|
Post by spanishal on Sept 1, 2015 21:52:52 GMT
Now it's all over we must have one of the strongest if not the strongest side in the championship for reasons that have amazed most of us. So I do not see any reason why we should not be top dog or near top dog before January kicks in and gives us another set of problems.
Let's hope we make the most of it.
|
|
|
Post by harr on Sept 1, 2015 22:24:27 GMT
We have a great squad but lets not kid ourselves . Theres 6-7 other good squads out there aswell, we wont have it all our own way. Probably more money spent on these opposing teams that when we were last up against them in the Championship. Some of them have better defences than ours, some of them have spent alot more in the window.
Been a hell of a day but I will be taking it game or two at a time.
First target see if we can pick up 3 - 4 points off Forest and Blackburn. See if we can get a point or two at Hull and Fulham.
|
|
|
Post by sharky on Sept 1, 2015 23:01:41 GMT
Hey this is QPR. Nothing goes to plan. Something weird will happen!
|
|
dan
Ian Holloway
Posts: 300
|
Post by dan on Sept 1, 2015 23:29:35 GMT
Hey this is QPR. Nothing goes to plan. Something weird will happen! Or.... Maybe it's a sign that we are finally headed in the right direction.[ But really, on paper, we do have the best team IMO, and our players need to play like it. I think they can and will. Celebrating with an extra pint tonight!
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Sept 2, 2015 6:42:44 GMT
We have a great squad but lets not kid ourselves . Theres 6-7 other good squads out there aswell, we wont have it all our own way. Probably more money spent on these opposing teams that when we were last up against them in the Championship. Some of them have better defences than ours, some of them have spent alot more in the window. Been a hell of a day but I will be taking it game or two at a time. First target see if we can pick up 3 - 4 points off Forest and Blackburn. See if we can get a point or two at Hull and Fulham. Absolutely this. Our defence is still very thin, we are an experienced striker short and still very much learning the system Ramsey wants us to play in. There will undoubtedly be some very hard lessons still to be learned, but we are in a much better position than any of us really expected.
|
|
paulmason
Neil Warnock
Enter your message here...
Posts: 711
|
Post by paulmason on Sept 2, 2015 7:46:25 GMT
We have a great squad but lets not kid ourselves . Theres 6-7 other good squads out there aswell, we wont have it all our own way. Probably more money spent on these opposing teams that when we were last up against them in the Championship. Some of them have better defences than ours, some of them have spent alot more in the window. Been a hell of a day but I will be taking it game or two at a time. First target see if we can pick up 3 - 4 points off Forest and Blackburn. See if we can get a point or two at Hull and Fulham. Absolutely this. Our defense is still very thin, we are an experienced striker short and still very much learning the system Ramsey wants us to play in. There will undoubtedly be some very hard lessons still to be learned, but we are in a much better position than any of us really expected. I said I thought we would start well with Green, Austin, Phillips, Fer et al, but drop like a stone when they all left and we were left with the kids, JET, Polter et al. No one thought we would be left with everyone and as fans, we are rightly delighted, I just hope the board are happy with not getting £30,000,000+ and not saving £1,000,000+ every month in wages If every player is fit, we undoubtedly have the best team in the league (on paper) and yes, we should make hay from now until the end January. ---------------- Green -------------------- - Perch - Onhura - Angella - Konchesky - ------------ Sandro - Luongo ------------ - Phillips -------- Fer --------- Cherry - ---------------- Austin -------------------- BenchSmithies Yun Hall Henry Tozser Mackie Polter Not HappyFurlong Kepekwa Hill Faurlin Doughty Gladwin JET Blackwood Hoilett Should To Be Loaned Out until January 1stRobinson Diakite Sutherland Comley Grego-Cox
|
|
Dufster
Neil Warnock
I say!
Posts: 548
|
Post by Dufster on Sept 2, 2015 9:41:30 GMT
Wow.....Relieved its over....I had all 12 fingers and toes crossed yesterday!! So we have depth and breadth....expectations on the season are now high high high!! C'mon CR LF and TF time to walk the walk and talk the talk this could be the start of a purple patch!! Yippeeee....I say!
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 2, 2015 9:53:32 GMT
In football terms the squad looks very strong.
In management terms I support CR/LF and I want them to succeed. I give them credit for holding our valuations of our players. Other than that I reserve judgement until we are a decent way into the season but so far so good.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 2, 2015 9:59:30 GMT
On the downside I think we now have a squad we cannot afford to operate with.
Unless the parachute payment is enough to keep us within the FFP tolerances this season we are still going to be cutting cloth according.
I expect to see Hoilett, Traore, Sandro and Fer offered on loan to any territory where the loan window is still open.
|
|
kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by kilburnhoop on Sept 2, 2015 11:30:37 GMT
On the downside I think we now have a squad we cannot afford to operate with. Unless the parachute payment is enough to keep us within the FFP tolerances this season we are still going to be cutting cloth according. I expect to see Hoilett, Traore, Sandro and Fer offered on loan to any territory where the loan window is still open. Roughly 400k a week was already shaved off the the wage bill with all the outgoings. We must be operating within our means im sure the football league insisted on it. Id expect another couple to come in over the next month on loan. Very much doubt anyone can afford the players you have mentioned wages. Can they be loaned to the top leagues in europe?.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Sept 2, 2015 12:07:44 GMT
On the downside I think we now have a squad we cannot afford to operate with. Unless the parachute payment is enough to keep us within the FFP tolerances this season we are still going to be cutting cloth according. I expect to see Hoilett, Traore, Sandro and Fer offered on loan to any territory where the loan window is still open. Roughly 400k a week was already shaved off the the wage bill with all the outgoings. We must be operating within our means im sure the football league insisted on it. Id expect another couple to come in over the next month on loan. Very much doubt anyone can afford the players you have mentioned wages. Can they be loaned to the top leagues in europe?. Don't think we're operating within our means by a stretch yet, just because the debt from previous seasons and lower income than we'd have had in the Premier League, much as parachute payments will help. I think this transfer window strengthens our argument in many ways - I'm not 100% sure but I think we've shifted about 12 players off the books, many of which were really high earners - but I imagine Hoos and the accountants would have been happier if at least some of Fer, Sandro, Green, Austin and Phillips had been moved on. I guess that's the frustrating thing of FFP really - good in spirit but mad considering that if you want to access the riches of the Premier League, clubs are actively encouraged to gamble. We gambled and lost and, as blatantfowl rightly says, we've now got to cut our cloth according. I think Clive LFW made a good argument in his recent article in terms of the longer view on this. We didn't shift players off the books which would have really helped our balance sheet, despite shifting many of the higher earners. So whilst we may miss out on a fee for talent like Austin and Phillips if they don't sign new deals (and why would they at this point?), we've now sent a message out to other clubs that we won't have the piss taken out of us during the transfer window. Not caving this window means we are far more likely to secure fair, profitable transfer fees in future windows. The rebuilding job is medium-long term so, as much as we're encouraged to not think as such, our thinking should be on that timescale too I reckon. To borrow another point from the same article, I'd be livid looking at our transfer window if I was Blackburn or Forest. If we successfully challenge FFP, I can see them lodging challenges swiftly after. Fundamentally, we've come leaps and bounds in the sensible transfer stakes this window and it's put us closer to being on the right track; but it won't magically undo years of absolute financial mismanagement. We're at the start of a long process and it's a long way away but a big indication of progress will be the next Summer window if we've not been promoted (which I don't reckon will necessarily happen and that isn't necessarily a bad thing) and therefore if Phillips and Austin etc. move on and/or if our talent from this season has performed well enough to potentially be picked off for decent money. But yeah, that being said, we've got an exciting little attack minded squad on our hands with players we never thought we'd keep so I really hope we can really capitalise on that and see what January brings.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Sept 2, 2015 20:21:16 GMT
Absolutely this. Our defense is still very thin, we are an experienced striker short and still very much learning the system Ramsey wants us to play in. There will undoubtedly be some very hard lessons still to be learned, but we are in a much better position than any of us really expected. I said I thought we would start well with Green, Austin, Phillips, Fer et al, but drop like a stone when they all left and we were left with the kids, JET, Polter et al. No one thought we would be left with everyone and as fans, we are rightly delighted, I just hope the board are happy with not getting £30,000,000+ and not saving £1,000,000+ every month in wages If every player is fit, we undoubtedly have the best team in the league (on paper) and yes, we should make hay from now until the end January. I was referring to our squad not league position Paul, not clear I'd agree.
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Sept 3, 2015 10:08:14 GMT
When all fit, QPR have 6 players who could get into any Premier League team from 13th down in the table.
Green, Onouha, Sandro, Fer, Phillips and Austin.
On paper a team that stacked has no business finishing outside the top 6 in the Championship.
Life doesn't always work that way, but barring a catastrophic injury crisis to pretty much all of the above players, you'd have to ask serious questions if a team with that level of Premier League ready quality finished mid-table or lower in the 2nd tier of English Football.
And I'm being exceedingly generous to them here.
Football isn't played on paper, for sure, but if it was you can make a very strong argument that its not a team that should be playing Championship football next season.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 3, 2015 11:37:51 GMT
Talented players are one cog in a machine. The whole machine needs to work correctly.
On top of that we will need a lot of luck too.
|
|
kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by kilburnhoop on Sept 3, 2015 11:54:33 GMT
Talented players are one cog in a machine. The whole machine needs to work correctly. On top of that we will need a lot of luck too. Team not machine. As for luck we are due a shed load after last season
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Sept 3, 2015 13:15:35 GMT
Talented players are one cog in a machine. The whole machine needs to work correctly. On top of that we will need a lot of luck too. Yes. But on paper and with all things being equal a first 11 with those players in it should not struggle in The Championship. If you gave any club in the Championship those 6 players for the season you'd be setting your bar very low if you were happy to just survive or be mid table. If you added Chery, who I feel may also probably be good enough to play for a few Prem teams, I think you'd be perfectly within your rights to expect that team to be in the playoff mix at the end of the season. I understand taking one game at a time, but modesty is actually about realising your limitations not deliberately downplaying them. The limitations for a team with those players should reasonably be lower than a team like, say, Birmingham City. I would also expect both Ramsey and the players themselves to set high expectations for this season now. Ramsey has been handed basically over half a Premier League team at his disposal (and you could argue that he has potentially more than that with Chery, Toszer and Angella) which none of us and probably him either thought we'd have on September 2nd. No excuses now as far as I'm concerned. This team has no reason not to deliver.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 3, 2015 13:27:09 GMT
Talented players are one cog in a machine. The whole machine needs to work correctly. On top of that we will need a lot of luck too. Team not machine. As for luck we are due a shed load after last season I think we used up all our luck for the next 20 years when we won the playoff final!
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Sept 3, 2015 17:01:14 GMT
Team not machine. As for luck we are due a shed load after last season I think we used up all our luck for the next 20 years when we won the playoff final! See, I don't get that reasoning at all. Derby had their chances but they never took them. its not like they hit the bar and loads of times, had multiple shots cleared off the line and several goals disallowed that, on replay, were actually perfectly legitimate. We won that game because we defended well and took our chance when it came. In football its been proven time and time again that if you can hang in there, even when your opponent has all the possession, you will get your chance to score. And if you do and your opponent doesn't you'll win the game. Derby aren't the first team that's happened to (ask Barcelona or Arsenal) and they won't be the last. People constantly mistake a team that is under pressure but defends and then breaks away and scores as lucky and the team that has all the possession and yet does nothing with it as unlucky and I've never understood why.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 3, 2015 17:43:35 GMT
I think we used up all our luck for the next 20 years when we won the playoff final! See, I don't get that reasoning at all. Derby had their chances but they never took them. its not like they hit the bar and loads of times, had multiple shots cleared off the line and several goals disallowed that, on replay, were actually perfectly legitimate. We won that game because we defended well and took our chance when it came. In football its been proven time and time again that if you can hang in there, even when your opponent has all the possession, you will get your chance to score. And if you do and your opponent doesn't you'll win the game. Derby aren't the first team that's happened to (ask Barcelona or Arsenal) and they won't be the last. People constantly mistake a team that is under pressure but defends and then breaks away and scores as lucky and the team that has all the possession and yet does nothing with it as unlucky and I've never understood why. This ^^^ Have said it many times. Down to 10 men with half an hour to go and defended brilliantly then took our chance when it came. For us to be lucky, Derby would have had to be unlucky and I cannot for the life of me think of any way in which they were unlucky.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 3, 2015 18:28:30 GMT
Nomar and Fabs - You don't have to agree but to claim no ability to understand the reasoning why this result might be percieved as lucky is I think an overstatement on both of your parts. Let me give a couple of examples only from the move that led to goal. From the throw in to Hoilett he did not have full control of the ball and it bounced kindly. When Hoilett stumbled his way in from the wing he did not have the ball fully under control. His cross was scuffed and I think more in hope than decisiveness. It fell right at Keogh who made a scuffed clearance. Keogh did not have full control of the ball and his clearance could have gone anywhere. It fell to Bobby and from there luck no longer played a big part. So, if you ascribe to the thought that luck or the abscence of it is purely down to the performance of the teams on the day I think you deny the idea that any action can result in multiple possible outcomes. In my opinion, skill, tactics, great performance or dogged defending only serve to mitigate against a given outcome and only partially dictate its result. In the short move that led to the goal there were several moments when it could have bounced elsewhere but it didn't. I don't think skill solely determined those outcomes. Happenstance affected them in exactly the same way it does a raindrop running down a window. I hope I've explained it in a way that allows you to accept why someone might have looked at the game and come to the conclusion we were lucky. and there's also the fact that we cheated!
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 3, 2015 19:52:38 GMT
Nomar and Fabs - You don't have to agree but to claim no ability to understand the reasoning why this result might be percieved as lucky is I think an overstatement on both of your parts. Let me give a couple of examples only from the move that led to goal. From the throw in to Hoilett he did not have full control of the ball and it bounced kindly. When Hoilett stumbled his way in from the wing he did not have the ball fully under control. His cross was scuffed and I think more in hope than decisiveness. It fell right at Keogh who made a scuffed clearance. Keogh did not have full control of the ball and his clearance could have gone anywhere. It fell to Bobby and from there luck no longer played a big part. So, if you ascribe to the thought that luck or the abscence of it is purely down to the performance of the teams on the day I think you deny the idea that any action can result in multiple possible outcomes. In my opinion, skill, tactics, great performance or dogged defending only serve to mitigate against a given outcome and only partially dictate its result. In the short move that led to the goal there were several moments when it could have bounced elsewhere but it didn't. I don't think skill solely determined those outcomes. Happenstance affected them in exactly the same way it does a raindrop running down a window. I hope I've explained it in a way that allows you to accept why someone might have looked at the game and come to the conclusion we were lucky. and there's also the fact that we cheated! I think you're overthinking it. You make your own luck. Hoilett showed dogged determination and never gave up on getting that ball and putting it into the penalty area. Yes, Keough scuffed the clearance but Zamora had to be there to pick it up and put it past the keeper and into the goal, many strikers would have snatched at that and put it into row z (many do). Of course there are elements of luck involved in every game but to describe that win as "we used up all our luck for the next 20 years" is disingenuous to say the least. And no, we didn't cheat. O'Neill made a professional foul and was suitably punished. We received no advantage out of it (there was no guarantee that Derby would have scored) and we had to play the last half hour with 10 men. Rather a disadvantage, wouldn't you say?
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Sept 3, 2015 21:35:00 GMT
Nomar and Fabs - You don't have to agree but to claim no ability to understand the reasoning why this result might be percieved as lucky is I think an overstatement on both of your parts. Let me give a couple of examples only from the move that led to goal. From the throw in to Hoilett he did not have full control of the ball and it bounced kindly. When Hoilett stumbled his way in from the wing he did not have the ball fully under control. His cross was scuffed and I think more in hope than decisiveness. It fell right at Keogh who made a scuffed clearance. Keogh did not have full control of the ball and his clearance could have gone anywhere. It fell to Bobby and from there luck no longer played a big part. So, if you ascribe to the thought that luck or the abscence of it is purely down to the performance of the teams on the day I think you deny the idea that any action can result in multiple possible outcomes. In my opinion, skill, tactics, great performance or dogged defending only serve to mitigate against a given outcome and only partially dictate its result. In the short move that led to the goal there were several moments when it could have bounced elsewhere but it didn't. I don't think skill solely determined those outcomes. Happenstance affected them in exactly the same way it does a raindrop running down a window. I hope I've explained it in a way that allows you to accept why someone might have looked at the game and come to the conclusion we were lucky. and there's also the fact that we cheated! Thats not the way people see it though. They see it as Derby had all the possession and so deserved to win. You deserve to win a football match if you score a goal and your opponent doesn't. The scoreboard doesn't care how you score a goal or how much possession, shots on or off target or lucky bounces of the ball you had. All it cares about is whether you put the ball in the back of your opponents net and, if you did, how many times you managed it. Few things in football annoy me more than fans (including us) moaning that their team had all the possession/shots on target etc and yet lost. You want to win a game? Then turn that possession into goals.
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Sept 3, 2015 21:39:40 GMT
Nomar and Fabs - You don't have to agree but to claim no ability to understand the reasoning why this result might be percieved as lucky is I think an overstatement on both of your parts. Let me give a couple of examples only from the move that led to goal. From the throw in to Hoilett he did not have full control of the ball and it bounced kindly. When Hoilett stumbled his way in from the wing he did not have the ball fully under control. His cross was scuffed and I think more in hope than decisiveness. It fell right at Keogh who made a scuffed clearance. Keogh did not have full control of the ball and his clearance could have gone anywhere. It fell to Bobby and from there luck no longer played a big part. So, if you ascribe to the thought that luck or the abscence of it is purely down to the performance of the teams on the day I think you deny the idea that any action can result in multiple possible outcomes. In my opinion, skill, tactics, great performance or dogged defending only serve to mitigate against a given outcome and only partially dictate its result. In the short move that led to the goal there were several moments when it could have bounced elsewhere but it didn't. I don't think skill solely determined those outcomes. Happenstance affected them in exactly the same way it does a raindrop running down a window. I hope I've explained it in a way that allows you to accept why someone might have looked at the game and come to the conclusion we were lucky. and there's also the fact that we cheated! I think you're overthinking it. You make your own luck. Hoilett showed dogged determination and never gave up on getting that ball and putting it into the penalty area. Yes, Keough scuffed the clearance but Zamora had to be there to pick it up and put it past the keeper and into the goal, many strikers would have snatched at that and put it into row z (many do). Of course there are elements of luck involved in every game but to describe that win as "we used up all our luck for the next 20 years" is disingenuous to say the least. And no, we didn't cheat. O'Neill made a professional foul and was suitably punished. We received no advantage out of it (there was no guarantee that Derby would have scored) and we had to play the last half hour with 10 men. Rather a disadvantage, wouldn't you say? Indeed, Fabs. Fans also tend to forget that defending is as important a part of the game as attacking. Derby defended absolutely shoddily for our goal. They had several chances to stop that goal happening and conspired to eff up every single one of them. That's nothing to do with luck and everything to do with just being p*ss poor at defending. I said before the game that Derby's defence was a liability and the facts were proved right. Compare that with the way we defended. Dunne's head met pretty much every corner and they had few clear cut chances despite their possessional superiority.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 4, 2015 0:35:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nomar on Sept 4, 2015 6:06:05 GMT
My point was that teams like Sunderland and Villa stay up because they know when to get results that to all intents and purposes they shouldn't get, like beating Chelsea a few seasons back. No one denies that you need luck to win games. My point is that a team that defends well can be given merit for winning games if they stop opponents scoring and go up the other end and take their only goalscoring chance. It doesn't only have to be that they were lucky and their opponent was unlucky.
|
|
kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by kilburnhoop on Sept 4, 2015 11:51:26 GMT
Team not machine. As for luck we are due a shed load after last season I think we used up all our luck for the next 20 years when we won the playoff final! As others have mentioned, i never signed up to the we were lucky at wembley brigade. Exactly how many saves did green make?. Yes there was pressure but we soaked it up and scored on the counter, add the fact we had 10 men. Hate to go over old ground
|
|
kilburnhoop
Dave Sexton
Every Ranger is a danger
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by kilburnhoop on Sept 4, 2015 11:54:45 GMT
My favourite quote regarding rangers and luck: If we didnt have bad luck, we wouldnt have any luck at all.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 4, 2015 12:00:15 GMT
Oh come on, you're taking things out of context. I never said there was no luck involved, just that I disagreed with the insinuation that the whole thing was down to luck only. The "disingenuous" comment was purely to highlight that credit doesn't seem to be given to the other aspects of that day as in the defence, Hoiletts determined run and Zamora's calm finish. To trawl the board to try and use old posts against me is pretty poor form tbh.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 4, 2015 16:06:33 GMT
My point was that teams like Sunderland and Villa stay up because they know when to get results that to all intents and purposes they shouldn't get, like beating Chelsea a few seasons back. No one denies that you need luck to win games. My point is that a team that defends well can be given merit for winning games if they stop opponents scoring and go up the other end and take their only goalscoring chance. It doesn't only have to be that they were lucky and their opponent was unlucky. OK thanks for the clarification Nomar. You said before that you could not understand the reasoning that luck was a factor so we've talked about it and found common ground.
|
|
|
Post by blatantfowl on Sept 4, 2015 16:12:43 GMT
I never said there was no luck involved, just that I disagreed with the insinuation that the whole thing was down to luck only. Au contraire, mon amis. "For us to be lucky, Derby would have had to be unlucky and I cannot for the life of me think of any way in which they were unlucky."
|
|