Lack of Goals / Goal difference.

[Raj]

Lack of goals seems to be the topic of the season and there is a lot of comparison going on with our relegation season.

So some facts to debate:

2009/10 - Pos. 6 P6 W3 D0 L0 F5 A2 W0 D2 L1 F1 A2 GD+2 Pts 11 - Total GF 6 GA 4

2007/8 - Pos. 21 P6 W1 D1 L1 F5 A3 W0 D2 L1 F2 A4 GD 0 Pts 6 - Total GF 7 GA 7

The goals for at home is identical 5/5 and only 1 different against 2/3 yet the points difference is 9/3. So by conceding one less goal we've picked up 6 extra points.

Away the results/points are identical 2/2 and the goals F/A are proportional having scored 1 less and concede 2 less than that season.

So although we've scored less goals over all 6/7 we've also conceded fewer 4/7 and scooped up 5 more points 11/6 and 15 places in the league 6/21.

I guess the secret is if you're only averaging 1 goal a game make sure you don't concede and lose them.

DavieG.

You have been warned.

LD3 will be let of his lead if you EVER mention the R word again!!!

[Radovan's Caravan]

I saw the Newcastle team that was relegated as not good enough for the Premiership and the Championship is where it looked like it belonged.

And why I should mention where the two teams were a year ago I don't know because it had no relevence whatsover to either our attempt to win the match or the comparative standard of the two sides that night.

And just as Newcastle were not good enough for the top flight, Leicester proved too good for the rest of Division One so it's little surprise they've ended up in the same division and looked to be of a comparable standard.

There was no reason we shouldn't have beaten Newcastle on the night - they were entirely indifferent.

Pearson said that things we tried didn't come off. But what were these so-called "things" cosI don't believe we ever showed the same attacking conviction in the second half that we did in the first 30 minutes. Nor did we ever commit sufficient players forward when we went behind.

It wasn't so much that we failed to break Newcastle down once they'd taken the lead as that we never seriously tried.

Sorry m'learned friend but you're reading of the game is suspect.

Your team spent much of the second half camped in the Newcastle half. Newcastle brought everyone behind the ball, sat deep and hit you on the break (with some effect). The conditions were not conducive to the one touch play that you commendably tried to cut through.

The fact that Newcastle adopted this approach after the interval was in fact a back handed compliment to you. Like Man City on Saturday they would not have won had they not perservered with the counter attacking option.

They say many modest teams can achieve success using cattenaccio - can't think whom mind

[dogadug]

Sorry m'learned friend but you're reading of the game is suspect.

Your team spent much of the second half camped in the Newcastle half. Newcastle brought everyone behind the ball, sat deep and hit you on the break (with some effect). The conditions were not conducive to the one touch play that you commendably tried to cut through.

The fact that Newcastle adopted this approach after the interval was in fact a back handed compliment to you. Like Man City on Saturday they would not have won had they not perservered with the counter attacking option.

They say many modest teams can achieve success using cattenaccio - can't think whom mind

Newcastle's tactics were annoying - but effective. <_<

[Sir Alex Ferguson]

Goal difference could come in to it come what may, but the other year Bristol City got in to the play-offs with goal difference of -1.

So aslong as we don't give away sloppy goals we could well be on course for a good season.

[Thracian]

Sorry m'learned friend but you're reading of the game is suspect.

Your team spent much of the second half camped in the Newcastle half. Newcastle brought everyone behind the ball, sat deep and hit you on the break (with some effect). The conditions were not conducive to the one touch play that you commendably tried to cut through.

The fact that Newcastle adopted this approach after the interval was in fact a back handed compliment to you. Like Man City on Saturday they would not have won had they not perservered with the counter attacking option.

They say many modest teams can achieve success using cattenaccio - can't think whom mind

I might, as you say, be a champion of one and two-touch football but I don't think I've mentioned it as a factor at Newcastle and can't recall that it crossed my mind in any serious way.

Besides our speed of passing was fine in the first half-hour and while I accept what you say about Newcastle using a fast counter-attacking policy second half and about us "camping" in their half I'd only accept the latter part inasmuch as we tentatively loitered up to 15 yards in front of the halfway line but offered not one semblance of a threat in or around the attacking third.

And that's because we simply didn't have the attacking players available. I suspect Newcastle developed their counter-attacking idea from the many times they had their backs to the wall in the Premiership and that Pearson was well aware of it.

But in trying to find an answer we didn't look to our own potential and take the game to where Newcstle have always looked vulnerable to me even when they had a good team - in defence.

To do that we needed fast, skillful, attacking full-backs and even, perhaps a goalscoring centre-back - none of which we possess. Our only chance of scoring as the game progressed was to be innovative. We needed to stretch the home defence, to attack them with speed and to get more threat in and around the penalty area.

Risky? Undoubtedly. But the risk of being half-hearted in our commitment was demonstrated by the outcome. No goals for us and no points either.

Using Gallagher served no purpose at all that I could see nor using Adams so late. But Dyer at full-back Adams on the left, Gradel on the right with Oakley at right back and N'Guessan in the middle with Fryatt and Howard might have shaken them up a bit.

That's my idea of attacking. In numbers and at speed. Sir Alex Ferguson has become a legend by being prepared to instigate all-out attack if necessary or if possible in an effort to change or dominate a game. And how often has it worked for him. Simply countless times.

We seemed to go for damage limitation rather than any form of genuinely adventurous attack. What we did was no more than token and little wonder that it didn't work.

[dogadug]

Goal difference could come in to it come what may, but the other year Bristol City got in to the play-offs with goal difference of -1.

So aslong as we don't give away sloppy goals we could well be on course for a good season.

And as long as we keep winning