Leeds v Forest: Match Fred sponsored by Marco Polo's quest for a new forum | Page 25 | Vital Football

Leeds v Forest: Match Fred sponsored by Marco Polo's quest for a new forum

What about Semedo, two excellent games? No wonder Benfica didn't want to sell him. That tackle in the first half, to block a shot in the penalty area, said a lot about him. It showed real commitment and lifted the team.

Yep, Semedo did very well.

I'm also happy that Grabban got his goal and also with the way he chased back, he put in a decent shift.
 
If the aim is to try and get promotion this season we need a reliable solid keeper, not a youngster cutting his teeth, who is going to make regular errors and will cost us points. But there is plenty to be positive about with many of the new signings impressing so far and others yet to get a chance!
 
It's not going over my head at all you made the point of them having 20 shots at goal so what if they did as they only scored from one of them and this my point to you. The defence played a big part in that score being 1 - 1 so you can dress it up as you which.

The fact that you never liked the performance is what is blinding you from a decent away performance from an almost brand new team against a team tipped to finish first in this leauge?

Your 20 shot stats means nothing at all since the score ended 1 - 1 so NO i really don't think this is going my head one bit, i do however think it's gone over your head since you still never told me how many saves Muric made from those 20 important shots Leeds made?????? Say NO more ay.......

I answered your question right at the post above and agreed that it wasnt many. But it has gone over your head, because you are still not getting my point, which is all about our actual performance, not the result. I have already said it was a good result, but a poor performance. That's what I care about, because ultimately that is what will matter over the course of the season.
I wasnt quoting stats, the only reason I mentioned them was because you and another poster claimed leeds didnt have many chances. You brought it up, not me.
I haven't dressed anything up, that's you. My opinion is that it was a poor performance. Google result, but poor performance. Just like the first games performance.
 
They missed hardy because we didn’t allow them clear cut chances.
We nullified them...wasn’t pretty but we were in control in our 3rd.
And whilst I’m writing Muric came out to force the shot...he had no choice but to come out and make himself bigger for the shot.
A lob is always a risk but he did the right thing.
If he had stayed on his line Bamford would have scored.

I wasnt critisising Muric for that change Redross, that wasnt my point. I was highlighting another chance that they had had. Personally I thought that was the fault of those in front of him. I agree he had to try and narrow the angle.
 
I answered your question right at the post above and agreed that it wasnt many. But it has gone over your head, because you are still not getting my point, which is all about our actual performance, not the result. I have already said it was a good result, but a poor performance. That's what I care about, because ultimately that is what will matter over the course of the season.
I wasnt quoting stats, the only reason I mentioned them was because you and another poster claimed leeds didnt have many chances. You brought it up, not me.
I haven't dressed anything up, that's you. My opinion is that it was a poor performance. Google result, but poor performance. Just like the first games performance.
My 2p is that I don't think it's possible to perform badly at a place like Leeds and get a point and it maybe a little unrealistic or wishful thinking to expect us to match them on any stats when you consider the stage we are both at in our evolution.

We were not pretty that's undeniable but I think we played well in a different way, we broke them up and for the last 20mins fully deserved the point.

Imo it was 10x better than West Brom and we're heading the right way.
In the key elements of the game they were better overall but we were better at defending than them.

Happy days!
 
I answered your question right at the post above and agreed that it wasnt many. But it has gone over your head, because you are still not getting my point, which is all about our actual performance, not the result. I have already said it was a good result, but a poor performance. That's what I care about, because ultimately that is what will matter over the course of the season.
I wasnt quoting stats, the only reason I mentioned them was because you and another poster claimed leeds didnt have many chances. You brought it up, not me.
I haven't dressed anything up, that's you. My opinion is that it was a poor performance. Google result, but poor performance. Just like the first games performance.

I never mentioned anything about stats until you said they had 20 shots at goal, you look in my replies and see if i started anything about stats or shots at goal and you won't find any, why? Because you started it not me.

I was just making replies to your posts that's it and letting you know how i saw things as far as that game goes so your wrong again, then you quote this in reply below:

But it has gone over your head, because you are still not getting my point, which is all about our actual performance, not the result. I have already said it was a good result, but a poor performance. That's what I care about, because ultimately that is what will matter over the course of the season.

Hummm i think that the result will be more important come the end of the season than the performance, if we had another performance like that against another top team and it got us promoted i would take it all day long in my book.

It seems that your more interested in the performance than the result not considering the fact that Forest have a new team and that's my point, you need to look at the bigger picture bud and facter these things in when passing judgment..
 
I never mentioned anything about stats until you said they had 20 shots at goal, you look in my replies and see if i started anything about stats or shots at goal and you won't find any, why? Because you started it not me.

I was just making replies to your posts that's it and letting you know how i saw things as far as that game goes so your wrong again, then you quote this in reply below:

But it has gone over your head, because you are still not getting my point, which is all about our actual performance, not the result. I have already said it was a good result, but a poor performance. That's what I care about, because ultimately that is what will matter over the course of the season.

Hummm i think that the result will be more important come the end of the season than the performance, if we had another performance like that against another top team and it got us promoted i would take it all day long in my book.

It seems that your more interested in the performance than the result not considering the fact that Forest have a new team and that's my point, you need to look at the bigger picture bud and facter these things in when passing judgment..

I didnt mention stats at all, until you guys started claiming that Leeds barely had any chances, that's when I quoted the stats. To demonstrate that they did have a lot of chances.
My original post was about how poor I felt our performance was. In my opinion we only got a point because Leeds couldn't finish their chances, not because we played well. In your opinion, we got the point because we defended well and earned it. Does that about sum it up?
Fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree, we will see come end of the season I guess. I hope you are right.
 
My 2p is that I don't think it's possible to perform badly at a place like Leeds and get a point and it maybe a little unrealistic or wishful thinking to expect us to match them on any stats when you consider the stage we are both at in our evolution.

We were not pretty that's undeniable but I think we played well in a different way, we broke them up and for the last 20mins fully deserved the point.

Imo it was 10x better than West Brom and we're heading the right way.
In the key elements of the game they were better overall but we were better at defending than them.

Happy days!

I hope you are right, I really do. Personally I don't think we were any better than against West Brom. They are about at the same stage as us, new players, new manager, tet they handed us our arse, away from home.

I never said anything about believing we should have matched Leeds on stats. Away from home, against a good side, I fully expect the home team to dominate. But I would expect us to be more positive than we were, to defend solidly and pose a threat on the break. I dont think we did that.

From your first paragraph then, should the same have applied to us against West Brom? You think we are good side at home, so therefore should have dominated that game?
 
I hope you are right, I really do. Personally I don't think we were any better than against West Brom. They are about at the same stage as us, new players, new manager, tet they handed us our arse, away from home.

I never said anything about believing we should have matched Leeds on stats. Away from home, against a good side, I fully expect the home team to dominate. But I would expect us to be more positive than we were, to defend solidly and pose a threat on the break. I dont think we did that.

From your first paragraph then, should the same have applied to us against West Brom? You think we are good side at home, so therefore should have dominated that game?

We are not a side capable of dominating any game just yet.

We need time to gel and will need to scrap for every point we get home or away. The fact we got a point at Leeds is testament to the work ethic and little more than that.

If SL can quickly sort his best 11 we may get top half which considering the changes would be a minor miracle.