[Albion] Newcastle away: your view

[GT49er]

Albion man of the match: Steven Alzate
Albion stinker of the match: Danny Welbeck
Was it the right result on the balance of play: No, Brighton deserved to win.
Opposition player you'd most like to see in the stripes: Saint Maxim, not sure any of the others would improve us
Potter's score out of 10: 7 - didn’t agree with subs.
What would you have done differently to GP: Trossard would have come off instead of Moder, Trossard poor delivery today
Where's that left your Albion mojo 1(low) - 10(high): 5 - it was lower prior to todays game.

100% this - except BDB, not Saint Maxi.

 

[soistes]

“My view” at Newcastle away is always rubbish, and was today, because we’re so frigging far from the pitch

 

[Munchkin]

Albion man of the match: Alzate
Albion stinker of the match: Trossard
Was it the right result on the balance of play: No
Opposition player you'd most like to see in the stripes: Burn
Potter's score out of 10: 6
What would you have done differently to GP: Biss should have played
Where's that left your Albion mojo 1(low) - 10(high): 5

 

[Swansman]

Trossard as MOTM? What?

Aye I thought it was his best performance in a long while. Great movement, holding up the ball a bit and taking a load of pressure off from Gross and Alzate who were given much time and space to control the game.

 

[Acker79]

I really struggle with this common belief that a team that dominates and can't win deserve to win 'on the balance of play'. It gets trotted out so often. We look at a game and say team A attacked so much, and Team B sat back and defended, getting a cheap goal on the counter attack. Why does team A "deserve" to win? This isn't just about us today. It's something that has always bothered me when it gets trotted out in TV games, too.

Why does an attack that has 20 attempts and fails to convert them deserve to win more than an attack that gets one chance and is clinical enough to take it? Why is impotence more worthy of the win than efficient success?
Why does an attack that failed to break down a defence despite so much pressure deserve to win over that defence that kept them out?
Why does a defence that has stood up to 20 attacks and held firm deserve to lose more than a defence that had one attack to repel and couldn't do it? Why is fragility and limpness more worthy of the win than defiant unity?
Why does a defence that crumples the only time it has a job to do deserve to win over the attack that broke them down?

Why does the team that can't defend or score more than they concede deserve to win more than the team that can do both?



Today Brighton had the ball for so long and spent so much time in Newcastle's half but what did we actually achieve? Why does our fragile impotence deserve the win more than than Newcastle's efficient discipline?

 

[Icy Gull]

Aye I thought it was his best performance in a long while. Great movement, holding up the ball a bit and taking a load of pressure off from Gross and Alzate who were given much time and space to control the game.

Yep, had a good game imo

 

[Icy Gull]

I really struggle with this common belief that a team that dominates and can't win deserve to win 'on the balance of play'. It gets trotted out so often. We look at a game and say team A attacked so much, and Team B sat back and defended, getting a cheap goal on the counter attack. Why does team A "deserve" to win? This isn't just about us today. It's something that has always bothered me when it gets trotted out in TV games, too.

Why does an attack that has 20 attempts and fails to convert them deserve to win more than an attack that gets one chance and is clinical enough to take it? Why is impotence more worthy of the win than efficient success?
Why does an attack that failed to break down a defence despite so much pressure deserve to win over that defence that kept them out?
Why does a defence that has stood up to 20 attacks and held firm deserve to lose more than a defence that had one attack to repel and couldn't do it? Why is fragility and limpness more worthy of the win than defiant unity?
Why does a defence that crumples the only time it has a job to do deserve to win over the attack that broke them down?

Why does the team that can't defend or score more than they concede deserve to win more than the team that can do both?



Today Brighton had the ball for so long and spent so much time in Newcastle's half but what did we actually achieve? Why does our fragile impotence deserve the win more than than Newcastle's efficient discipline?

Deserving to win gets nothing, bounce of the ball does. We had it early seasonn, we don’t at the moment

 

[amexer]

Lampty is outstanding attacking from deep but is not a winger yet has played there for last 3 games .

 

[Bozza]

Deserving to win gets nothing, bounce of the ball does. We had it early seasonn, we don’t at the moment

I whotehearedly agree with this.

Early in the season we were the media darlings. "Brighton have solved their goalscoring problem, and look at their results now" was the kind of line trotted out left, right and centre. I didn't buy into that. I think we were still producing the same decent high-posession football, but we were just getting a little bit of the rub of the green which was seeing us get a few better results. It looked like we were drawing against all those hefty xG deposits we made last season.

Now we are described as "out of form Brighton". Yes, we've had a couple of poor performances, but we've always had them in us - most sides do. But we were decent against Manchester United and largely the better side with the ball today.

I don't think we're any more shit now than we were excellent earlier in the season. We remain as we've always been under Potter: a very good footballing side who, on our day, can go toe-to-toe with most other sides in the division. Right up until the point we are required to score goals. Then we come unstuck most of the time.

 

[ac gull]

loads of possession - tick
created very few clear cut chances - tick
easy for other team to pick off on counter attack - tick
mistake at a set piece - tick
would a draw have been a fair result - tick
our best player - Alzate by miles
worst - would have been Dunk but he scored

 

[LamieRobertson]

I really struggle with this common belief that a team that dominates and can't win deserve to win 'on the balance of play'. It gets trotted out so often. We look at a game and say team A attacked so much, and Team B sat back and defended, getting a cheap goal on the counter attack. Why does team A "deserve" to win? This isn't just about us today. It's something that has always bothered me when it gets trotted out in TV games, too.

Why does an attack that has 20 attempts and fails to convert them deserve to win more than an attack that gets one chance and is clinical enough to take it? Why is impotence more worthy of the win than efficient success?
Why does an attack that failed to break down a defence despite so much pressure deserve to win over that defence that kept them out?
Why does a defence that has stood up to 20 attacks and held firm deserve to lose more than a defence that had one attack to repel and couldn't do it? Why is fragility and limpness more worthy of the win than defiant unity?
Why does a defence that crumples the only time it has a job to do deserve to win over the attack that broke them down?

Why does the team that can't defend or score more than they concede deserve to win more than the team that can do both?



Today Brighton had the ball for so long and spent so much time in Newcastle's half but what did we actually achieve? Why does our fragile impotence deserve the win more than than Newcastle's efficient discipline?

Potter didn’t trot out that ‘excuse’ …………he thought over the course of the game we were the better team…but in football the better team is the one that scores most goals …this was in response to being asked if he felt his side deserved more

 

[ac gull]

we need to go back to 3-4-3 formation and press high up the pitch and keep a clean sheet

 

[Springal]

[tweet]1500225259286450177[/tweet]

Dan Burn in the Newcastle BrewDog - on his wages can probably afford 2-3 rounds of fine craft beer

 

[Ooh it’s a corner]

Alzate
Welbeck
No
Saint-Maximin
7
Tried Caicedo
8 - I’m an Albion fan for life and this is still imo the best of times. I would LOVE some home wins and for us to be more clinical in the final third. I’ve been to seven games this season(5h 2a), usually travelling from the west coast of Ireland and via the West Midlands and I have yet to see us win(and only seen us score one goal). The way football is now money is key - it’s sad but true - most of the poorest clubs financially are usually in the bottom 8 places or so - any time we are punching above that is fantastic and at times this season we have looked capable of top 10 - right now we don’t but I’m going to keep supporting us 100% and enjoy the times we get it right - I just would love to see in person a victory or two before season end!

 

[BN41Albion]

I really struggle with this common belief that a team that dominates and can't win deserve to win 'on the balance of play'. It gets trotted out so often. We look at a game and say team A attacked so much, and Team B sat back and defended, getting a cheap goal on the counter attack. Why does team A "deserve" to win? This isn't just about us today. It's something that has always bothered me when it gets trotted out in TV games, too.

Why does an attack that has 20 attempts and fails to convert them deserve to win more than an attack that gets one chance and is clinical enough to take it? Why is impotence more worthy of the win than efficient success?
Why does an attack that failed to break down a defence despite so much pressure deserve to win over that defence that kept them out?
Why does a defence that has stood up to 20 attacks and held firm deserve to lose more than a defence that had one attack to repel and couldn't do it? Why is fragility and limpness more worthy of the win than defiant unity?
Why does a defence that crumples the only time it has a job to do deserve to win over the attack that broke them down?

Why does the team that can't defend or score more than they concede deserve to win more than the team that can do both?



Today Brighton had the ball for so long and spent so much time in Newcastle's half but what did we actually achieve? Why does our fragile impotence deserve the win more than than Newcastle's efficient discipline?

Completely agree. More so when the opposition know our weaknesses and exploit them to perfection (or near perfection). Let us have the ball, sit tight, catch us on the break, goodnight

 

[Bob!]

point gained.








oh.

 

[B-right-on]

Can't be arsed to answer all of the questions but I really don't get all the 7s for Potter. We dominated possession, again. We fannyied about with it, again. Our strikers and midfielders didn't score, again. We played some lovely dominant football that was all pretty but no substance, again. We lost, again.

Why is that a 7. I'd give him 4 at best. The idea is to WIN a game of football, not dazzle the pundits or fans into respect. He's not changed anything yet its pretty much been the same for the last season and a half.

All icing, no cake. 4 for not sorting it out.

 

[BRIGHT ON Q]

Didn't see any of the game but reading this, if Alzate was that good then that's his lot for a while.

 

[Seagull58]

Albion man of the match: Alzate
Albion stinker of the match: Trossard
Was it the right result on the balance of play: Yes
Opposition player you'd most like to see in the stripes: Saint Maximin
Potter's score out of 10: 5
What would you have done differently to GP: Start Bissouma instead of Trossard
Where's that left your Albion mojo 1(low) - 10(high): 3 - We are drifting down to a 16th/17th place finish.

 

[NooBHA]

I really struggle with this common belief that a team that dominates and can't win deserve to win 'on the balance of play'. It gets trotted out so often. We look at a game and say team A attacked so much, and Team B sat back and defended, getting a cheap goal on the counter attack. Why does team A "deserve" to win? This isn't just about us today. It's something that has always bothered me when it gets trotted out in TV games, too.

Why does an attack that has 20 attempts and fails to convert them deserve to win more than an attack that gets one chance and is clinical enough to take it? Why is impotence more worthy of the win than efficient success?
Why does an attack that failed to break down a defence despite so much pressure deserve to win over that defence that kept them out?
Why does a defence that has stood up to 20 attacks and held firm deserve to lose more than a defence that had one attack to repel and couldn't do it? Why is fragility and limpness more worthy of the win than defiant unity?
Why does a defence that crumples the only time it has a job to do deserve to win over the attack that broke them down?

Why does the team that can't defend or score more than they concede deserve to win more than the team that can do both?



Today Brighton had the ball for so long and spent so much time in Newcastle's half but what did we actually achieve? Why does our fragile impotence deserve the win more than than Newcastle's efficient discipline?

The analogy being. No good going out and picking up every night if you're never gonna get a hard on.