Spectre
-
Posts
535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Spectre
-
-
Feel like having Frankfurt last at home when they have have an unassailable lead in the group would be our best chance at getting something out of that game. I realise it remains unlikely, but if they're playing a second string we should certainly have a chance.
1 -
The pots for reference
Feels like some kind draws there, and some absolute stinkers
0 -
2 minutes ago, DC92 said:
Are Aberdeen in pot 3 or 4?
If it's 4 then I'd say there's a very good chance Hacken are the weakest team you'll play in Europe this season.
It's 4
0 -
I think we probably have just as much chance as progressing from the Europa as the Conference just with the 3 places compared to 2. Wanting to be in the lower tier competition for slight (hypothetical) increases in money is pathetic.
0 -
Looks like his contract runs out in December this year, so makes sense why we might be able to afford him despite his value rocketing in the last season.
stats look very similar to Pollock. Although looks like he likes to dribble a bit more, and is more likely to slide tackle.
Looking at some actual footage, he's decent at duels, but in 1v1 situations he was getting beaten time and time again. in the sample of about 10 that I watched.
0 -
43 minutes ago, Illgresi said:
I'd rather have the £20M.
Haaland went from Molde to Salzburg for 8m euros. I'm not too sure how were going to manage to get the value of one of our players up to £20M
0 -
5 set slog between Tsitsipas and Thiem is good... but who are we supporting? Who does Murray have a better chance against?
0 -
A formation is a broad way of speaking about tactics, and whilst there is obviously a difference between having an extra defender, you can still play the same "formation" in games against Spain and Cyprus, but the instruction and roles of each player within that is going to be different. How does a team set up when attacking and defending can be different under the same formation? Even within that, if your team has the ball, the organisation of the team will be different when you're building from the back compared with when you're creating chances. The players also adjust and adapt as things happen within a match, and sticking to a formation just makes you predictable. It doesn't happen often, but I've seen Robertson close to the far right corner flag (and not just for set pieces).
I would say where formations can be valuable is identifying areas where overloads might occur - like a 3v2 or 4v3 in centre of the park, but even then I think this can be looked at simplistically, with people assuming that a 5 at the back or a 1 up front is defensive. It's more complex than that.
1 -
I think it's a red card. It's harsh, and I'd like to see another angle to confirm the severity of the hit. But if you're going to enforce this in any way consistently, I think it has to be a red.
0 -
1 minute ago, Dons_1988 said:
I thought Stewart was suspended…
Assuming that's for the league (and League Cup) Scottish Cup will be different
0 -
1 hour ago, Merkland Red said:
You can see what Hibs are trying to do. Control the game. The wide men get in to a good position but then it's a numbers game. Needing a top SPFL level centre mid to break or a forward with the movement, size and finishing to take advantage. Both are beyond most of the budgets up here. Unless they come from the youth system of course.
Not to go all stats w****r but the xG would be interesting to see. Hibs had more shots but Newell had two or three that were pretty desperate.
Aberdeen 2.08 - 1.41 Hibs.
Unfortunately I don't have the values for each shot, but some additional contextual information
average shot distance
Aberdeen 13m
Hibs 20.5m
and average xG per shot to save everyone the hassle was
Aberdeen 0.3
Hibs 0.09
0 -
Is it not a bit overblown that rangers are in poor form. Yes they've been humped in the Champions league. But domestically the only team to beat them is Celtic. And we are much closer to the rest of the league in ability than we are to Celtic. A draw would be a fantastic result for us.
But this level of caution is not fun at all. I often squint my eyes in suspicion whenever someone on here says they had a dream about a game, but I had one last night where we were 5-2 up by half time. Miovski, Duk, and Robin Williams were in amongst the goals. Now, I'll be disappointed if that doesn't happen.
0 -
40 goals so far this season. that equals (according to Wikipedia) our total for the infamous 09/10 season where our top goal scorer had 5 goals. Not too far from our last few seasons either (56 & 49). Helped a little by participating in those disgusting league cup group stages, but even if you still have doubts about just how good the team are, you have to admit we're certainly entertaining.
0 -
5 hours ago, roverthemoon said:
May be one of our best players but she was absolutely mince last night. Worst I’ve seen her. Over hitting and misplacing passes. The main problem is the defence though. Weak in every position with Corsie, Howard, Docherty, Alexander all prone to errors. Ireland knew this and exploited it. There’s no sign of anyone coming through either so we look gubbed for the foreseeable future.
The quality elsewhere in the squad should have seen us through.. Tactics were dire. Typical Scotland to beat a tough team in Austria then choke against a team below us in the rankings.
Really not sure why you think the defence is the main problem when the issue in qualifying for the Euros and the World cup has been not scoring against teams we are better then. Finland, Portugal and now Ireland were all beatable teams and we never scored against any of them over 5 games. Teams are finding it easy to defend against us, Ukraine was a slog at home relying on a last minute equaliser and we barely squeaked past Hungary. In the game I watched last night, Ireland didn't exploit our defence, they exploited our midfield, constantly winning the ball off all of our players who were taking too many touches (especially Erin Cuthbert), giving Ireland dangerous counter attacking opportunities that the defence had to clean up.
The defence aren't without their faults, It was after all Sophie Howards error that led to the goal who didn't play as well as she did on Thursday but after seeing a sequence of easy to defend crosses and persistently conceding possession in midfield, I think it's a poor take to highlight the defence when it is clearly the collective that are not functioning as well as they could. I'd say it's the worst take on this forum, but I've seen someone in here suggest that women should play 7-a-side or futsal because they can't play on a full size pitch with 11-a-side goals which is a bit of a head scratcher to put is a politely as I can.
0 -
3 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:
On Wikipedia it says only one team per confederation can be seeded so Thailand wouldn't be a seed and Papua New Guinea would be seeded on that basis.
That'll teach me to skim through the page. Probably the weakest team in the draw... Let's just hope for a penalty win by Portugal
0 -
No, this is just FIFA making things quite complicated. I think the expectation would be that we would be strong favourites based on the other teams that we would come up against in the intercontinental play off if we make it there. I think that's quite complicated too. will need to check the wiki again.
From what I can work out, we would be seeded, and end up in group A as the top seeds, only having to play 1 game to qualify and we couldnt play any other of the seeds. so I think the teams in bold below are the ones we could play.
Chinese taipei (38)
Thailand (41)
Cameroon (59)
Senegal (84)
Haiti (56)
Panama (57)
Paraguay (51)
Chile (39)
Papa New Guinea (49)
But great performance from the team. They maybe edged the first 90 but we bossed them in extra time
1 -
Definitely good to be at home, and hopefully we get some big crowds to get behind the women. Austria are probably one of the harder teams we could have drawn first, but there's probably little difference between any of the first ties other than Bosnia Herzegovina so a shame we missed out on them, but definitely could be a lot worse. Ireland will be tough too, but unsure they would be any harder than any of the other options. Back to back world cups would be a tremendous achievement.
0 -
42 minutes ago, Bogbrush1903 said:
All players are passive apart from those in the immediate area where the ball arrives.
I''m not overly concerned about sticking a player on the near post as you usually have a host of players attempting either the flick-on or defending the potential flick-on. Also the keeper should have his near post covered.
However, I would always have a player on the far post. This gives the attacking player less area to hit and the keeper can't possibly cover the whole goal from such close range.
I haven't seen Welsh's goal or the Union goal last night. Were they scored at the far post from where the corner was taken?
Did this study measure the likelihood of conceding when you put a defender only on the far post?
I can't find the methodology, but I did find another study looking into both posts, front post, back post, and no post. There were differences in the percentages but the article said no clear differences found. It's nearly 10 years old though, so I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is today.
I think it's an interesting discussion, different coaches will have their own beliefs, based on principles of play, and currently, the differences are quite small in how teams set up at corners. The placing of players on posts, is something that is visible to fans.
On this issue, I dislike when people cherry pick instances and highlight a particular goal where if the team had a player on the post they wouldn't have conceded. In that situation, it appears to be the case but you would then have to consider how changing all other corners might impact all of the other games as a whole. I also dislike pundits being dismissive of the tactic when the numbers suggest that at the very least it is as good a tactic in the long run as having players on the posts. I would also question why they think the way they do. Is it purely because that's how they were taught, so they assume it to be optimal?
The question comes down to, is it better to reduce the size of the goals, or reduce the chance of winning a header.
0 -
There's an article in the athletic that covers this, which I have linked. https://theathletic.com/2861228/2021/10/05/why-players-are-no-longer-on-the-posts-when-defending-corners/
If you're too lazy to click the link, the important bit states that if you don't have players on the posts, there is a 2.1% chance of conceding a goal, but if you do put players on the post, then there's a 2.7% chance of conceding a goal. This makes sense because the defenders on the post are passive, and only become part of the defence if the opponent get a shot at goal, whereas if they are involved in the defending of the corner, then the opponents are much less likely to have a shot at goal, and in turn score.
They took this stat from here: https://spielverlagerung.com/2019/12/06/tactical-theory-set-pieces/ which in turn took it from the sloan sports conference in 2018, which I can't find anywhere (I didn't look for very long), so I'm not entirely sure how much data they have sifted through to get to that conclusion.
1 -
I do wonder how much the Ukraine women's team has been impacted by the war. Not sure what their preparation has been, but I doubt it was as thorough as the men's team. We're looking pretty dangerous any time we attack, and Ukraine are normally fairly competitive. Any win away from home would normally be a good result here. although, we've been 3-0 up against a team before...
0 -
On 06/05/2022 at 22:41, MSU said:
Shocked to discover that I found Judi a bit more bearable this week, or maybe just less annoying.
I tend to find the format wins out in the end. Comedians I don't find funny to begin with, I will usually come round to enjoying by the end of the series. You could probably randomly select five people from the street and the show would still be fairly entertaining.
1 -
I can't remember where I read it, but I'm I saw something about teams/players/regulations not wanting more than 7 games. I think the 48 team tournament is a bit crap, and whilst I think 64 teams would make qualification a little too easy for some teams (although probably better for Scotland), I would definitely prefer it to 48, although if it's only group winners that would qualify to limit it to 7 games, that would also be crap. The current format is definitely the best,
0 -
Well, I said I didn't want England, and I genuinely would have preferred to avoid England, but I have to say, a realistic chance of qualifying from those teams So I can't complain
0 -
I don't want to jinx things, but I think it might be starting....
0
Euro 2024 - Qualification Thread
in Misc Other Fitba Chat
Posted
If The Netherlands don't manage to comeback against France tonight, then that would leave us in control of getting at least pot 2 no matter what. We'd have to win against both Georgia and Norway.
I haven't double checked this, but scanning through the groups I'm pretty certain this is true