Sky Sports Analysis of Todays Game
- Thread starter Tomnorthi
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
BRIGHT ON Q
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 9,428
Some on here are saying it was one of our best away performances yet a neutral reckons we were awful.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Havnt much time for Cottee tbh
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Phoenix? Flames? And all that? 9 points from Reading, West Ham and Birmingham? That'd be special!
My impression was that Burnley weren't very good and they resorted to cynical fouling in the first half and spent the whole game trying to disrupt play. We created a handful of half chances, two made by Dicker and he might have been a a bit out of match practice as his crosses weren't perfect. Wrexham provided more difficult opposition and we struggled to beat them. Burnley had the rub of the green with their goal. I'd sooner we played in blue and white. Although not everything went through Vicente, it seemed that he did not have anybody to pass to and when he passed to Vokes, he mucked it up, not being on the same wavelength.
Summary: we seemed good because Burnley were bad, and some of our players weren't that good on the day: quite a lot of them. Reyes might have wanted a longer summer holiday, it seems?
Summary: we seemed good because Burnley were bad, and some of our players weren't that good on the day: quite a lot of them. Reyes might have wanted a longer summer holiday, it seems?
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
He doesn't say we were awful really.
Wasn't a bad performance by us, compared to Forest etc, but we were playing against a pretty mediocre side and despite a ot of posession and play we hardly created any oppurtunites and by the end of the game had petered out into nothing. That's what Cottee says basically, and it's right.
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Huh?
57% Possession
18 shots
9 on target
57% Possession
18 shots
9 on target
Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!
Primary data is fact
I can only remember the one shot on target today, same as at Notts Forest, an output indicative of why we don't have enough goals and points perhaps?
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
I only heard the second half on the radio, granted... Seagull Player wasn't playing ball with me, but I have seen on here we hit the post and grazed the bar? Anyway those stats come from the BBC match report, they seriously cannot be that wayward with the stats? Not even the BBC!
For those interested in statistics, in the Championship the average ratio for shots converted is just over 20%, or one in five of the chances. We created move than that and we failed to put them away through of bad crossing and bad finishing, and good goalkeeping by the opposition. Our conversion rate is about 28% up there with all the clubs in top of the table, except Hull. Clubs near the bottom, notably Bristol City have just a 14% conversion rate.
So our midfielders created but the services was not good enough or the strikers miscued? A bit of both, Dickers crosses weren't good enough (rusty?) and Vokes and Barnes finishing wasn't and their keeper saved from Macca.
Although it seems the opposition miss hatfuls against us with just a 19% conversion rate, the defences of other sides impede the conversion rate better than the Albion, notable Reading and West Ham with just a 17% conversion rate against them and Palace with a lower rate at 16.4%. This could be put down to good goalkeeping? Hull have a good saving rate as well, and Forest have a terrible saving rate of 33.5% (6% worse than the other bad defences).
(If these stats meant much in forecasting, nobody would tip Forest to win 3-0 against Palace: it was a real upset! I was not upset at all though. )
So our midfielders created but the services was not good enough or the strikers miscued? A bit of both, Dickers crosses weren't good enough (rusty?) and Vokes and Barnes finishing wasn't and their keeper saved from Macca.
Although it seems the opposition miss hatfuls against us with just a 19% conversion rate, the defences of other sides impede the conversion rate better than the Albion, notable Reading and West Ham with just a 17% conversion rate against them and Palace with a lower rate at 16.4%. This could be put down to good goalkeeping? Hull have a good saving rate as well, and Forest have a terrible saving rate of 33.5% (6% worse than the other bad defences).
(If these stats meant much in forecasting, nobody would tip Forest to win 3-0 against Palace: it was a real upset! I was not upset at all though. )
Last edited:
Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!
Primary data is fact
Yep - even the BBC.
If we hit the post (and from our view it seemed like their goalie made a decent save) then it was zero on target today - just like at Watford.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Our own match stats say 9 shots on target. I saw a couple aimed straight at their keeper which he gathered in safely but were still 'on target'
Brighton and Hove Albion | Match | Report | 06 April 2012, Burnley 1 - 0 Brighton
Brighton and Hove Albion | Match | Report | 06 April 2012, Burnley 1 - 0 Brighton
Mutts Nuts
New member
- Oct 30, 2011
- 4,918
Goals -0 what does that tell you
Sussex Nomad
Well-known member
Any chance whatsoever of reading what I replied to? No? Yes? We scored no goals, blimey there's a revelation!
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
I think anyone who went to the game would agree with what I said.
Mackenzie
Old Brightonian
We'll beat Reading, Watford and Birmingham, lose to West Ham (Nolan to score in a 1-0) and Draw 1-1 at Barnsley......whether that will be enough I'm not sure, but we're not out of it yet. We are difficult to beat at home.
*Gullsworth*
My Hair is like his hair
No way............Reading lose 0-2......Watford win 2-0 ......Brum win 1-0 West ham draw 1-1 barnsley draw 2-2 it will depend on other results!
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
Mr Burns
New member
9 on target
Really?? Think someone may have pressed teh wrong button