Who scores when?

[Ted Hughes]

Of course how silly of me.

Why would we want to score early in the first or second half ? What possible advantage would that give us ?

The plan is working perfectly, as you say.

I don't know what I was thinking.

If you could find a graphic for last year, I suspect it would look very similar. Can't remember the numbers now but I remember going into the QPR game knowing it would be nerve wracking due to us likely drawing until late on. Didn't expect it to be quite that nerve wracking though.

We score goals late due to the way we play - keep the ball, tire the opposition out and then punish them. We could play more like a Redknapp side, but Mancini's way seems to be more successful, like it or not. When we go for it in the last 15 minutes, we're exposed at the back. Do it for 90 minutes and you'd be punished, but you can get away with it against a knackered team who are hanging on.

We could play like a Redknapp side or alternatively, we could start both halves playing better & be a goal up with 30 mins to go rather than a goal down. This cunning plan of not starting either half very well could be the whole reason for us winning the league though; or not.

[Blue2]

Interesting that only Villa & Reading start games attacking worse than us, but nobody finishes attacking better.

In between, we start the 2nd half worse than anybody bar Norwich.

Those stats are not good ones for the coaching staff , not at all. It proves they are not doing their job very well.

I should imagine the stats in Europe are similar.

Not good.

Sorry mate, dont get your point. Why is it bad? In the end, it doesn't matter when we score as long as we score. How does it prove that the coaches aren't doing their job? It could mean that every team starts games against us trying to keep it very tight but in the end of each half can't keep us out because we are too good and wear them down.

[Ted Hughes]

Interesting that only Villa & Reading start games attacking worse than us, but nobody finishes attacking better.

In between, we start the 2nd half worse than anybody bar Norwich.

Those stats are not good ones for the coaching staff , not at all. It proves they are not doing their job very well.

I should imagine the stats in Europe are similar.

Not good.

Sorry mate, dont get your point. Why is it bad? In the end, it doesn't matter when we score as long as we score. How does it prove that the coaches aren't doing their job? It could mean that every team starts games against us trying to keep it very tight but in the end of each half can't keep us out because we are too good and wear them down.

That could be the theory, if it wasn't for the fact that half of the the teams we have played were actually beating us at that stage & we were chasing the game due to letting stupid goals in, rather than calmly knocking the ball about.

[Blue2]

Interesting that only Villa & Reading start games attacking worse than us, but nobody finishes attacking better.

In between, we start the 2nd half worse than anybody bar Norwich.

Those stats are not good ones for the coaching staff , not at all. It proves they are not doing their job very well.

I should imagine the stats in Europe are similar.

Not good.

Sorry mate, dont get your point. Why is it bad? In the end, it doesn't matter when we score as long as we score. How does it prove that the coaches aren't doing their job? It could mean that every team starts games against us trying to keep it very tight but in the end of each half can't keep us out because we are too good and wear them down.

That could be the theory, if it wasn't for the fact that half of the the teams we have played were actually beating us at that stage & we were chasing the game due to letting stupid goals in, rather than calmly knocking the ball about.

And the bad coaching?

[Ted Hughes]

Interesting that only Villa & Reading start games attacking worse than us, but nobody finishes attacking better.

In between, we start the 2nd half worse than anybody bar Norwich.

Those stats are not good ones for the coaching staff , not at all. It proves they are not doing their job very well.

I should imagine the stats in Europe are similar.

Not good.

Sorry mate, dont get your point. Why is it bad? In the end, it doesn't matter when we score as long as we score. How does it prove that the coaches aren't doing their job? It could mean that every team starts games against us trying to keep it very tight but in the end of each half can't keep us out because we are too good and wear them down.

That could be the theory, if it wasn't for the fact that half of the the teams we have played were actually beating us at that stage & we were chasing the game due to letting stupid goals in, rather than calmly knocking the ball about.

And the bad coaching?

Team coming out unable to score at the start of either half but letting stupid goals in, half of which are from set pieces ?

Imo, they've had a nightmare so far this season as far as organisation goes defensively, but I didn't reasise how bad they'd been in the attacking situation. The only other teams who start each half as badly will mostly be going down.

People can butter it up as much as they want but I absolutely guarantee you the coaches won't be happy with those stats, & nor should they be, it's appalling.

[Beefymcfc]

Of course how silly of me.

Why would we want to score early in the first or second half ? What possible advantage would that give us ?

The plan is working perfectly, as you say.

I don't know what I was thinking.

If you could find a graphic for last year, I suspect it would look very similar. Can't remember the numbers now but I remember going into the QPR game knowing it would be nerve wracking due to us likely drawing until late on. Didn't expect it to be quite that nerve wracking though.

We score goals late due to the way we play - keep the ball, tire the opposition out and then punish them. We could play more like a Redknapp side, but Mancini's way seems to be more successful, like it or not. When we go for it in the last 15 minutes, we're exposed at the back. Do it for 90 minutes and you'd be punished, but you can get away with it against a knackered team who are hanging on.

We could play like a Redknapp side or alternatively, we could start both halves playing better & be a goal up with 30 mins to go rather than a goal down. This cunning plan of not starting either half very well could be the whole reason for us winning the league though; or not.

So, we're in with a chance?

PS. I think you're a Mancini outer.

[Ted Hughes]

Of course how silly of me.

Why would we want to score early in the first or second half ? What possible advantage would that give us ?

The plan is working perfectly, as you say.

I don't know what I was thinking.

If you could find a graphic for last year, I suspect it would look very similar. Can't remember the numbers now but I remember going into the QPR game knowing it would be nerve wracking due to us likely drawing until late on. Didn't expect it to be quite that nerve wracking though.

We score goals late due to the way we play - keep the ball, tire the opposition out and then punish them. We could play more like a Redknapp side, but Mancini's way seems to be more successful, like it or not. When we go for it in the last 15 minutes, we're exposed at the back. Do it for 90 minutes and you'd be punished, but you can get away with it against a knackered team who are hanging on.

We could play like a Redknapp side or alternatively, we could start both halves playing better & be a goal up with 30 mins to go rather than a goal down. This cunning plan of not starting either half very well could be the whole reason for us winning the league though; or not.

So, we're in with a chance?

If we start scoring more goals earlier in each half yes. If not; no chance whatsoever. There is no such thing as a team that scores 70% of its goals in the last half an hour of games. It will not continue like that.

[Beefymcfc]

Of course how silly of me.

Why would we want to score early in the first or second half ? What possible advantage would that give us ?

The plan is working perfectly, as you say.

I don't know what I was thinking.

If you could find a graphic for last year, I suspect it would look very similar. Can't remember the numbers now but I remember going into the QPR game knowing it would be nerve wracking due to us likely drawing until late on. Didn't expect it to be quite that nerve wracking though.

We score goals late due to the way we play - keep the ball, tire the opposition out and then punish them. We could play more like a Redknapp side, but Mancini's way seems to be more successful, like it or not. When we go for it in the last 15 minutes, we're exposed at the back. Do it for 90 minutes and you'd be punished, but you can get away with it against a knackered team who are hanging on.

We could play like a Redknapp side or alternatively, we could start both halves playing better & be a goal up with 30 mins to go rather than a goal down. This cunning plan of not starting either half very well could be the whole reason for us winning the league though; or not.

So, we're in with a chance?

If we start scoring more goals earlier in each half yes. If not; no chance whatsoever. There is no such thing as a team that scores 70% of its goals in the last half an hour of games. It will not continue like that.

Is that a stat in itself - no team can win the league if they don't score in the first 20? I seem to remember us doing very similar last season, and we're playing worse this but still producing the goods.

I wonder what the head-to-head stats are compared to last season, how far we/United/Chelsea are up or down, comparing?

[Ted Hughes]

Dunno, but I know that if we continue not scoring but sometimes conceding in the 1st part of each half, we won't win the league, as we will not continue to keep winning games right at the death. Some perhaps, but not enough.

It's clearly something we need to put right.

[kinkylola]

what we need to cut out is conceding. Yes, we need to start games stronger, and if we did, it would probably translate into earlier goals, which would be more likely to end up as wins. The ability to score late is important, and I think we have that ... we also need to up our game so that it's not all the we rely on. As Ted says, we won't always be able to pull out 90th minute winners, though we may have to at times.

It would be nice if goals in that last block were to put us up 3-1, instead of edging a win 2-1. I dunno, hard to put into words I guess.