Was we really that bad?
Was we really that bad?
I couldn't make it today as we were moving house.
Listened to the game on radio Blackburn. Chris Boden was co commentator, and going off his appraisal, we were terrible and did well to come away with a point.
Looking at the stats post game though, we were on top in every department.
I can't get my head around the fact we had twice as many shots on target, 57% of the possession and were lucky to get a draw
Listened to the game on radio Blackburn. Chris Boden was co commentator, and going off his appraisal, we were terrible and did well to come away with a point.
Looking at the stats post game though, we were on top in every department.
I can't get my head around the fact we had twice as many shots on target, 57% of the possession and were lucky to get a draw
-
- Posts: 18087
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am
- Been Liked: 3863 times
- Has Liked: 2073 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
They had the better of the first half and we dominated the 2nd, doing enough to win the game.
Overall a draw could be said to be fair. We weren't at our best and waited too long to bring Vokes on again. Wood has scored goals for us but has been very quiet in his all round game, not winning headers or keeping hold of the ball.
Overall a draw could be said to be fair. We weren't at our best and waited too long to bring Vokes on again. Wood has scored goals for us but has been very quiet in his all round game, not winning headers or keeping hold of the ball.
These 2 users liked this post: Vegas Claret Dark Cloud
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
Defensively we were very poor. And going forward not that much better. Jbg was unlucky 3 or 4 times but they were one offs rather than a full game of relentless pressure. We were very sloppy defensively and distribution from the back equaly poor.
Wards worse game and probably tarks too. Still got a point at a tough ground against a team that needed to win more than us so cant complain.
Wards worse game and probably tarks too. Still got a point at a tough ground against a team that needed to win more than us so cant complain.
This user liked this post: Bop
-
- Posts: 21464
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
- Been Liked: 8585 times
- Has Liked: 11285 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
One thing that confused me though was how little stoke went for it in the last 25. I expected them to throw the kitchen sink at it but nothing.
-
- Posts: 3748
- Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
- Been Liked: 927 times
- Has Liked: 716 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
The shots and other stars (except possession) are all really distorted by Stoke's need late on to chase it as a point did them no good.
It was a poor game and we offered little in the first half. Had Diouf not missed a sitter we'd have been 2-0 down.
Stoke then mistakenly sat off us and offered us a way back in. To be fair, we took it. However, they then picked it up again at 1-1 and again we looked to have few ways of really hurting them.
People shouldn't get carried away with a bad performance. If Ward, Cork and Tarks can hardly hit a straight pass all day between them (and they couldn't) we'll struggle, even against a poor team like Stoke. We shouldn't get carried away. One great season does not make us significantly better than them.
It was a poor game and we offered little in the first half. Had Diouf not missed a sitter we'd have been 2-0 down.
Stoke then mistakenly sat off us and offered us a way back in. To be fair, we took it. However, they then picked it up again at 1-1 and again we looked to have few ways of really hurting them.
People shouldn't get carried away with a bad performance. If Ward, Cork and Tarks can hardly hit a straight pass all day between them (and they couldn't) we'll struggle, even against a poor team like Stoke. We shouldn't get carried away. One great season does not make us significantly better than them.
-
- Posts: 16885
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
- Been Liked: 6958 times
- Has Liked: 1483 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Was we really that bad?
I thought we were pretty decent. Looked more accomplished than Stoke throughout and we were by far the better side in the second half. Our final ball was sloppy which let us down.
The Stoke fans made a load of noise for the first 20 minutes and seemed to give up after that point as they were nullified.
The Stoke fans made a load of noise for the first 20 minutes and seemed to give up after that point as they were nullified.
These 4 users liked this post: Ashingtonclaret46 claretgimmer Damo simonclaret
-
- Posts: 8023
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:08 am
- Been Liked: 2819 times
- Has Liked: 503 times
- Location: Earth
Re: Was we really that bad?
JBG had a few chances at the end he should have put away. 2_1 wouldn't have been unfair on Stoke.
Ward was really poor and even changed his boots but that' didn't seem to help. Strange one really as he's usual so consistent but his passing and general distribution was awful today.
JBG brilliant despite the misses and Westwood was great.
Ward was really poor and even changed his boots but that' didn't seem to help. Strange one really as he's usual so consistent but his passing and general distribution was awful today.
JBG brilliant despite the misses and Westwood was great.
-
- Posts: 10974
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5188 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: Was we really that bad?
I'll bet that Chris Boden didn't get anywhere near describing us as 'terrible'.
This user liked this post: ClaretTricks
-
- Posts: 2508
- Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:21 am
- Been Liked: 1665 times
- Has Liked: 2976 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
Still no grammar police 8 posts in !?
These 6 users liked this post: IanMcL Damo nil_desperandum Dazzler CJW evensteadiereddie
-
- Posts: 102
- Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:12 am
- Been Liked: 20 times
- Has Liked: 47 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
We were okay. A few off days from some important players and the whole team is going to look worse than what we're used to.
Stoke were more on their game, but they're not that good this year and that's why we didn't lose.
Some good bits were Kevin Long's magnificent last ditch tackle on their striker, red card if he gets it wrong but it was perfect. Barnes with yet another goal, also JBG having the three shots at the end which made us wonder if we could nick it!
Diouf fumbled a good chance and Butland made 2 or 3 excellent saves, JBG freekick and Tarkowski (?) header from a corner.
All in all Stoke were a 7/10, we were a 5/10 and it ended up being a draw which I'd imagine most of the travelling Clarets were content with
Stoke were more on their game, but they're not that good this year and that's why we didn't lose.
Some good bits were Kevin Long's magnificent last ditch tackle on their striker, red card if he gets it wrong but it was perfect. Barnes with yet another goal, also JBG having the three shots at the end which made us wonder if we could nick it!
Diouf fumbled a good chance and Butland made 2 or 3 excellent saves, JBG freekick and Tarkowski (?) header from a corner.
All in all Stoke were a 7/10, we were a 5/10 and it ended up being a draw which I'd imagine most of the travelling Clarets were content with
Re: Was we really that bad?
I was
We were
We were
These 4 users liked this post: SussexDon1inIreland CJW edenclaret evensteadiereddie
-
- Posts: 5001
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:00 pm
- Been Liked: 3435 times
- Has Liked: 2881 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
Probably no worse than we were against Watford and Leicester, but we just didn’t quite manage to nick the win at the death.
Re: Was we really that bad?
Did you listen or are you just hedging?Bin Ont Turf wrote:I'll bet that Chris Boden didn't get anywhere near describing us as 'terrible'.
-
- Posts: 10974
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:38 am
- Been Liked: 5188 times
- Has Liked: 804 times
- Location: On top of a pink elephant riding to the Democratic Republic of Congo
Re: Was we really that bad?
Just hedging Damo.Damo wrote:Did you listen or are you just hedging?
I can imagine Chris saying we were below our best, not good on the day or that Stoke were the better team.
But 'terrible', I'll bet against that.
Re: Was we really that bad?
Ok, well I'll hold up my hands and say he may not of said terrible.Bin Ont Turf wrote:Just hedging Damo.
I can imagine Chris saying we were below our best, not good on the day or that Stoke were the better team.
But 'terrible', I'll bet against that.
But after listening to him for over 90 minutes, that's the impression I got of our performance.
That's basically what I said in my OP anyway
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 84 times
- Has Liked: 43 times
- Location: West Sussex
Re: Was we really that bad?
Please, please, please!
Check post 11.
“Were”
It’s not that blumming hard!
Check post 11.
“Were”
It’s not that blumming hard!
Re: Was we really that bad?
Is that all you have to add?Hozz wrote:Please, please, please!
Check post 11.
“Were”
It’s not that blumming hard!
Sometimes I wonder what tragic events lead to someone getting angry at spelling/grammar/punctuation on internet message boards.
Perhaps we could turn it into a thread?
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 84 times
- Has Liked: 43 times
- Location: West Sussex
Re: Was we really that bad?
Don’t be a dick Damo for heaven so sake. I just get peeved at the basic lack of knowledge of the basics for our wonderful language.
These 4 users liked this post: Dazzler CJW edenclaret evensteadiereddie
Re: Was we really that bad?
For heaven so sake?Hozz wrote:Don’t be a dick Damo for heaven so sake. I just get peeved at the basic lack of knowledge of the basics for our wonderful language.
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 84 times
- Has Liked: 43 times
- Location: West Sussex
Re: Was we really that bad?
If you want some insight, I felt we were intimidated in the first half by the atmosphere plus as much as Kevin has come in to cover Mee and done so well, we miss him. Second half, this side are always going to react, unlike Burnley sides of the past.
Last edited by Hozz on Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This user liked this post: Damo
-
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:16 pm
- Been Liked: 84 times
- Has Liked: 43 times
- Location: West Sussex
Re: Was we really that bad?
Okay, autocorrect and my retarded ability to check, bravo Damo!
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 4:45 pm
- Been Liked: 2636 times
- Has Liked: 2798 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
1. It's the BBCDamo wrote:I couldn't make it today as we were moving house.
Listened to the game on radio Blackburn. Chris Boden was co commentator, and going off his appraisal, we were terrible and did well to come away with a point.
Looking at the stats post game though, we were on top in every department.
I can't get my head around the fact we had twice as many shots on target, 57% of the possession and were lucky to get a draw
2. It's radio Rovers.
3. What did you expect?
-
- Posts: 6645
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:03 am
- Been Liked: 2004 times
- Has Liked: 3346 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
Stoke were much better first half, but everything they got second half came from our mistakes and those mistakes amounted in the end to quite a few, which isn't like us.
Re: Was we really that bad?
Of said?Damo wrote:Ok, well I'll hold up my hands and say he may not of said terrible.
The verb is to have.
This user liked this post: edenclaret
-
- Posts: 3221
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:23 pm
- Been Liked: 746 times
- Has Liked: 927 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
`were` not "were"Hozz wrote:Please, please, please!
Check post 11.
“Were”
It’s not that blumming hard!
Re: Was we really that bad?
I couldn't get there yesterday but reading on here I formed the opinion that we were rubbish and lucky to get away with a draw. Then I saw the stats in which we won every one. Then I watched the highlights on sky and was surprised to find Butland making at least two fantastic saves to keep us out, and JBG going extremely close on at least 3 occasions. Just shows you shouldn't believe everything you read on here.
This user liked this post: Darnhill Claret
-
- Posts: 9600
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3148 times
- Has Liked: 10248 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: Was we really that bad?
It's all the BBC's fault - again !
-
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:19 pm
- Been Liked: 170 times
- Has Liked: 277 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
Some of the lads wernt at their best yesterday but maybe as the season draws to a close, fatigue could be an issue and it showed yesterday, Tarks only just made the line up due to a slight groin injury, Ward and Wood in particular looked tired and to be honest Stoke looked a team destined for the drop, yes we have played a hell of a lot better and we seem to save that for when the big clubs come to town. From where i was in the stands, we could have wrapped the game up in the last15 minutes, i didn't think we were that bad, certainly not awful as some have suggested, if were on our way to Europe we cant be that bad can we?
This user liked this post: Darnhill Claret
-
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:42 am
- Been Liked: 120 times
- Has Liked: 355 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
Did you mean for heaven's sake? I just get peeved at the basic lack of knowledge.Hozz wrote:Don’t be a dick Damo for heaven so sake. I just get peeved at the basic lack of knowledge of the basics for our wonderful language.
-
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:12 pm
- Been Liked: 473 times
- Has Liked: 52 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
I’m afraid we are already seeing the signs of some on here expecting too much. As a club we have massively over-achieved in relation to the raw ability of the players. That has been in large part due to the remarkable focus and intensity of the team. That is really difficult to maintain: and I suspect mental tiredness is as much an issue as physical tiredness. Some of the comments on here about us being ‘very poor’ yesterday are head wobbling. We could easily have won against a team who needed to win when we didn’t. We came from behind (a new skill) and the opposition goalkeeper was their man of the match. 1-1 was a par score and we achieved it. Yes were a bit sloppy at times, but let’s give the players a bit of a break. They have taken us up a level in each of the past three seasons. Other than davemanu, hands up if you seriously thought we would be top 7 come the end of this season. We really must guard against the sort of arrogance of which we accuse supporters of some other clubs. All of our players have been heroes this year.
These 4 users liked this post: Grumps hampsteadclaret Darnhill Claret Damo
-
- Posts: 5125
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:50 am
- Been Liked: 1127 times
- Has Liked: 1238 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
1st half was even Stevens. We completely bossed the 2nd half and should have come away with all 3pts. Stoke offered nothing 2nd half
Re: Was we really that bad?
Here here we’ll said that man
-
- Posts: 30696
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11049 times
- Has Liked: 5658 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: Was we really that bad?
we were crap first half, but our first half performance would have beaten our team from the 80's 6-0 !
-
- Posts: 2966
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:54 am
- Been Liked: 807 times
- Has Liked: 1523 times
- Location: France
Re: Was we really that bad?
Normally one would emit the apostrophe.Rammy1968 wrote:Here here we’ll said that man
-
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:42 am
- Been Liked: 120 times
- Has Liked: 355 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
Or even omit it.chekhov wrote:Normally one would emit the apostrophe.
This user liked this post: TVC15
Re: Was we really that bad?
Don't ewe just luv it when the grammer police spell somethink rong !!
This user liked this post: lovebeingaclaret
-
- Posts: 2966
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:54 am
- Been Liked: 807 times
- Has Liked: 1523 times
- Location: France
Re: Was we really that bad?
I liked the image it conjured up. You know, emitting an apostrophe. Like a damp fart.lovebeingaclaret wrote:Or even omit it.
Re: Was we really that bad?
Was Burnley really that bad?
Does that work?
Does that work?
-
- Posts: 385
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:42 am
- Been Liked: 120 times
- Has Liked: 355 times
Re: Was we really that bad?
Don't really get that. What image is conjured up and what is like a damp fart? Perhaps an illustration?chekhov wrote:I liked the image it conjured up. You know, emitting an apostrophe. Like a damp fart.
-
- Posts: 2966
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:54 am
- Been Liked: 807 times
- Has Liked: 1523 times
- Location: France
Re: Was we really that bad?
You've just got to use your imagination, and not everything I say makes sense. I could be typing any old nonsense.lovebeingaclaret wrote:Don't really get that. What image is conjured up and what is like a damp fart? Perhaps an illustration?