Hull City 2-0 Watford FC - 22/04/2017

You didn't read a single word, but just had a wild guess. Yes, of course you did. I thought I was on your Ignore List, so that's probably why you didn't read it. Now I understand.

So you think someone is a thick **** if they talk about relegation, yet you're called Relegation Certs!! You're probably a bit dim to notice the irony there.

 

Exactly... so perhaps he will be gone!

 

Some good points. I believe we'll probably stay up, but to not acknowledge there is a risk we could be dragged in is a mistake.

The thing is, it's difficult to sign good technical players that are highly motived. When you're a club like Watford some of these qualities will be missing in players that we sign.

What you have to try and do, is sign good technical players but create something for them to buy into. We've just been allowed to drift for far too long. There is just nothing going on. It's more than just being inconsistent.

Is everyone on the pitch pulling in the right direction? Are Watford a team that you can believe in?

Mazzarri is good at throwing his hands up in frustration, but this is all I see him do. He gives the impression that it really matters to him, and he really cares, so why is that rarely reflected by his team?

I think it's just all for show. His apparent frustrations or "passion" never transmits to the team.

 

Before you reach for the tar and feathers this is a question NOT a statement.

Do you think there is a possibility that there has been a problem in the past few seasons with some players rather than the manager. Could there be a ring leader who continually undermines the manager?

It has happened before. Cliff Holton and trainer Pat Molloy pretty well ran the team sidelining mgr Ron Burgess. Luckily that actually worked out well.

 

The key question must be, who was the woman doing the translating yesterday on MOTD for Mazzari instead of the usual bloke? His wife? Don't tell me, our translator/player liaison officer has packed it in as well as the players.

 

I'm certain there is a core group who are responsible for it. Ever since the promotion season where the players had to take charge in the absence of effective management they've not relinquished the role behind the scenes.

 

I think a good manager sorts out any dressing room issues from day one. It's a fundamental thing to do. The head coach HAS to be the boss, or else it will end in failure.

At Watford you have to get Deeney on board and the rest will fall into line. That's my reading of it.

I do not see how there can be any connection between the head coach and club captain, other than professional courtesy. This will always be a problem.

From the outside I do not see a togetherness. Certainly there is nothing like the togetherness you get at clubs like Burnley or Bournemouth.

It's vital that players and coaches are all in it together. Without that......well I think you've witnesses the season, and how it looks.

 

Poor old HB1. Nobody is giving him the attention he craves this week. Good to see.

 

The only good thing about a rubbish performance is that people like you go into hiding. This is why it's quieter. I've been posting as much as usual after a match, it's just this time the jerks are not around to argue about it.

 

Burnley 0 Man U 2. Burnley shots on target - zero. Just saying. Very together though.

 

Notice you've gone quiet on the Bournemouth example though. Just saying.

 

Can't be that important if we're comfortably safe and above the two clubs you've mentioned.

 

Now you've gone and done it!

 

Ron I would say "yes" and it's called modern football.

Players have the power and influence now,witness Chelsea last season and Leicester this.

It would seem that we have our fair share of chiefs rather than indians.Perhaps, as someone posted earlier, that is WM's brief;to weed out the bad apples and shape the team in his image?

On the other hand,let's hope they are not a mirror image as our cigarette expenditure will be on fire,so to speak!

 

I am angry that Tony Blair isn't in jail. Mazzarri is just an annoyance relative to him.

 

The point is, maybe we're just another middling PL side. Bournemouth have been crap in several games recently. Stoke yesterday - on the beach. Not trying to defend our performance yesterday, or at Palace, or a few others.

Seems to me there are two courses open to teams of our size and drawing power.
1 - go for 'willing cloggers' like Burnley, West Brom, grind out results through resolve, sweat and grit.
2-go for more technical players, and get questions over application and committment.

If Niang had better attitude and application and consistency, he wouldn't be here. Same with Success. If Amrabat had end product to go with his endeavour, he wouldn't be here. If Deeney were a better footballer, he wouldn't be here.

It strikes me you see the best in every other team and the worst in Watford. Which is why you get stick.

 

Palace are currently winning at Liverpool, a place where we lost 6-1.

If I believe what I read on here, it should be the other away around.

Palace are apparently terrible, yet are clawing their way up the league, winning at places like Chelsea and Liverpool. Other sides are pulling out results too.

I wonder how we'll do against Liverpool on Bank Holiday.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that certain players are not playing to their abilities due to the Head Coach - either because they don't understand what they're supposed to be doing or because they want him out

It pains me to say it as I truly want consistency but can't see Walt coaching these players next season....but I can't call if that means he will go, he will stay but the troublemakers will go or both will happen

 

You've hit the nail on the head, HB.

 

And Palace didn't have a shot on target against us at home. Ergo WFC > LFC. Look forward to May 1.

edit. Liverpool have been poor.

 

If you don't bother to read the post you're quoting from, don't bother to post.

 

HB1 - you moan that nobody is worried we could still go down. You are correct it is mathematically possible. For us to go down we have to lose all five matches. Results for every other team have to go right - some are playing each other but let's suppose all bar Swansea are safe. For Swansea to overtake us they effectively have to win all four matches. Let's pretend that there is a 50-50 chance of a win or defeat in each match - there is not but it makes the maths easier. So 9 results have to go against us.At 50-50 the odds of that are 512:1. It means we would be relegated mathematically one time in 512 years. I am sorry but I am not going to lose any sleep over that.

Why not accept what the rest of us have - we have survived another year. Then we can discuss how we think we should approach a new year.

 

You hero!

 

We lost 6-1 to a totally different Liverpool side - if not on paper then in mind. They were at the peak of their powers when we went there.

And I think we'll turn them over on 1 May under the lights.

 

I'd say a clear indication that we have progressed in playing terms, rather than team fitness or corresponding points that may (or may not) have been lost directly as a result of them, is that many of the games we have lost we were spending significant periods controlling the game, which to my memory seldom seemed to happen under Quique.

With Walter, we spend much of the game acieving what he wants as a team, but lose concentration and let it slip, on the occasions when we do not win.

With Quique, He'd start the game with a plan, and, to no ones surprise it would not work out, then we'd revert to a more attacking game, usually chasing the other side, with a team set up and trained to defend, spending very little time actually controlling things.

Suggests to me that what Walter needs is either to get in better players, get more out of the ones he's got, or, if he can't do that, FRO.

 

I've said we are probably ok, but we're not as safe as many are making out. It's nowhere near a done deal right now.

I personally think we will lose all remaining games, and yesterday's performance has done nothing to change my mind. After West Ham I predicted we'd lose 9 of the last 12. The three games we won are the three I stated were the ones we HAD to win, which fortunately we did.

So I don't think I'm a really bad judge of a situation, as most of my forecasts have come true.

Looks like the team has accepted we are safe, as have most of the forum. It's very dangerous to think like that, when it's not all that ridiculous to see how well other teams are doing, and how bad we are.

But this sort of debate can only ever be resolved by the passing of time.

 

I think you have a more realistic view of us than many on here give you credit. However the chances of relegation are so slim at over 500-1 that I really think it is sensible to ignore it. It sort of is a done deal - all but mathematically. Swansea have averaged less than a point a game this year and they are not suddenly going to win four on the bounce - including away to Man U.

 

I'm not angry. At the start of the last 2 seasons I've wondered if we would stay up or go down. On both occasions we have stayed up. At the beginning of next season I expect I will be thinking the same. Its a tough league. And we are not a big club.

 

Bottom line is if Swansea lose at Man Utd next Sunday we are safe.

 

I agree, there's a strong probability we'll be ok, but say they won the other three, and I believe they are capable of that, then goal difference will come into play.

They are minus 29 and we are minus 17. That's a 12 goal swing, which could well happen, if we lose all our remaining games and they win 3 of their 4 matches. If they lose at United I'll be hoping it will be a heavy defeat just to ensure GD will not become a factor.

United have drawn a lot of games at old Trafford though. They have drawn with Everton, West Brom, Bournemouth, Hull, Liverpool, West Ham, Arsenal, Burnley & Stoke. You can see, a lot of minor teams have gone there and taken a point. It's not impossible to think that Swansea could get a result. Their remaining games after that are Everton (h ), Sunderland (a ) and West Brom (h ).

Hull City's run-in is equally encouraging for them. Southampton (a ), Sunderland (h ), Palace ( a) and Spurs (h ). I can see them picking up 7 points from that lot.

Looking at the run-in's of all clubs around us, I think Stoke could be in a bit of trouble and also West Ham. Palace have done incredibly well to get the results they did, such as beating Chelsea and Liverpool away and Arsenal at home. They still have some tough fixtures though such as Spurs at home, Man City and Man Utd away.

West Ham have some tough games as well.

I can see both Swansea and Hull having good runs, and teams like Watford, Stoke, Palace and West Ham all having something to play for on the final day.

As many as 6 clubs could be involved in the relegation battle on the final day.

Even Leicester could be still in it. They have both Arsenal and Man City to play away.

 

Well that was awful wasn't it? Feel sorry for anyone that actually travelled all the way up there, our record away has been atrocious since November - W1 D1 L9.

Walter should've taken advantage of the situation when they went down to 10 men, but even before that we were pretty poor, as were Hull. The players looked like they didn't give a **** either and looked like they were already on their Summer holidays, which doesn't help. Both Walter and the players were to blame for that one.

Regardless of our away form, I'm still looking forward to Leicester away.

 

I know this is a main reason for you not wanting to change the head coach again as you feel that will just let the "bad apples" get another season before they get found out by the coach. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am intrigued who you think they are.

 

We are chronically poor in front of goal. We need way too many relatively easy chances to actually convert one & mid table teams will just not create that many during a game in the Prem, no matter who the opposition. We did not have a shot on target versus Hull at home, but we had 23 attempts. I would suggest just about any other Prem side would score at least 2 with that volume of efforts...even Sunderland & Boro. Unfortunately, it is WM's Italian DNA to assume that highly paid Prem players, no matter their position, will be able to convert at least one of the straightforward chances we had on Saturday before Hull scored.
Lets not forget that their first goal came when we had over-committed from a corner, so it's not all down to ultra-defensive tactics.

I think WM expects the players to be able to play at a controlled tempo, score an acceptable % of the fairly easy chances that come their way, and not make too many defensive rickets. The fact that they are not managing that may well be down to the fact that they really are not as good as some would like to imply, which is why they're at Watford, after all.

Do we actually have the players to play a more "harum-scarum" style without running the risk of conceding high numbers of goals against many more teams. I doubt it, so steady-deadly-dull is how it'll be.