Steve Bruce - officially confirmed (as Sheffield Wednesday boss)

[paul_e]

Won't quote but in reply to Chris, under RDM we had more shots per game than anyone in the league, does that mean it wasn't his fault that we didn't take them and couldn't make it count?  Again I ask because of the inconsistent approach to the 2 most recent managers.

No, it wasn't his fault that we didn't take chances. I would argue though that is was his responsibility to address the problem of us repeatedly conceding late goals. That, to me, suggests a lack of fitness and that is a serious failing.

But if we'd taken our chances we'd have been in the clear and won regardless of late goals.

[Richard E]

Won't quote but in reply to Chris, under RDM we had more shots per game than anyone in the league, does that mean it wasn't his fault that we didn't take them and couldn't make it count?  Again I ask because of the inconsistent approach to the 2 most recent managers.

No, it wasn't his fault that we didn't take chances. I would argue though that is was his responsibility to address the problem of us repeatedly conceding late goals. That, to me, suggests a lack of fitness and that is a serious failing.

Lack of fitness and dropping deeper and deeper which was a major tactical shortcoming.

[paul_e]

Won't quote but in reply to Chris, under RDM we had more shots per game than anyone in the league, does that mean it wasn't his fault that we didn't take them and couldn't make it count?  Again I ask because of the inconsistent approach to the 2 most recent managers.

No, it wasn't his fault that we didn't take chances. I would argue though that is was his responsibility to address the problem of us repeatedly conceding late goals. That, to me, suggests a lack of fitness and that is a serious failing.

Lack of fitness and dropping deeper and deeper which was a major tactical shortcoming.

The latter is something we're still doing.

[Chris Smith]

Won't quote but in reply to Chris, under RDM we had more shots per game than anyone in the league, does that mean it wasn't his fault that we didn't take them and couldn't make it count?  Again I ask because of the inconsistent approach to the 2 most recent managers.

No, it wasn't his fault that we didn't take chances. I would argue though that is was his responsibility to address the problem of us repeatedly conceding late goals. That, to me, suggests a lack of fitness and that is a serious failing.

Lack of fitness and dropping deeper and deeper which was a major tactical shortcoming.

The latter is something we're still doing.

I disagree, Saturday was atypical because of the sending off but generally we have been less vulnerable (not perfect but better) in the latter stages of games.

[paul_e]

I mean dropping deeper, which we've done a number of times recently.

[brian green]

Plus the never ending problem of coming onto the pitch for the second half half asleep. Other teams know we do it and exploit it to turn games around.

[Chris Smith]

Plus the never ending problem of coming onto the pitch for the second half half asleep. Other teams know we do it and exploit it to turn games around.

Surely by bringing in so many new players he has recognised that there are issues that needed addressing and that despite trying to improve what we had the midfield was not fit for purpose.

[Dribbler]

...in the miles and miles of angsty waffle on this thread in the last few days...

Quote of the day for me, so true, funny, and kind of makes me hungry at the same time!

[Risso]

There was an interesting table the other day that showed the times we score and concede goalsbroken down into 10 minute chunks.  From memory, up to the 30 minute mark, we're pretty decent at both scoring and not conceding goals.  After that, it all goes to shite, and the second half stats perfectly sum up how dreadful we are as games progress.  Fitness, concentration, tactics and substitutions must all play a part in that.

[mr underhill]

I haven't checked the statistics, but I am sure I heard someone commentating on the Brentford game say that we have lost over 20 points from winning positions this season.

[markeeeebeeee2005]

Possession stats are totally meaningless it is what you do with that is important.

In this particular case though, isn't the problem that what they did with the ball was "score more goals with it than we did"?

Yes, but anyone arguing that being as a result of the formation would have a hard job convincing me. Missing chances and Grealish getting sent off were the major factors from my perspective.

They were certainly factors. But if what we did with the ball was miss chances when what they did with the ball was score their chances, the argument of "it's not how much of the ball you have it's what you do with it" can't really be used in Bruce's favour in this instance.

Nor can it be used as a criticism, it is hardly his fault if a player doesn't take a chance in a particular match, or their keeper makes a series of good saves, if he has picked a side that has resulted in getting into those positions in the first place. Over a period of time it's a different matter but surely that was what the transfer window was about.

Some of the criticism going levelled might turn out to be warranted but at the moment it is premature and smacks of not giving the bloke a chance.

It's very difficult to score a goal if you haven't got the ball, but it is a lot easier to let one in. That's pretty straight forward.

Also I tend to enjoy the parts of the game more where my team have the ball than the parts where the opposition do.

Whether you want good or winning football or  preferably both having the ball in your possession is crucial

[Chris Jameson]

I assume it's a fairly recent development publishing the possession stats, never tells the whole story though. For example Liverpool had 72% possession, 22 shots and 15 corners to Hull's 1 on Saturday but ended up losing 2-0.

[markeeeebeeee2005]

I agree it doesn't tell the whole story. But on the whole teams that have more of the ball win. Check out these possession stats for the prem -


http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/ballbesitz/wettbewerb/GB1#ath

Possession stats show a massive correlation with league position. Winning teams keep the ball.

[Dave]

I assume it's a fairly recent development publishing the possession stats, never tells the whole story though. For example Liverpool had 72% possession, 22 shots and 15 corners to Hull's 1 on Saturday but ended up losing 2-0.

Absolutely. The most important thing is that you win, regardless of how much of the ball you have.

It's just odd that the "it's not how much of the ball you have it's what you do with it" argument is being used in a match in which Forest had more possession than we did and scored more goals than we did.

As they ultimately did more with it than us.

[brian green]

With more men.