I think I'll leave it at that.

The original point was that only goals count in determining the outcome of a match, so I'll take the open goal that it is points that count in determining league position (and then, of course, goals!). There is nothing awarded for shots, possession, corners or artistic merit. You stick the ball in the back of the net more times than your opponent, thassit.

I know the punk ethic is DIY and all that, but I think it's taking things a bit far to keep cobbling together arguments that haven't actually been made and then knocking them down.

I really don't understand what you mean here. Do you need to have previously stated an opposing opinion for me to be able to express an opinion? Or am I expected to make some nonsensical quip based on your username to undermine your previous post?

 

[metalblade]

Take a game in isolation. The best scenario is win. Take the next game in isolation. The best scenario is win. No two performances will be the same, but results are always the be all and end all of football. Yes of course it's better to play well more often than you play badly, but trying to play 'well' (whatever your personal definition) consistently so that overall you get more good results than bad (in theory) is not relevant to our current situation. We need good results to take us to the playoffs and then good results to take us up. Playing well and losing is of no use to us right now (and some may wish to argue that's what we've been doing sometimes, and hasn't been any use so far).


Your views on play well and lose vs play badly and win seem to be based on that one game being an anomaly or a one-off. Let's look at that in more detail.

If those results are anomalies, then standard results are play well and win, and play badly and lose.

If you are playing well and winning most games then play well and lose one game, then you've lost points when usually you'd have won points and it could damage confidence (bad). If after playing well and winning consistently you play badly but still win, then you've gained points that maybe you shouldn't have, and a bad day at the office hasn't cost you (good - this is how leagues are won).

If you are playing badly all the time but then win a game, maybe you've turned a corner or at least given the fans something to cheer about (good). If you are playing badly and losing most games then play well and still lose, you just missed a golden opportunity to stop the rot with a game you could or possibly should have won (bad - this is how you get relegated).

To go back to your last statement, what does or doesn't bode well for the future is general form (both results and performances), not one individual performance. Taking one game in isolation there is no scenario where losing is preferable to winning, however it happens.

The original point was that only goals count in determining the outcome of a match, so I'll take the open goal that it is points that count in determining league position (and then, of course, goals!). There is nothing awarded for shots, possession, corners or artistic merit. You stick the ball in the back of the net more times than your opponent, thassit.


I really don't understand what you mean here. Do you need to have previously stated an opposing opinion for me to be able to express an opinion? Or am I expected to make some nonsensical quip based on your username to undermine your previous post?

Ever thought you could be arguing the toss with Negative Nigel who is posting under a pseudonym ?

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Like I said I can't restate my case any more clearly. If you persist in misrepresenting and/or misinterpreting it there's not much point continuing.

I'll take the open goal that it is points that count in determining league position (and then, of course, goals!). There is nothing awarded for shots, possession, corners or artistic merit. You stick the ball in the back of the net more times than your opponent, thassit.

Here you go. Straw Man 3 (and possibly 4 depending on how you count it). There may be others I've missed.

We weren't discussing whether points determine League position: blasting the ball into this "open goal" is imaginative, or DIY.

Similarly for artistic merit etc. DIY.

I'm out.

 

[Punk Blade]

Ever thought you could be arguing the toss with Negative Nigel who is posting under a pseudonym ?

If it is our Nige he needs to spend less time on Internet forums and more time on the training ground encouraging Murphy and Done to get the ball up the pitch and in the onion bag!

 

[AlienBlade]

In 442 the two strikers must play together when we have had two strikers in the starting line up they've played miles apart it's never going to work.
Also with two strikers you need a decent winger but he sent him to Notts

is that the decent winger who most fans were screaming was useless... as he crosses were awful and always were over hit...

he also played in several games where we played 2 up top.... and we lost those too...

(personally I dont think they were that bad crosses, just an inability from our players to put themselves in likely places.... the likely place that a JCR cross landed was the back post.... barring possibly Che Adams vs Spurs none of our players seemed to pick up on this...)

 

[Lane Ender]

is that the decent winger who most fans were screaming was useless... as he crosses were awful and always were over hit...

he also played in several games where we played 2 up top.... and we lost those too...

(personally I dont think they were that bad crosses, just an inability from our players to put themselves in likely places.... the likely place that a JCR cross landed was the back post.... barring possibly Che Adams vs Spurs none of our players seemed to pick up on this...)

I personally like JCR one of the few players to entertain me this year

 

[AlienBlade]

I personally like JCR one of the few players to entertain me this year

considering he is currently out injured, you have to wonder if Nigel knew something others didnt? similar with those slating him for loaning out Cuveiller (lasted just 5 minutes before going off injured and hasnt featured since)

 

[jt64]

To add to those stats:

League matches under Clough

2013/2014 - 58 Points - 33 Games: 1.76 points per game
2014/2015 - 61 Points - 39 Games: 1.56 points per game

Again shows that this season can't exactly be classed as progress.

That's what, 9 points over the course of a season? Easily could be classed as variance

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

personally I dont think they were that bad crosses, just an inability from our players to put themselves in likely places.... the likely place that a JCR cross landed was the back post.... barring possibly Che Adams vs Spurs none of our players seemed to pick up on this...

Agreed - I did post about his crosses a while ago. Me and Foulkes Jr Sr used to focus on where JCR's crosses went, and a large proportion were into the "danger area" but we hardly ever got on the end of them. He could also cross with either foot. I remember one game where he put in 6 or 7 really dangerous crosses - across the edge of the six yard box, in the space between the penalty spot and the six yard box etc etc - except they weren't dangerous at all bc no-one got anywhere near them. Why (not) was a mystery we never solved.

FJS is convinced that Done (in Sh*t-Lining Mode) would be getting on the end of JCR's crosses and scoring a hatful - and he may have a point.

 

[Lane Ender]

Agreed - I did post about his crosses a while ago. Me and Foulkes Jr Sr used to focus on where JCR's crosses went, and a large proportion were into the "danger area" but we hardly ever got on the end of them. He could also cross with either foot. I remember one game where he put in 6 or 7 really dangerous crosses - across the edge of the six yard box, in the space between the penalty spot and the six yard box etc etc - except they weren't dangerous at all bc no-one got anywhere near them. Why (not) was a mystery we never solved.

FJS is convinced that Done (in Sh*t-Lining Mode) would be getting on the end of JCR's crosses and scoring a hatful - and he may have a point.

You can say Shit it's allowed

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

You can say Shit it's allowed

I never talk sh*t.

 

[Bladebri]

As soon as nige gets his football manager 2015 working we will be back ok

 

[Lane Ender]

I never talk sh*t.

Ok

 

[Lane Ender]

I never talk sh*t.

Go for "chocolate liner" then

 

[sheffielder]

Agreed - I did post about his crosses a while ago. Me and Foulkes Jr Sr used to focus on where JCR's crosses went, and a large proportion were into the "danger area" but we hardly ever got on the end of them. He could also cross with either foot. I remember one game where he put in 6 or 7 really dangerous crosses - across the edge of the six yard box, in the space between the penalty spot and the six yard box etc etc - except they weren't dangerous at all bc no-one got anywhere near them. Why (not) was a mystery we never solved.

FJS is convinced that Done (in Sh*t-Lining Mode) would be getting on the end of JCR's crosses and scoring a hatful - and he may have a point.

Peter Crouch on stilts might be able to get onto one of JCR's crosses

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Here's one WHF;

Fleetwood 4:0 Yeovil

Possession 47 : 53
Shots 8 : 14
On Target 5 : 4

just saying

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Here's one WHF;

Fleetwood 4:0 Yeovil

Possession 47 : 53
Shots 8 : 14
On Target 5 : 4

just saying

Just saying what..?

OP was that there is some (prima facie) evidence that Clough is not negative. I'd say the evidence was a lot more than that, but it was subjective - here were some rough stats.

Some pretty laboured points were made - and apparently are still being made - that there isn't a perfect correlation between possession and/or shots and/or goals. I don't see this as a substantial point at all. What it boils down to is: there are exceptions. Of course there are. Similarly there are black swans, white crows, and the sky isn't always blue.

It was further pointed out (by Bergen Blade?) that, in fact, iirc, there is a rough correlation between shots and goals and League position. Not that that is directly relevant to the OP, which, once again, was about the nonsensical notion of Negative Nigel.

A further point was made that form is more important than a single result. I'd say this has been borne out by recent events. We were in good form as I saw it, but we lost at Crewe, despite having played fairly well and having created chances. We were below par - but not badly enough to merit that result. That all-important everything-matters result now looks like an anomaly in the light of 3 wins in 4.

Who knows how tonight will go, but if we play as well as we have been doing then I think we stand a good chance. As opposed to if we'd spawned a jammy result after a crap performance against Crewe.

The OP stands.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Peter Crouch on stilts might be able to get onto one of JCR's crosses

As someone has resurrected this thread (it must be the time of year) I've just caught this one too.

We watched where JCR's crosses actually went and almost all of them were in dangerous areas; generally along the edge of the six yard box - but sometimes elsewhere. Done might well have thrived on the service.

It's simply untrue that he overhit, underhit, or mistimed his crosses as a matter of routine.

 

[Kenilworth]

Difference at Barnsley on Satdi - made the keeper work or chances cleared off the line - mixed up the delivery and the style to create better chances - Great to see a thumping header from a set piece find the back of the net - suppose we could have scored more but happy with the attacking intent, the positive approach and taking the game to them as opposed to sitting back and looking to unpick a team (for which we don't appear to have the quality to do at this level). More games like that and the tidal wave of support will carry us through to the end of the season and onto the dreaded play-offs - but first things first - get that play off place secured. Another positive approach tonight and plenty of goal mouth action to get people excited and the wave will increase.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Difference at Barnsley on Satdi - made the keeper work or chances cleared off the line - mixed up the delivery and the style to create better chances - Great to see a thumping header from a set piece find the back of the net - suppose we could have scored more but happy with the attacking intent, the positive approach and taking the game to them as opposed to sitting back and looking to unpick a team (for which we don't appear to have the quality to do at this level). More games like that and the tidal wave of support will carry us through to the end of the season and onto the dreaded play-offs - but first things first - get that play off place secured. Another positive approach tonight and plenty of goal mouth action to get people excited and the wave will increase.

Other differences were a near full strength team, (as someone else has pointed out) a strong bench, and the result.

I'd say we've shown similar attacking intent for several games now, but not necessarily got the results. As posted numerous times it was pretty evident to us against Scunthorpe away where some fans became loudly abusive, even against Crewe we were creating good chances.

I didn't like the passage of play after Davies went off where we did seem to revert to aimless hoofing, but somehow we scored and after that they almost gave up.

If Davies isn't playing tonight it'll be interesting to see how we play. McNulty has only had a very brief cameo in recent weeks but he seemed to have learned from Davies and was playing that role well albeit with a significant height disadvantage.

One thing Clough said a few weeks ago was get the ball below the bar (something Coutts failed to do in the last minute against Crewe) it's interesting to watch Holt on a couple of occasions almost hit the ball into the ground in order to keep it down.

 

[Kenilworth]

Other differences were a near full strength team, (as someone else has pointed out) a strong bench, and the result.

I'd say we've shown similar attacking intent for several games now, but not necessarily got the results. As posted numerous times it was pretty evident to us against Scunthorpe away where some fans became loudly abusive, even against Crewe we were creating good chances.

I didn't like the passage of play after Davies went off where we did seem to revert to aimless hoofing, but somehow we scored and after that they almost gave up.

If Davies isn't playing tonight it'll be interesting to see how we play. McNulty has only had a very brief cameo in recent weeks but he seemed to have learned from Davies and was playing that role well albeit with a significant height disadvantage.

One thing Clough said a few weeks ago was get the ball below the bar (something Coutts failed to do in the last minute against Crewe) it's interesting to watch Holt on a couple of occasions almost hit the ball into the ground in order to keep it down.

Beg to differ on the Crewe match - the chances were few and poor - Holt took his goal very well but other than that it was woeful.
As posted elsewhere, a concern for me is the hammy that Davies tweaked and if he will play this evening.
Done may be a better option tonight, anyway, as I believe that Donny's centre backs are more geared to an aerial battle than swift movement.
Davies has offered us another option - both goals from set plays on Saturday and that's an area we have struggled to exploit. Free kick and bombing header then a long throw in the mixer, causing chaos and a sweet strike from the edge on the pen area as the ball is half cleared. At this level a lot of chances are created by forcing errors and the more you chance your arm the more errors the oppo will make.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

 

[Kenilworth]

Apart from the goal there wasn't much to get me out of my seat
Holt took his goal really well and I thought he was the only one showing, to get into space while Coutts and Baxter hid for most of the game.
Murph was quiet and Flynny didn't last the 90
However you dress it up the Crewe game was way below the standard required and the players know that.
We didn't create much in that game worthy of note.

 

[Going up]

Apart from the goal there wasn't much to get me out of my seat
Holt took his goal really well and I thought he was the only one showing, to get into space while Coutts and Baxter hid for most of the game.
Murph was quiet and Flynny didn't last the 90
However you dress it up the Crewe game was way below the standard required and the players know that.
We didn't create much in that game worthy of note.

Maybe below standard, but still plenty of chances and not negative.

Negative Nigel is pure fiction. Preferring 1 point to none, maybe, but not negative. Where would we be, if we got a point each time we lost?

 

[wizadry]

Maybe below standard, but still plenty of chances and not negative.

Negative Nigel is pure fiction. Preferring 1 point to none, maybe, but not negative. Where would we be, if we got a point each time we lost?

Where would we be if we'd have got a point each time we won?

 

[Going up]

Where would we be if we'd have got a point each time we won?

Now you confused my little brain Wiz Hopefully we get 3 when we win.

I meant the point is preferable to a loss. Therefore, Nigel is cautious when a game is closing and we already have a point. However, I see that as smart, not negative. A point is certainly better than a loss.

However, listening to many comments fromvthe various players, Nigel always sets out to win and play positive. The fact that doesnt always happen, is not indicitive of the intent. That is the point where it seems that Nigel would rather settle for a point than lose the game. I see a good many premier league managers doing the same.

 

[Punk Blade]

Couldn't help but picture William Henry Foulkes leaving the Lane tonight disappointed we didn't play better and lose.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

Couldn't help but picture William Henry Foulkes leaving the Lane tonight disappointed we didn't play better and lose.

Another one for the burgeoning collection.