LCFC 0 - 1 Hull Post Match Thread

[Guest Mee-9]

My thoughts:

 

Hull did a job on us.

We were far too negative and not taking any risks.

We still look shocking when we don’t have the ball.

Ricardo is not a midfielder.

Ndidi should have gone, how he is keeping Casadei out I do not know.

Abdul come back looks immense.

Mcateer could hold the key. 
Non existent Strikers. 
Hermansen slows play down too much.
Coach 1 Shrek telling a group of lads off who stood up was like Brian Potter when a racist band comes on the stage at the Phoenix Club and this was the highlight.

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, Happy Fox said:

I think in those situations it makes sense to play two strikers, we have to mix it up.

we effectively had 7 strikers by the end, and none of them could do the job. Playing vardy and nacho together probably wouldn't have made any difference.

[Hales]

Listen to Ricky P 😉

Its a reset, it wont happen overnight!

[jmono84]

I think ppl are giving Hull way too much credit. We were clearly levels above them for most of the match but we deserved to lose because of how wasteful we were with our chances, nothing to do with how well Hull defended. You don’t deserve anything if you only get one shot on target from 21!!

[HitchinFox]

3 hours ago, weller54 said:

His sister.. Anne has a theory on brontosauruses!! 

Superb reference. 👏🏻

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, CloudFox said:

Yes and no. Those shots were pretty much all close range blocks, so yes they were on target in the sense you are suggesting, but they never looked like going in at any point. They weren't "brilliant shots".

 

I appreciate my definition is slightly different to others, but for a shot to be a threat, it needs to actually trouble the goalkeeper. For example, if a keeper comfortably catches a shot with no diving or jumping required, I don't even really consider that a "threat". I mean if it's comfortable for the defenders and goalkeepers, can you really consider that a threat? Not for me.

It's all a bit vague, i suppose - you could end up with 10 dribbles straight to the keeper, they'd count as shots on target , which i assume is what you're looking for to show a threat?   The thing is even a lot of our shots that missed were 'threatening' in the sense that they were well taken shots - the vardy header for example, though it didn't threaten the goal, or force the keeper to make a save, it was incredibly close and on another day, drops inside the post.  To dismiss our efforts today as not threatening is harsh, it was just one of those days where even the really good shots and headers either whizzed the wrong side of the post or found a body in their path.

 

I'm sure they'll all be furious with themselves but they threw everything at that goal, sadly nothing stuck.

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, inckley fox said:

They also caused us plenty of problems. And they actually scored.

Plenty?

 

There was never a time when we looked under pressure defensively, a few moments where we had to react but nothing like previous games where we've had long periods under the kosh, and of their 7 shots only 2 were from inside the box, and none closer than the penalty spot.

 

Yes, they worked super hard for their points but never has 'smash and grab win' seemed more appropriate.

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, squidsworth said:

You're quoting stats mate, if you were there hardly anything got anyone out their seats. Maybe we're just really bad at finishing, I'd agree with that.  Maybe chances were there but we just couldn't make anything of them? What good are chances that end up wayward, blocked and the rest.... we were toothless today and deserved what we got. Nacho was a passenger, vardy no better. Let's hope this new teenager can add something up front. Today we were found out, we need to learn.  I would have liked to see changes at half time, that new winger was pretty dreadful.

Don't disagree with any of this - but the point i was making was that some of our shots were good chances - of course we should/could have done better with our shooting but to claim (as the OP did) that none of our chances were threatening is not true.

 

I don't think we were 'found out' - we just came up against a hard working side and we're not at the point yet where we can always break down these sorts of teams - we gave it everything but just lacked a bit of composure in the final third.

[goose2010]

Was a blip. This league is a slog. Hull looks decent to be fair. Confident on the ball and passed it about ok. 

 

Remember you can lose 12 games and still get over 100 points! 

[Drink Water]

This is how statistics rated us today.

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, CaliFOXnia said:

Come on, you know as well as I do the Fatawu effort and the Vardy header were the only real chances we had. And neither were good enough. For me Vardy HAS to score and Fatawu does well to craft an opening from nothing.
 

Can’t have the “7 shots blocked” either, they’ve not made last ditch, goal saving blocks on any occasion, they’re tame efforts they’ve easily cut out. Nacho wasn’t offside so as you say, “on another day”, I do agree with to an extent.. however - the positions we got ourselves in and the amount of the ball we enjoyed, 1 shot on target is nowhere near good enough. We’re creating opportunities, just not good ones. And this is a repeat of the rest of  performances thus far this season. Which is where it starts to become worrisome. We look very easy to defend against. We’re very predictable and teams are happy to organise and make us beat them while they sit in every man behind the ball. This will be the majority of our games this season also.
 

We look predictable and devoid of a creative spark to unlock a defence at the moment. Hopefully 2 weeks on the training ground will do us the world of good. 

I woulød suggest that 'looking predictable' is inevitable when you have, essentially, a brand new team and a brand new coaching staff.

To have already got to the point where we can generate 21 shots in a game is what is important here - even the best teams in the world have days when for all their efforts nothing goes in.

 

The important thing about the high number of blocked shots is to differentiate between the suggestion that we had 20 of 21 shots wide of the goal - granted putting 12 wide isn't great but it happens, and sometimes a near miss is more dangerous than a shot straight at the keeper.

 

Also, it's not a repeat of previous games:  against cov we had 20 shots 6 were off target, huddersfield 17/3, cardiff, 15/5  rotherham 15/4.

[Hales]

😆 I like Enzo 🎮

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Hull fan summed it up, couldnt argue with him.

 

21 shots with only one on target and defense too lacking to absorb even a small amount of attacks without conceding.

 

We got the ball up the pitch fast, but lacking cutting edge play in the final third.

 

I am at odds with many posts though, we watched a different game?  The team was the most attack minded I seen them all season, just bad at executing it.

That's super harsh - we absorbed everything bar a deflected shot which, really, it's impossible to defend against.

Also, we didn't have only 'one on target' - we only had one that forced a save, fair enough, but saying one on target makes us seem far worse than we actually were.

[westernpark]

3 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

Why you obsessed with some other club?

 

Ambition? the boss when we went up said he wanted CL football within a few years, he delivered a title and the CL football within 2 years.

I agree to an extent, but who’s the boss?

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, Bezzanator89 said:

Just shows how we really need to improve at the goal scoring end at the pitch. Midfielders can't keep scoring forever, and the strikers need to step up.

 

To have that many shots with so few on target is absolutely criminal. Hope Enzo gets them on shooting practice before the next game.

 

It's not really the conceding that's the problem, it's the lack of goals.

This is actually a really crucial point - of the 21 shots we had, nacho managed 1, vardy 2 - that's simply not good enough.

[I am an Ostrich]

Who were the band playing outside the KP pre kick off today??

[Pliskin]

There needs to be some calm. I think a lot of the knee jerk reaction is because some people seem to want this to fail, because we’re not aimlessly lumping a ball up field.
 

The problem today was Wilf, in an attacking sense, he can’t play that role and Enzo needs to drop that experiment….. and I think this in turn spoils KDH’s game as he’s expected to be the main force coming forward.

 

As soon as Casadei came on we all of a sudden looked 100% better…. But then we were just rushing everything and snatching at our chances. We needed a bit more composure in the final third.
 

The other problem, was the lacking of leadership at the back…. As mentioned.
 

We looked by far the better team, we were just our own worst enemy at times, but it will come…. There’s enough ability on this team, we just need to bring it together….. and not have duck head fans keep shouting “Lump it forward”…..

[Beachyboy]

37 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

It's all a bit vague, i suppose - you could end up with 10 dribbles straight to the keeper, they'd count as shots on target , which i assume is what you're looking for to show a threat?   The thing is even a lot of our shots that missed were 'threatening' in the sense that they were well taken shots - the vardy header for example, though it didn't threaten the goal, or force the keeper to make a save, it was incredibly close and on another day, drops inside the post.  To dismiss our efforts today as not threatening is harsh, it was just one of those days where even the really good shots and headers either whizzed the wrong side of the post or found a body in their path.

 

I'm sure they'll all be furious with themselves but they threw everything at that goal, sadly nothing stuck.

On an Amazon special about Football they have an episode called chance. They suggest Chance/luck plays a factor in one out of every 3 football matches, due to the low scoring nature of the game. Really our FA cup win was hugely fortunate not only the final but other moments in the run. I guess we all want a see us win comfortably, but it's a whole new team, the process isn't always linear.

[Lillehamring]

3 hours ago, KansasFox said:

You'd think they'd be the same thing.  If it's not expected to be a goal, then surely it's not expected to be an assist! Pointless

I think it works like this:

 

If a player has the opportunity to make an assist, the xGA reflects the likelihood of it becoming an assist - so i assume it depends not only on whether it is converted but also whether he completes the pass or if it's a pass that is sompleted but takes the recipient away from the goal scoring opportunity.

[inckley fox]

26 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

Plenty?

 

There was never a time when we looked under pressure defensively, a few moments where we had to react but nothing like previous games where we've had long periods under the kosh, and of their 7 shots only 2 were from inside the box, and none closer than the penalty spot.

 

Yes, they worked super hard for their points but never has 'smash and grab win' seemed more appropriate.

I don't know about that. I thought that for an away side they more than earned their point and got into all sorts of promising positions without sustaining pressure. Our tactics didn't, nor do generally, allow our superiority to tell.

 

I've said repeatedly, in spite of the results, that I'm still unconvinced that this is the way to make quality exert itself. If Maresca is entrenched in this unflinching vision of what brings success, he'll be in trouble. If he's willing to adapt, switch things, and learn, we needn't panic too much. But I do worry that we're over-complicating things.

 

We look like a style which isn't hard to set up against. We over-complicate possession, they pick the ball and switch it out wide instantly because they know that we build with a narrow shape.

 

When we're winning, it's our vastly superior quality which is showing and, as of yet, the only benefit of our tactical approach is that sides gradually get knackered by our constant, largely meaningless, and entirely uninspiring passing game. We're not actually putting anyone to the knife. And it's not going to rouse the crowd either (if anything can).

[Gamble92]

2 hours ago, Fazzer 7 said:

You could've had 13 minutes it wouldn't have changed anything. 

That isn't the point though

[Bert]

I don’t think we’ve ever been under any real pressure this season without the ball. Teams are simply targeting us on the break. 

[Corky]

Lack of composure cost us. We got into a lot of decent positions but didn't have enough composure to make it count.

 

Too many players didn't do enough, we looked much better after the triple substitution and had we got an equaliser I think we'd have pushed on.

 

A shame to go into a break after a defeat but hopefully Mareseca will learn from it and give Casadei and Fatawu a run in the side.

[Richmondfox]

52 minutes ago, Mee-9 said:

My thoughts:

 

Hull did a job on us.

We were far too negative and not taking any risks.

We still look shocking when we don’t have the ball.

Ricardo is not a midfielder.

Ndidi should have gone, how he is keeping Casadei out I do not know.

Abdul come back looks immense.

Mcateer could hold the key. 
Non existent Strikers. 
Hermansen slows play down too much.
Coach 1 Shrek telling a group of lads off who stood up was like Brian Potter when a racist band comes on the stage at the Phoenix Club and this was the highlight.

The whole defence play like they are time wasting, Hull were too as a tactic, we are just slow.  I can’t stand watching Vestagaard play.  Maybe Enzo can get them to pass a few more times to really get his process working. 

 

Too much passing sideways following the orders when a simple quick open pass to the wingers was on.  As usual Nacho drops deep and would fire the ball back rather than just try anything else. 

 

I feel sorry for who ever plays on the wing next to KDH as will barely make a pass with his right foot and play them in.  

[Harpenden Fox]

55 minutes ago, jmono84 said:

I think ppl are giving Hull way too much credit. We were clearly levels above them for most of the match but we deserved to lose because of how wasteful we were with our chances, nothing to do with how well Hull defended. You don’t deserve anything if you only get one shot on target from 21!!

Fair point. We really should have hit the target with 5 of those shots