Steve Bruce - officially confirmed (as Sheffield Wednesday boss)

[Chris Smith]

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.

It's not odd at all, one match in isolation only tells you about that match you cannot extrapolate it further. Neither does it take into account the performance of their keeper or the impact of the sending off.

With half a new team to integrate it will take several weeks for us to get an idea of what impact they have and begin to make an informed judgement.

[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.

It's not odd at all, one match in isolation only tells you about that match you cannot extrapolate it further.

Yes, it only tells you about that one match.

But when the conversation was about what Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest did with the ball in that one match, it doesn't really need much further extrapolation.

[Chris Smith]

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.

It's not odd at all, one match in isolation only tells you about that match you cannot extrapolate it further.

Yes, it only tells you about that one match.

But when the conversation was about what Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest did with the ball in that one match, it doesn't really need much further extrapolation.

It needs more fleshing out when a poster states that having the ball in possession is crucial. It is a factor; just as having the same number of players for 90 minutes is a factor and the performance of specific individuals in the game are factors. The relative importance of each is wholly a matter of opinion.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Chris, simple question, would you prefer we had more or less possession or don't you care?

[manic-road]

Possession can be a very misleading stat, teams that tend to play on the break and try and soak up pressure will have lower possession like we did under MON. The only stat that matters is the number of goals for and against.

[Ads]

What Aston Villa did was create enough chances, clear cut golden ones, to win the game by 3 or 4. Their keeper was man of the match. One keeper error, one silly challenge and a lapse of concentration cost us, together with poor finishing.

They did nothing with their possession. They exerted not a shred of pressure and looked blunt and devoid of any ideas. Losing to shite like that happens and it's monsterously frsutrating. Play that game again tomorrow and again for the nect weeks and we'd win far more often than not.

[Ads]

Chris, simple question, would you prefer we had more or less possession or don't you care?

I can't answer for Chris, but I care about what we do with it. Forest possession, where they were only a back pass to the centre half from the goal kick away from.looking like Lambert, then no chance.

I want us to look like scoring. With less of the ball we created far, far more and looked the only team capable of winning the game.

[Tayls_7]

It would be nice to have the option to play possession football but surely that would require players who look comfortable on the ball, who recognise their team mates and have team mates who realise the importance of finding space. I haven't even mentioned looking up when in control of the ball and being aware of the picture around them before receiving it.

[Chris Smith]

Chris, simple question, would you prefer we had more or less possession or don't you care?

What Ads said.

When we have loads of the ball people say it doesn't matter it is what we do with it that counts; when we have less of it then people will say we need to keep it more. In and of itself it is fairly meaningless, making the most of the it is what counts. In some games sitting deep and using the pace of your forwards can be the way to go, other times pressing high can be the best approach.

[Ian.]

We never had much of the ball under MON but (putting the fact he's a cock aside) his team at many times was exciting too watch.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Chris, simple question, would you prefer we had more or less possession or don't you care?

When we have loads of the ball people say it doesn't matter it is what we do with it that counts; when we have less of it then people will say we need to keep it more. In and of itself it is fairly meaningless, making the most of the it is what counts. In some games sitting deep and using the pace of your forwards can be the way to go, other times pressing high can be the best approach.

I agree, especially that last sentence. The 'sitting deep and using the pace of your forwards' (counter attacking) is mainly used when playing against superior teams, whilst 'pressing high' (possession) we can generalise as taking the game to the opposition, not Lambert square ball/passing it back bollocks as some on here seem to struggle understand. As you rightly say, both can work but what's important is that you can actually play both when needed. We're never going to get out of this division if we can't play both.

[Dave]

Chris, simple question, would you prefer we had more or less possession or don't you care?

What Ads said.

When we have loads of the ball people say it doesn't matter it is what we do with it that counts; when we have less of it then people will say we need to keep it more. In and of itself it is fairly meaningless, making the most of the it is what counts.

Absolutely. And scoring two goals with it is better than scoring one goal with it.

[Ads]

9 times out 10 we'd win that game. With 11 men we certainly wouldn't have lost it.

[brian green]

This has the makings of a classic everlasting thread.  That is not criticism.

[Richard E]

This has the makings of a classic everlasting thread.  That is not criticism.

What percentage possession did we have in the game when Barry didn't take the penalty?