We were shit, shocking performance

[Bold Seagull]

Agreed, it was fantastic play from Bruno. By "got lucky" I mean we scored entirely out of the blue at a time when we'd been putting zero pressure on the QPR goal and hadn't done anything to suggest we had them on the rack and that a goal was imminent. It was superb individual ability that dug the team out of a hole.

The introduction of Lua Lua, the moving of Lingard centrally was what led to the goal. QPR panicked a bit at being threatened with Lua Lua's pace, and suddenly he and Lingard were running at them. Prior to that goal Lingard was put through twice only to miss out on a touch, and we then broke 3 on 2 but Buckley's ball cut inside from the right to Andrews was completely messed up but should have been a clear chance. QPR didn't react to these warnings, and the spaces started to open up.

The goal came from these moments, we gained confidence and realised that we had them at arms length defensively, and could start to exploits the spaces they were leaving. In the end the goal was brilliantly crafted, but it wasn't out of the blue as you put it.

I'm not going to argue with you that we were playing great football, or applying great pressure, or creating numerous chances, but you're analysis goes completely the opposite way in that regard.

 

[London Irish]

There was nothing "lucky" about Bruno's orchestration of the first goal. It was individual ability and vision.

And let's not forget Andrews' pass that put him in - given that poor old Keith was getting the bird from some fans last night

 

[TSB]

And let's not forget Andrews' pass that put him in - given that poor old Keith was getting the bird from some so-called-fans last night

Fixed for you.

 

[London Irish]

The introduction of Lua Lua, the moving of Lingard centrally was what led to the goal. QPR panicked a bit at being threatened with Lua Lua's pace, and suddenly he and Lingard were running at them. Prior to that goal Lingard was put through twice only to miss out on a touch, and we then broke 3 on 2 but Buckley's ball cut inside from the right to Andrews was completely messed up but should have been a clear chance. QPR didn't react to these warnings, and the spaces started to open up

Agree strongly with that - against those who claim KLL had no role whatsoever in first goal. For me Lingard looks a misfit in that wider role, he doesn't look to have the wingers craft, too lightweight, not confident enough to take on his man, March/KLL would do a better job there in my view. More centrally using his main asset - pace - to get defenders thinking, that's another thing entirely for Lingard

 

[London Irish]

They controlled parts of the game, not all the game. And with a central midfield of Barton, Morrison and Jenas you would expect them to dominate this area against most teams. But the reason I say they were poor is because they had absolutely nothing in the final third. They were quick to shoot from distance, but any team can do that. Try and name a chance they actually created, or one you felt they really should have scored. The closest you'll get is the one Hoilett put across the goal that Kuszczak saved very well to put behind. Other than that, it was all very predictable and lacking in imagination, bearing in mind the resources at their disposal.

Let's also remember the marking for both goals was non-existent. I'm really not sure the sign of a good team playing well is one with nothing upfront and careless marking at the back. And that's before we even start on their substandard work rate.

They obviously are missing Austin hugely, because he's the one class striker they have who is good enough to make their numerous crosses into the box and punts forward into something. Will Keane is a fraction of the player, so it falls to their midfielders to create more clear-cut chances or score themselves, and at no point last night did any of them look like doing that.

Ignoring QPR for a moment, the facts are that once again we played a home game and didn't call the other goalkeeper into action for 70 minutes (and even then it was just to kneel down and catch a ball that Forster-Caskey had chipped straight into his hands). We didn't have any idea of how to score a goal in that game, just like we didn't against Reading on Saturday even when it was 11v11 for 50 minutes. I'm delighted we won obviously, and as I said earlier it is only two home games ago we molested Wigan and somehow lost, so I'm more than happy to take an undeserved result, but anyone being honest has to say there are still one or two significant flaws in our team and how we play. We're being held together by our defensive record, but you can't go into every game thinking that if we go 1-0 down the best we can possibly get is a draw.

Interesting post but surely it contains a massive contradiction? I don't think it's credible to point up how well we blunted much-vaunted QPR defensively, and then moan about how little we created ourselves - advocates for "Oscar can do no wrong" would surely claim those things are connected.

I'm actually not overly convinced our "defensive" tactics were that successful - I think we surrendered too much of the impetus to QPR and allowed them to come at us too much, and all things being equal that usually leads to conceding a goal. Such are the contingent circumstances of football it didnt last night, thanks to things going our way and good defending - but it was a tightrope walk. I would have preferred us to take the initiative and hurt them first rather than spend so much of the game in "survival" mode.

But yes it's a theoretical discussion and Oscar can point to the 3 points won his way, non-theoretically.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

There was nothing "lucky" about Bruno's orchestration of the first goal. It was individual ability and vision.

And had been planned before the game.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/11069255.Ulloa_owes_Bruno_after_low_blow_sinks_QPR/?ref=var_0

 

[JCL666]

Hmmmm.....

I thought we were excellent. The team was clearly set up to be defensive and then counter attack. Which they did and won.

Oscar put a combative midfield together to deal with possibly the best midfield we will face all season. This meant that when we did try to counter there wasn't much creativity unless it was down the right via Bruno. It worked.

 

[Man of Harveys]

many of us don't fall into the 'my team won= it was amazing, my team lost = it was the worst game I've ever seen' mentality that so many intellectually challenged football supporters across the country have

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

.It had to be my assumption you didn't enjoy the game, as until your post above you haven't really said anything positive other than the result.

Apart from complimenting the defence and the fact I never feared QPR would score?

That's quite a big positive.

 

[MarioOrlandi]

Would you say we played well? Honestly.

Of course people view it differently. Perhaps I've used the phrase "poor performance" too broadly when I would porobably change it to "didn't play very well". The defence, of course, performed brilliantly but our actual FOOTBALL, ie passing, controlling, moving forward was not good. I can't really see how that can be disputed. I would be stunned if anyone would say they were impressed with our football for the first 70 minutes. Organisation at the back was excellent though and that, ofcourse, is a crucial aspect as I also stated previously.

As I stated I was NEVER concerned QPR would score. We completely held them.

I was however disappointed with not having a shot on goal for an hour....and then our first shot being a long ranger down the middle from March.

And let me put this into context. I am a hugely positive follower. I will try and find the positive in ANYTHING and accept the ball has to go back at various times...but I can't pretend we played good football because we won 2-0. It would be completely naive.

Did I miss something, Solly March played against QPR? Watching the same game?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Did I miss something, Solly March played against QPR? Watching the same game?

Ah I meant JFC.

Either way, that makes literally no difference to the point. But thanks.

 

[Norman Potting]

Watched the highlights on player, dreadful game with two dreadful goals leading to 3 dreadful points. Hope we can continue playing dreadfully all the way to Wembley and beyond.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Hope we can continue playing dreadfully all the way to Wembley and beyond.

I'd take that.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Honestly, I wasn't entertained by that game, but it's nothing to do with how many goals/shots there were. I've seen plenty of games this season with fewer goals that I enjoyed much more. I was probably more disappointed in QPR than us in terms of making it a good game, I thought a team like that would have a bit more to offer than just banging in shots as soon as they reached the edge of the D. Being able to see what a team is doing tactically always contributes to a watchable match, and I'm not convinced Harry has got any more tactical nous than you or I. I think our back five played well considering the individual quality of the opposition and I can admire and praise that, as I have after many matches this season, but surely an entertaining game as a whole needs both teams' attacking units to at least put some cohesive moves together, even if the defences eventually come out on top?

Each to their own. I've spent 30 years playing as a defender and as a keeper. Maybe that's made me put slightly more emphasis on appreciation of those jobs, than some.

I'd have happily paid my cash on Tuesday to watch the performances that Koosh and Upson put in. Upson's in particular was magnificent - a demonstration of his art. To be fair to them, all the other 3 centre backs in the game were pretty close behind. I was FAR more impressed with Clint Hill than I was expecting to be.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Each to their own. I've spent 30 years playing as a defender and as a keeper. Maybe that's made me put slightly more emphasis on appreciation of those jobs, than some.

I'd have happily paid my cash on Tuesday to watch the performances that Koosh and Upson put in. Upson's in particular was magnificent - a demonstration of his art. To be fair to them, all the other 3 centre backs in the game were pretty close behind. I was FAR more impressed with Clint Hill than I was expecting to be.

I would agree the defending is a beautiful art form but I would say very few would "enjoy" watching defending in anywhere near the same way as attacking football. Appreciate it? Yes. Enjoy it? That's hard to say.

Let's be clear. I'm DELIGHTED we are solid at the back. It's lovely knowing 1 or 2 goals should be enough to win (especially as that's all we can seem to score).

But can you just Imagine if Oscar had turned up and, when asked about his mentality he wants to bring to the club, would say something along the lines of "My passion is to defend. I love watching defenders play to the maximum of their ability". Wouldn't QUITE have got the juices flowing would it?

 

[TSB]

It's the classic case of a result papering over the cracks. I'm not sure I'd go as far as "shit", but we definitely weren't good.

Stopped reading after that. Embarrassing tosh, as per usual.

That's a shame because you missed out on a very accurate analysis.

Perhaps he shouldn't have started it in as if impersonating ROTR.

I have now read it all. After the embarrassing tribute to ROTR, he questions the players and the manager in a 2-0 win against the best squad in the division. He also describes QPR as 'very, very poor' when most say they were the best side to come to the Amex this season.
What, in your mind, is accurate about that?

My original response stands.

Looks even more pathetic and WRONG now.

 

[portslade seagull]

Looks like 2 in now the new 1

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

We're still not playing at our best , the difference seems to be that the clinical chances are being put away instead of hitting the woodwork.