[FT] Aberdeen 2 - 1 Rangers (Halliday 79 pen)

[der Berliner 3,744]

Not sure about that as the league will still be long gone. Not entirely sure what your point is either because if we were to embark on a winning run then it would be because we had addressed our current failings (I say "current" but they are pretty historic by now).

 

Also 5-10 is a strange range of number to make your point - with the higher end double the low point - if "5" is enough say 5, if it needs to be "10", then say "10"....or perhaps you mean 7 or 8? It's hard to tell but, in any case, moot, I'd say.

 

Was the league our target this season? When we hardly knew how ou team will perform at Premiership level?

 

The point is quite simply that once you string of wins together, periods like this will be largerly forgotten. Not in terms of points lost, of course, but in terms of putting this or that player under extensive scrutiny, or questioning the manager's tactics and subs. And the numbers - whether 5 or 10 - have no real meaning, as long as it is a run of decent matches. Having 15 points on the trott is good, getting 30 is even better.

 

jhunter

yes they will

 

we've been humiliated in the derby and thrown away a chance at a Cup and Europe.

 

And this did not happen before? Has that taken up your every (other) thought half a year if not years on? Do you still have nightmares about the "smash'n grab" Challenge Cup Final against Raith? The 2-6 against the Hooped Horrors et al? The Cup Final 2016 is consigned t history and will be remembered not for Hibs first trophy in 114 years, but a shameful pitch invasion. One can dwell on that or the OF defeat and project a gloomy picture till kingdom come. But we all have seen similar before and - as I said before - it is always amazing how people cast that aside and dwell on all the negatives of the here and now and seem to think it will never change. You need not to be optimistic, but one does not need to pretend that nothing will change. Football never worked like that.

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

Were we watching a different game to big Eck and Neil McCann because they both said that apart from a par flurries Aberdeen dominated most of the match. I was too sick(scunnered) to watch the whole analysis but they repeated it a few times in the short time I listened.

 

Not the game I watched. Aberdeen defended well, to be fair. But they had too.

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,752]

Were we watching a different game to big Eck and Neil McCann because they both said that apart from a par flurries Aberdeen dominated most of the match. I was too sick(scunnered) to watch the whole analysis but they repeated it a few times in the short time I listened.

 

Did they actually say that? TBH I stopped listening to what Alex McLeish has to say about football a long time ago.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

We looked the home side, we done most of the attacking, Aberdeen sat back a lot of the game and caught us on the break for their two goals.

 

I don't like when we sit back, we paid the price for that against the tims, however if we could learn to move the ball that bit quicker, especially hitting it over defenders for MOH to get on to (remember him scoring a good hat trick against us doing exactly that with St Johnstone) would add something to our repertoire.

[ranger_syntax 4,322]

Aha. Now, what would you change? Repeating the obvious doesn't help. We've got 11 new players (of whom hardly half have played for any extended period of time), injuries to our defenders, all facts as well. I'd have my doubts that our players don't train hard and don't hit the net in training either, but on the field of play - right now - they seem to lack (including luck). I doubt they lack ability. At least for this league. Else we would not be dominating matches.

 

I've highlighted some sort of hilarious attempt at trolling.

 

I'm ignoring the majority of this meandering nonsense.

 

Matches are dominated by goals.

[pete 2,499]

I've highlighted some sort of hilarious attempt at trolling.

 

I'm ignoring the majority of this meandering nonsense.

 

Matches are dominated by goals.

 

No they're not, Matches are won with goals but the team with the most goals have not necessarily dominated the match.

[JFK-1 1,693]

Were we watching a different game to big Eck and Neil McCann because they both said that apart from a par flurries Aberdeen dominated most of the match. I was too sick(scunnered) to watch the whole analysis but they repeated it a few times in the short time I listened.

 

Strange thing for either of them to say. How a team can 'dominate' with 40% of the possession fewer shots at goal and half as many corners is a mystery.

.

[calscot 0]

They won with a one in a hundred free kick, which may not even have been a foul in the first place. Their other goal was a schoolboy error by the defence after a hoof up the park, rather than reward for dominating play. There is no description of football in where they can say Aberdeen were dominant, it's literally nonsense - or just being so biased and bitter that they can't stop putting out mistruths.

 

Aberdeen were never in control of the game at any point. I can't even remember a dominant 5 minute spell.

 

We, on the other hand, dominated possession, just watching it that gave the impression and the stats (however accurate they are) bear out this impression.

 

We also had more territory, more attacks and more corners.

 

Our build up play was a lot more controlled and we dominated for spells.

 

However, our effectiveness in attack was poor and some of our defending dreadful. At the same time, their effectiveness in attack wasn't exactly good either, although maybe they created some better chances. Their defending in the end was slightly better by putting high numbers in the box, but that's not dominating.

 

But the only place where they were measurably better was two goals to one. None of the three goals were much to write home about in a tactical sense, although I'd say the penalty came from a lot of dominating the possession and territory.

[JFK-1 1,693]

Aberdeen were never in control of the game at any point. I can't even remember a dominant 5 minute spell.

 

Baffling isn't it and especially so from McCann who I wouldn't see as having any bias against us and as you say they didn't even have a dominant 5 minutes. The best they ever had were sporadic attempts to get into our territory which were ultimately broken up then the game returned to Rangers dominance.

 

I would bet that if exactly the same game had played out the only difference being that both Garner and Waghorn had netted with their open goal chances rather than skying them over the bar and we had won 3-2 that they wouldn't be saying that. It would have been a dominant victory with the sheep lucky to finish it within a goal of us due to a foul that never was.

[ranger_syntax 4,322]

No they're not, Matches are won with goals but the team with the most goals have not necessarily dominated the match.

 

If you want to say 'dominated' as some sort of shorthand for 'had more possession', 'had more shots' or 'spent the match in the opponent's half' then fine.

 

I don't know why you don't just say what you really mean.