St Mirren v Ross county 22/08/2020

[ZingaliMan]

14 minutes ago, frankthetank22 said:

 

Quite clearly, this whole thread seems like a big, woosh.

Yes, the home fans are disappointed not to win after being a goal to the good but this thread is reminiscent of games against either of the twin cheeks. 

Personally I feel it's 2 points dropped against 10 men just managing to hold out for a draw. 

A point a piece is probably fair. 

The clearance off the line was two points dropped for you and skiddy pants time for us.  

[Arch Stanton]

26 minutes ago, frankthetank22 said:

 

Quite clearly, this whole thread seems like a big, woosh.

Yes, the home fans are disappointed not to win after being a goal to the good but this thread is reminiscent of games against either of the twin cheeks. 

Personally I feel it's 2 points dropped against 10 men just managing to hold out for a draw. 

A point a piece is probably fair. 

Very good, you had 2 shots on target the entire game one of which was the goal which took TWO deflections.

[frankthetank22]

2 hours ago, ZingaliMan said:

The clearance off the line was two points dropped for you and skiddy pants time for us.  

 

It was a lovely header from Stewart, and an brilliant clearance by Tait.

[The Great Stagsby]

2 hours ago, Arch Stanton said:

you had 2 shots on target the entire game

I’m glad you brought this up as I’ve been genuinely wondering how some of the stats are worked out. Maybe you watched the game, maybe you read the stat somewhere - I personally got from the BBC stats that County had 18 shots in total, with a miserable 2 of them on target. But reading through the Live Text it shows the following for County:

8 ‘blocked‘, 9 ‘missed’, 1 ‘saved’ (plus the goal - which immediately follows a Gardyne “blocked” effort, where the pass was from Randall - in other words 2 descriptions of the one incident: the deflected goal).

What I have been wondering, then: Can anyone who watched the game confirm (if even possible to say) that essentially all of our blocked efforts were off target (but one ended up deflecting in, thus making it into the “on target” column) - or do the BBC essentially have a default setting of blocked shots not counting towards the “shots on target” stat?

 

[Arch Stanton]

1 minute ago, The Great Stagsby said:

I’m glad you brought this up as I’ve been genuinely wondering how some of the stats are worked out. Maybe you watched the game, maybe you read the stat somewhere - I personally got from the BBC stats that County had 18 shots in total, with a miserable 2 of them on target. But reading through the Live Text it shows the following for County:

8 ‘blocked‘, 9 ‘missed’, 1 ‘saved’ (plus the goal - which immediately follows a Gardyne “blocked” effort, where the pass was from Randall - in other words 2 descriptions of the one incident: the deflected goal).

What I have been wondering, then: Can anyone who watched the game confirm (if even possible to say) that essentially all of our blocked efforts were off target (but one ended up deflecting in, thus making it into the “on target” column) - or do the BBC essentially have a default setting of blocked shots not counting towards the “shots on target” stat?

 

As far as bookies are concerned, a block only counts as a shot on target if the goalie wasn't in a position to save it, ie "cleared off the line".

Even Tait's miraculous goal-line clearance wouldn't have counted as it was a cross from Cook. This methodology is of course flawed since had Tait not been able to clear the ball it would have been a goal and would have counted as a shot on target.

Corners also don't count as was illus tared a couple of weeks ago when De Bruyne whipped in a corner v Real Madrid which would have been a goal had the keeper not saved it but the bookies refused to recognise it as a shot on target.

I'm not even sure your goal would have counted because it was officially given as an own goal!

[TheGreenElves]

1 hour ago, Arch Stanton said:

As far as bookies are concerned, a block only counts as a shot on target if the goalie wasn't in a position to save it, ie "cleared off the line".

Even Tait's miraculous goal-line clearance wouldn't have counted as it was a cross from Cook. This methodology is of course flawed since had Tait not been able to clear the ball it would have been a goal and would have counted as a shot on target.

Corners also don't count as was illus tared a couple of weeks ago when De Bruyne whipped in a corner v Real Madrid which would have been a goal had the keeper not saved it but the bookies refused to recognise it as a shot on target.

I'm not even sure your goal would have counted because it was officially given as an own goal!

Surely the Tait one off the line would have been a shot on target, as Stewart(I think) flicked it on?

[Arch Stanton]

1 minute ago, alang1993 said:

Surely the Tait one off the line would have been a shot on target, as Stewart(I think) flicked it on?

If it was flicked on then yes, it would count. Had it not been flicked on and therefore was a cross it wouldn't count.

Again I'm speaking from the bookies rulebook and of course they will do anything to avoid paying out.

[Comrie]

Stewart got a flick on the ball, getting ahead of his marker. Tait saved a goal 100% it was an unbelievable clearnace.

Honestly wish we'd tried to get Tait, rate him highly.

[Ric]

18 minutes ago, Comrie said:

Honestly wish we'd tried to get Tait, rate him highly.

I didn't expect him to be quite as good as he has been. The Motherwell fans were pretty much of a "yeah, he's a good support player, not first team, would have liked to have tied him to a new contract but not that disappointed we didn't", but jinkies if that's a bit part player then that Motherwell side should be romping games.

Granted he could just be enjoying the new challenge and that could be the spur, that plus he knows he is guaranteed a game each week, so maybe he'll fade, but from the first few games he's turning into one of my favourite players and to get him for free is an amazing bit of luck/business.

[The Great Stagsby]

So if I’m understanding all this correctly, you’re saying 

14 hours ago, Arch Stanton said:

Very good, you officially had 2 shots on target the entire game, but that statistic may or may not be a fair reflection of what actually happened

?

I’m most definitely not arguing that County deserved anything more out of the game than we got, by the way. It’s just an interesting choice of argument you’ve made against somebody possibly suggesting otherwise, considering you don’t appear to have complete faith in the statistic you turned to.

(Also by the way, I didn’t ask the question to try and trap you In some way - I was keen to understand it better and with your help I now do. Cheers )

[tam the bud]

39 minutes ago, Comrie said:

Stewart got a flick on the ball, getting ahead of his marker. Tait saved a goal 100% it was an unbelievable clearnace.

Honestly wish we'd tried to get Tait, rate him highly.

After watching a few times, i think the ball would have hit the post if Tait has not cleared it. 

Where it would have went after hitting the post i have no idea. 

[Coventry Saint]

4 minutes ago, tam the bud said:

After watching a few times, i think the ball would have hit the post if Tait has not cleared it. 

Where it would have went after hitting the post i have no idea. 

Nah, I reckon it was dropping in. It was a lovely header and an even better clearance.

 

I have to say, that's the first time I've seen Stewart play since he played for us and he's not turned into the type of player I was expecting. You picture him being a target man but he was very much operating around the fringes of the forward positions. He also dropped deep a hell of a lot, though that might have been due to the challenges of playing against a side down to 10 men. He popped up almost as a number 4 for a while.

It struck me as weird that he was doing so much work elsewhere, given that (aside from the goal) his two headers from inside the box were the closest County came to scoring. I'd be wanting him in the box as much as possible.

I was broadly impressed with him, though.

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, Coventry Saint said:

Nah, I reckon it was dropping in. It was a lovely header and an even better clearance.

 

I have to say, that's the first time I've seen Stewart play since he played for us and he's not turned into the type of player I was expecting. You picture him being a target man but he was very much operating around the fringes of the forward positions. He also dropped deep a hell of a lot, though that might have been due to the challenges of playing against a side down to 10 men. He popped up almost as a number 4 for a while.

It struck me as weird that he was doing so much work elsewhere, given that (aside from the goal) his two headers from inside the box were the closest County came to scoring. I'd be wanting him in the box as much as possible.

I was broadly impressed with him, though.

If he wasn't about 6ft 4, I'd have said he'd be a central midfielder in his later playing days.  He's actually a pretty good set up guy, with a decent cross.  Seemingly he spent most of his days at Albion Rovers playing wide in a forward three, and that's largely where he's played for County.  He's not a target man in the, say, Lyndon Dykes mould, I agree. I'm more reminded of mid career Lee McCullogh under Walter Smith.

[Savage Henry]

2 hours ago, Comrie said:

Stewart got a flick on the ball, getting ahead of his marker. Tait saved a goal 100% it was an unbelievable clearnace.

Honestly wish we'd tried to get Tait, rate him highly.

County made him an offer, as I recall. 

[Comrie]

1 hour ago, Coventry Saint said:

Nah, I reckon it was dropping in. It was a lovely header and an even better clearance.

 

I have to say, that's the first time I've seen Stewart play since he played for us and he's not turned into the type of player I was expecting. You picture him being a target man but he was very much operating around the fringes of the forward positions. He also dropped deep a hell of a lot, though that might have been due to the challenges of playing against a side down to 10 men. He popped up almost as a number 4 for a while.

It struck me as weird that he was doing so much work elsewhere, given that (aside from the goal) his two headers from inside the box were the closest County came to scoring. I'd be wanting him in the box as much as possible.

I was broadly impressed with him, though.

He hasn't got the build or aggression to rough up players or fight for things like a target man. The closest I can think of him would be a budget Tore Andre Flo, maybe. Wants flick on crosses or balls to the chest or feet.

Edited August 25, 2020 by Comrie

[Stu]

I reckoned a draw was fair on Saturday. The second half was probably about even before the red card and County had had a couple of good ones in the first half as well. We weren't cruising to a win, but I didn't think we were in much danger of losing either until the sending off.

I feel we went perhaps a bit too defensive after the red card. Fully accept trying to shut up shop when we were a man down and under pressure, however there were a few times we were booting it clear and it was coming straight back at us as we had no one up the park. At one point someone, possibly McGrath, played what would normally have been a decent ball forward to a striker - except he was the furthest player up the park.

Also feel Goodwin is still a bit reluctant to use his subs. He was guilty of it at times last season and the increase to five subs doesn't seem to have changed his approach. We could have done with fresh legs on Saturday, even if it was just young lads to cause a few problems when we broke. That's maybe me just nitpicking though

Edited August 25, 2020 by Stu

[Savage Henry]

1 hour ago, Comrie said:

He hasn't got the build or aggression to rough up players or fight for things like a target man. The closest I can think of him would be a budget Tore Andre Flo, maybe. Wants flick on crosses or balls to the chest or feet.

Actually, that’s not a bad comparison.  Flo didn’t play wide, though, as far as I can remember.  He’s definitely not a Mark Hateley type battering ram.

[Coventry Saint]

2 hours ago, Stu said:

 

Also feel Goodwin is still a bit reluctant to use his subs. He was guilty of it at times last season and the increase to five subs doesn't seem to have changed his approach. We could have done with fresh legs on Saturday, even if it was just young lads to cause a few problems when we broke. That's maybe me just nitpicking though

I do agree that he seems a bit hesitant with the subs - I'd certainly like to see Erhahon getting more time - but Saturday was on such a knife edge, I can see why he didn't. Bringing someone on in a high-pressure situation like that could be fatal, for them and us.

2 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

If he wasn't about 6ft 4, I'd have said he'd be a central midfielder in his later playing days.  He's actually a pretty good set up guy, with a decent cross.  Seemingly he spent most of his days at Albion Rovers playing wide in a forward three, and that's largely where he's played for County.  He's not a target man in the, say, Lyndon Dykes mould, I agree. I'm more reminded of mid career Lee McCullogh under Walter Smith.

Yeah, I was impressed with his distribution. Like I said, it's more a comment on my own (wrong) preconceptions than anything else. You never know, he maybe could end up through the middle if he bulks up a bit. I've just checked and he's actually 6'2". Patrick Vieira is 6'4", so it's not impossible to play there if you're a taller chap. 

[Ric]

I am sure Ross played Stewart on the wing (in a front three) for us. I think only once or twice did he play as an out and out striker.

[monthelie']

46 minutes ago, Ric said:

I am sure Ross played Stewart on the wing (in a front three) for us. I think only once or twice did he play as an out and out striker.

I'm sure he was on the wing when he set up the winner at home to brechin, when we played rotten. Looked decent any time i saw him, although that day all he got was dogs abuse by some utter morons amongst the home support.