Blake - Talking Sense

[Lawnmower]

A decade in the second tier? When was that?

Back to back promotions in 1990 and 1991, then 5th in the second tier (Division 2 it was called) in 1992. Relegated next season.

Why not check facts before spouting off, your examples of Wimbledon, Watford and Cambridge as sustainable is

1) Irrelevant, you are talking a generation ago. It would be as stupid as clubs playing 3-2-5 formations in 1988.
2) Laughable because each of those clubs failed and/or changed style very quickly. Wimbledon played some decent football in the early PL years.

Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. 😂
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. ��
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.

So we have proven that we didn't have enough quality to stay up.

I don't know if you read a piece I wrote about scoring and conceding after promotion to the Premier League. It showed that we didn't necessarily have a lack of goals this season but we conceded far too many given our miserly defence last season. Much of the reason for us conceding so many goals was the amount of possession we allowed our opposition to have. We didn't have defenders and forwards of the quality that Burnley had. Etheridge saved more shots bar one keeper.

Surely if we could have kept hold of the ball a little better in midfield, our defence would have been under slightly less pressure each game, opponents would have had less shots on goal and we might have stayed up. If we had better defenders and attackers, maybe the issue wouldn't be highlighted as much, but we didn't. Therefore, basics. If you have the ball, they don't. This isn't suggesting we play like the Jacks did when they went up, but it's about having some control in the middle of the park and relieving pressure on the defence.

[the other bob wilson]

So we have proven that we didn't have enough quality to stay up.

I don't know if you read a piece I wrote about scoring and conceding after promotion to the Premier League. It showed that we didn't necessarily have a lack of goals this season but we conceded far too many given our miserly defence last season. Much of the reason for us conceding so many goals was the amount of possession we allowed our opposition to have. We didn't have defenders and forwards of the quality that Burnley had. Etheridge saved more shots bar one keeper.

Surely if we could have kept hold of the ball a little better in midfield, our defence would have been under slightly less pressure each game, opponents would have had less shots on goal and we might have stayed up. If we had better defenders and attackers, maybe the issue wouldn't be highlighted as much, but we didn't. Therefore, basics. If you have the ball, they don't. This isn't suggesting we play like the Jacks did when they went up, but it's about having some control in the middle of the park and relieving pressure on the defence.

Is Neil Warnock going to look at the stats you mention and be satisfied? Surely not. We get the idea that he doesn't value possession as highly as many other managers, but is he really satisfied when his team pass the ball to a standard that would embarrass a League One side like we did this season on our bad days (e.g. Huddersfield and Everton at home)? I refuse to believe that he is and so I would hope that, even if it still means our possession figures are under 50%, there is an acknowledgement that we need to retain the ball better.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Is Neil Warnock going to look at the stats you mention and be satisfied? Surely not. We get the idea that he doesn't value possession as highly as many other managers, but is he really satisfied when his team pass the ball to a standard that would embarrass a League One side like we did this season on our bad days (e.g. Huddersfield and Everton at home)? I refuse to believe that he is and so I would hope that, even if it still means our possession figures are under 50%, there is an acknowledgement that we need to retain the ball better.

whoscored.com is a great source of info on stuff like this.

In 2017/18, when Burnley finished 7th, they had 45.1% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
In 2015/16, when Leicester won the league, they had 44.7% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
Last season we had 39.1% possession and 63.9% pass accuracy.

There was also a comment on Stoke City's long ball game. Passing stats only go back as far as 2009/10, but Stoke's possession stats ranged between 42-44.5% under Pulis. After he was sacked, Stoke's possession stats went up to 48% and then 50% for 2 seasons. Those 3 seasons were the most successful Stoke had in the Premier League. They dropped to 43.7% for their relegation season.

Another interesting little stat is that over the cours of the 2009/10 season, 8 Premier League teams had less than 70% pass success rate. Since 2013/14, only 3 teams have had a pass success rate of less than 70% - Palace in 2014/15, Burnley in 2016/17 and us this season.

Since possession records began in 2009/10, no side has had as little possession as we had last season. 2 sides have had fractionally worse pass accuracy stats, both in 2009/10, after which passing in the Premier League improved somewhat. In terms of possession and pass accuracy, this season we comfortably were the worst in the Premier League this decade.

[the other bob wilson]

whoscored.com is a great source of info on stuff like this.

In 2017/18, when Burnley finished 7th, they had 45.1% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
In 2015/16, when Leicester won the league, they had 44.7% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
Last season we had 39.1% possession and 63.9% pass accuracy.

There was also a comment on Stoke City's long ball game. Passing stats only go back as far as 2009/10, but Stoke's possession stats ranged between 42-44.5% under Pulis. After he was sacked, Stoke's possession stats went up to 48% and then 50% for 2 seasons. Those 3 seasons were the most successful Stoke had in the Premier League. They dropped to 43.7% for their relegation season.

Another interesting little stat is that over the cours of the 2009/10 season, 8 Premier League teams had less than 70% pass success rate. Since 2013/14, only 3 teams have had a pass success rate of less than 70% - Palace in 2014/15, Burnley in 2016/17 and us this season.

Since possession records began in 2009/10, no side has had as little possession as we had last season. 2 sides have had fractionally worse pass accuracy stats, both in 2009/10, after which passing in the Premier League improved somewhat. In terms of possession and pass accuracy, this season we comfortably were the worst in the Premier League this decade.

See, to me those stats are conclusive (thanks for providing them Eric). I'll be honest, I don't want my side to be another version of the Cambridge and Wimbledon teams mentioned in this thread, but that really isn't the issue as far as I'm concerned. Those figures show that, even by the standards of the sides we are being compared to in this thread, our passing was poor - that last sentence of yours says it all.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

See, to me those stats are conclusive (thanks for providing them Eric). I'll be honest, I don't want my side to be another version of the Cambridge and Wimbledon teams mentioned in this thread, but that really isn't the issue as far as I'm concerned. Those figures show that, even by the standards of the sides we are being compared to in this thread, our passing was poor - that last sentence of yours says it all.

Having looked at all the Premier League data available, I thought I'd look at Championship figures. This was slightly more awkward as they were a bit more hidden and needed calculating, but Excel makes that job nice and easy! Championship stats go back as far as 2013/14.

Since 2013/14, the team with the worst passing accuracy in the Championship was, surprise surprise, us in 2017/18 with 59.4%. Part of the reason for this might be due to our long ball game, where 26% of all passes went long (only Rotherham in 2018/19 played a higher percentage of long balls). In that season we also played fewer passes than any Championship side in the last 5 seasons. While our long ball accuracy wasn't the worst over that time (though close to it), our short passing accuracy was the worst of any Championship side in 5 seasons. This isn't anything to do with being some sort of tiki taka passing outfit, it's about doing the basics.

[xsnaggle]

whoscored.com is a great source of info on stuff like this.

In 2017/18, when Burnley finished 7th, they had 45.1% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
In 2015/16, when Leicester won the league, they had 44.7% possession and 70.5% pass accuracy.
Last season we had 39.1% possession and 63.9% pass accuracy.

There was also a comment on Stoke City's long ball game. Passing stats only go back as far as 2009/10, but Stoke's possession stats ranged between 42-44.5% under Pulis. After he was sacked, Stoke's possession stats went up to 48% and then 50% for 2 seasons. Those 3 seasons were the most successful Stoke had in the Premier League. They dropped to 43.7% for their relegation season.

Another interesting little stat is that over the cours of the 2009/10 season, 8 Premier League teams had less than 70% pass success rate. Since 2013/14, only 3 teams have had a pass success rate of less than 70% - Palace in 2014/15, Burnley in 2016/17 and us this season.

Since possession records began in 2009/10, no side has had as little possession as we had last season. 2 sides have had fractionally worse pass accuracy stats, both in 2009/10, after which passing in the Premier League improved somewhat. In terms of possession and pass accuracy, this season we comfortably were the worst in the Premier League this decade.

But still finished higher than 2 teams and but for the chelsea debacle would be still in the Premier league.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

But still finished higher than 2 teams and but for the chelsea debacle would be still in the Premier league.

Makes you wonder what would have happened had we been fractionally better with possession. Our defence would have been under less pressure, conceded less goals and maybe the Chelsea debarcle wouldn't have happened.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

Makes you wonder what would have happened had we been fractionally better with possession. Our defence would have been under less pressure, conceded less goals and maybe the Chelsea debarcle wouldn't have happened.

I think it was remarkable how well the defence coped. They'd get hit for 5/6 and then bounce back the next week.

[jamieccfc]

Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. 😂
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.

Are you sure that some of those division 2’s are not actually league 1?

[CCFCC3PO]

Cambridge has 8 seasons in the 2nd tier. Check it for yourself before you start getting all excited.

Wimbledon were successful with the direct approach from 1982 4 promotions, FA Cup winners, 6th in the prem and then eventually went down after changing from what had got them to the top.
Ridiculous to say they changed style quickly. 😂
try reading the crazy gang.

Same for Stoke. Stayed up for years on a direct approach, went down after changing, struggled last season with 2 of the best passers in the league in their central midfield.

Burnley over achieving with a big physical side with a direct approach and Leicester won the title by playing direct on the break


As for your ‘item 1’.. I’ve no idea what the **** you are on about.

More than 1 way to play the game and s direct approach is a decent option for a club with less resources.

Proven time and time again.

What years were Cambridge in the second tier then?

6 seasons in 1978-84 but that wasn't as a long ball outfit. John Beck did that and they lasted just 2 years in the division. Why the fuxk are you trying to attribute the first 6 years to a style of play that they didn't adopt until the late 80s?

Wimbledon were not a long ball team when they finished 6th. Long ball compared to Man U? Maybe. But not long ball in the way that they were on the way up.

Also, you are selective.

What about PNE? What about Lincoln? What about Sheff U? What about Bradford? What about Plymouth. What about Swansea? All these teams were direct in the 80s and 90s and achieved sod all.

[CCFCC3PO]

What years were Cambridge in the second tier then?

6 seasons in 1978-84 but that wasn't as a long ball outfit. John Beck did that and they lasted just 2 years in the division. Why the fuxk are you trying to attribute the first 6 years to a style of play that they didn't adopt until the late 80s?

Wimbledon were not a long ball team when they finished 6th. Long ball compared to Man U? Maybe. But not long ball in the way that they were on the way up.

Also, you are selective.

What about PNE? What about Lincoln? What about Sheff U? What about Bradford? What about Plymouth. What about Swansea? All these teams were direct in the 80s and 90s and achieved sod all.

Bump.