By Eck- T' Huddersfield Match Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

The problem is this is a shitter end to the season than last season's end to the season

2012/13 games 31 - 40 -- 6 wins - 2 draws - 2 defeats - 20 points.

2013/14 games 31 - 40 -- 5 wins - 4 draws - 1 defeat - 19 points.

Factually correct, Spotty, based on this set of figures.

2012/13 games 11 - 40 -- 12 wins - 10 draws - 8 defeats - 46 points.

2013/14 games 11 - 40 -- 11 wins - 10 draws - 9 defeat - 43 points.

On this set of figures too!

I was a little surprised by those figures and I'm not one to judge Freedman too harshly, I had thought the gap might be bigger. It appears to me though that the horrendous start to the season is about all that stands between last years lauded effort and this terms diabolical disaster.

Doubt that LLS will let the facts get in the way of a good old fashioned binary rant....

[CrazyHorse]

Maybe what LLS meant when he said you talked bollocks was the fact that you blamed the defence for us being near the bottom six in one post then immediately after blamed our wide open midfield.
Confused? I know I am.

[BWFC_Insane]

Maybe what LLS meant when he said you talked bollocks was the fact that you blamed the defence for us being near the bottom six in one post then immediately after blamed our wide open midfield.
Confused? I know I am.

We conceded too many goals. We were too easy to score against. Part of that was some abysmal performances from the back four. Part is we lacked the graft we have now found in midfield.

It isn't about blaming a specific area, but today shows you don't need to play all that well if you keep games tight in this division.

Has we done that at the start instead of conceding so many goals we'd have been much, much better off. Think that is preyed straightforwards surely?

[Worthy4England]

We've conceded more in our last ten aways, than we did in our first ten aways...

[BWFC_Insane]

We've conceded more in our last ten aways, than we did in our first ten aways...

By my reckoning.

First ten games this season, 17 goals conceded.

Last ten games, 7 goals conceded.

That is the point I'm making. 10 goals less over the same number of games. Major difference.

[Worthy4England]

I thought the conversation was about "that's the way to play away from home". Are you suggesting we go to 451 for 60 mins at home and then try and nick one, too?

[Worthy4England]

In fact, I just checked, and that's exactly what your contention was...away from home..so the point stands, we conceded more in out last 10 aways than our first 10

[BWFC_Insane]

I thought the conversation was about "that's the way to play away from home". Are you suggesting we go to 451 for 60 mins at home and then try and nick one, too?

We've been more solid in general and that is making a huge difference. We were just too easy to score against earlier in the season.

I was merely ruing our sloppy start to the season in contrast.

[BWFC_Insane]

In fact, I just checked, and that's exactly what your contention was...away from home..so the point stands, we conceded more in out last 10 aways than our first 10

It isn't. I merely said if we'd defended like we did for 'the last ten games all season' we'd be far better off.

I didn't say 'the last ten away games'. Clearly....

[Worthy4England]

Surely that is how you play away from home? Keep it tight don't concede, then throw on your pacier strikers towards the end of the game.

Smash and grab is how you do this division.

If we'd defended at the start of the season like we have done for the past 10 games or so we'd be nearer the top 4 than the bottom 6.

So I suspect I'm talking about the top bit, and you're talking about the bottom bit, with the middle bit up for grabs.

There isn't a right and wrong, clearly. 442 is a good fit for some teams and against some teams, 451 a good fit for others with their playing squad. We were dismal as a 442 with Beckford, N'gog, Cravies in it. So it was pointless. We went 451 and were fairly dismal at that too.

So you advocate "smash and grab" for the home games - or is there actually no "binary answer"

[BWFC_Insane]

Surely that is how you play away from home? Keep it tight don't concede, then throw on your pacier strikers towards the end of the game.

Smash and grab is how you do this division.

If we'd defended at the start of the season like we have done for the past 10 games or so we'd be nearer the top 4 than the bottom 6.

So I suspect I'm talking about the top bit, and you're talking about the bottom bit, with the middle bit up for grabs.

There isn't a right and wrong, clearly. 442 is a good fit for some teams and against some teams, 451 a good fit for others with their playing squad. We were dismal as a 442 with Beckford, N'gog, Cravies in it. So it was pointless. We went 451 and were fairly dismal at that too.

So you advocate "smash and grab" for the home games - or is there actually no "binary answer"

I'm not really talking about systems. We've played various systems in the last 10 and generally defended better. I'm simply saying we started the season conceding far too many in general.

We've played a more solid midfield whether that has been a 4 in some games or a 5 in others and it has reaped reward.

Keep clean sheets and smash and grabs remain on and that was my point. Not saying it is down entirely to the team selected today but we had pace on the bench to bring on so if we kept it tight there was always a chance.

Shame we didn't show this application earlier. And before anyone chimes in, of course Freedman is partly to blame for us not doing so.

[CrazyHorse]

Aye. He's partly to blame.

[TKIZ!]

We won!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It wasn't even a binary rant... It was Unitary Ffs!

[Prufrock]

We've conceded more in our last ten aways, than we did in our first ten aways...

Someone might argue there's an outlier in that data set from a horror show in Berkshire ! In six of them we conceded one goal or fewer.

I'd say a team that plays ten games with nine clean sheets and one game where they concede 25 is more solid that one which concedes two in each game .

But I agree with you on systems.

I'm still not handing out a shred of credit to anyone who claims they were calling for 4-4-2 all along. This wonky diamond is not what they meant, and is no nearer a flat 4 than it is the 4-2-3-1 when we play with 5.

Also, according to the live twitter we scored from a corner so feck knows what the system has to do with it.

But most of all, as TKIZ points out, FECKING GET IN!

[Worthy4England]

It wasn't even a binary rant... It was Unitary Ffs!

Yes it was.

[SmokinFrazier]

Maybe what LLS meant when he said you talked bollocks was the fact that you blamed the defence for us being near the bottom six in one post then immediately after blamed our wide open midfield.
Confused? I know I am.

Don't forget that BWFCi has mentioned that our strike force of Jutkiewicz and Mason has been key too and had blamed our other strikers.

So his point is that if we'd had a better defence, better midfield and better strikers, we'd be a...better side?! Give the man a biscuit, this is inspired thinking.

[bobo the clown]

Maybe what LLS meant when he said you talked bollocks was the fact that you blamed the defence for us being near the bottom six in one post then immediately after blamed our wide open midfield.
Confused? I know I am.

Don't forget that BWFCi has mentioned that our strike force of Jutkiewicz and Mason has been key too and had blamed our other strikers.

So his point is that if we'd had a better defence, better midfield and better strikers, we'd be a...better side?! Give the man a biscuit, this is inspired thinking.

You see ... you DO have a sense of humour !!

[a1]

[It appears to me though that the horrendous start to the season is about all that stands between last years lauded effort and this terms diabolical disaster.

the first 10 or so games this season , verses the first 10 or so this season was 6 points, we'd be about 11th if we 'coyled' those first ten games.

we're 'only' 8 points off last seasons par (?) after 40 games, if we had those 8 points we'd be 11th quite close points-wise to the top 6.

.. its something else, my guess is that the top 3 or so are that far in front beating everyone [whereas last season only cardiff were running off in front], that its affecting the 'share' of points available to (or is it 'for'?) everyone else. its also probably why we dont move up (m)any when we do win. the league was tighter last season.

we'd have needed about 16-20ish points from the first 10 games just to be close/in the play offs , which is a lot considering the hard early fixtures.

we've drew (i thought it was lost, but 5 losses isnt out of the ordinary) too many at home, we should have about 10 more points than we do.

which still probably wouldnt be enough coz its were forest currently are..

i really think its coz the top three or four have won a lot of games.

[thebish]

We've conceded more in our last ten aways, than we did in our first ten aways...

Someone might argue there's an outlier in that data set from a horror show in Berkshire ! In six of them we conceded one goal or fewer.

I'd say a team that plays ten games with nine clean sheets and one game where they concede 25 is more solid that one which concedes two in each game .

But I agree with you on systems.

I'm still not handing out a shred of credit to anyone who claims they were calling for 4-4-2 all along. This wonky diamond is not what they meant, and is no nearer a flat 4 than it is the 4-2-3-1 when we play with 5.

Also, according to the live twitter we scored from a corner so feck knows what the system has to do with it.

But most of all, as TKIZ points out, FECKING GET IN!

^ rare words of sense... BRAVO!