Brentford(away)predictions

[champs95]

Don't agree in terms of pure luck in its true sense (Cambridge Dictionary: "...the force that causes things to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities"). You can't "make" that. Brentford did nothing to "create" the penalty, unless you can call diving "creative".
I do agree, however, that when confidence is high, more things seem to go your way, Again, though, Champs you are surely going too far in suggesting Bennett MAKES the team more unlucky! As you say, for one of the penalties awarded against him, he was actually already on the floor, and the opposition player deliberately ran into him. It was just as bad a decision as the one on Saturday. So - yes - you CAN call it bad luck! What is the alternative? To argue that if it had been someone other than Bennett, the Huddersfield player wouldn't have done it?
No-one sane is arguing that the team isn't much improved. I am just against you writing players off altogether.
I gather that Buckley struggled a bit on Saturday, in a defensive sense. Several fans on the Telegraph site have said that if we were going to play 4-4-2, it might have been better to have Bennett out wide in his natural position. I don't know because I didn't see the game, but it does demonstrate that not everyone sees EB in the same totally negative light as you.

Again, though, Champs you are surely going too far in suggesting Bennett MAKES the team more unlucky! As you say, for one of the penalties awarded against him, he was actually already on the floor, and the opposition player deliberately ran into him. It was just as bad a decision as the one on Saturday. So - yes - you CAN call it bad luck! What is the alternative? To argue that if it had been someone other than Bennett, the Huddersfield player wouldn't have done it?

Ever since Nyambe has been back in the side, not only have we looked 100 times better, not only have results been proven to have improved ten fold, also no pens given away. I suggest going back to the incident vrs Hudd's. It was soft yes. The fact Bennett let the winger go round him was unbelievably soft. The winger was giving him the run about. You have clearly forgotten that.
Our weak link that day was Bennett. As it was in numerous other games. Not THE Reason we didn't win, but a big factor.
Back at this stage of the season, luck or lack of it was being discussed. Since Nov, since Nyambe has been back in the team, how many times has luck been a factor? How many pens has he given away (Bennett conceeded 3) how many dropped points? Crucially, how many times do you see Nyambe getting the run around from a winger? I'll say it .......never! Not by some ****e Hudd's winger....and certainly not the best winger in the division who we faced on sat, who didn't get past Ryan once.
I don't care what you post in response to this, or what some guy on the LET thinks. And why he thinks playing Bennett right now is a good idea. Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

If we ended up going up with the injuries we have sustained surley Mowbray would get manager of the season.
That would destroy most peoples viewpoint on the LET, therefore not one of them are worth listening to.

[champs95]

Plus it wasnt ever going to be Bennett playing. It was only ever going to be Gallagher or Buckley.

[AucklandRover]

The weird thing is, in every come-back, you write as if I'm arguing that Bennett should be in the team.
I have said, very clearly, at least three times, that I would NOT have him in my starting XI. Nowhere have I argued, either, that Mulgrew and Smallwood should be included. You're putting words into my mouth.
Even Graham, I would only have on the subs-bench. Having said that, if TM decided that a particular opposition line-up might be tested most by a player with Graham's qualities, I wouldn't complain.
You keep missing the point and going to extremes. Even Mowbray said that Buckley found the going tough on Saturday. That's going to happen sometimes with inexperienced players.
My argument all along has been that there isn't a one-case-suits-all scenario in football, which is why I have always supported Mowbray's "horses for courses" approach.
On Wednesday, for example, he might use Joe R-C or Rothwell instead of Buckley.
One last point: I was one of Nyambe's strongest supporters, even when he was going through a bad patch. I was not in favour when he was dropped for a while, to be replaced by Bennett. Whether you like it or not, though, the match-reports and fan-reaction at the time suggested that EB DID provide a bit of extra security in that position for a while, before his own form declined.
Of course, I wouldn't replace Nyambe with Bennett NOW! Where on earth do you think I said that? We have clearly moved on and Nyambe has found, consistently, the form we only saw cropping up irregularly last season.
I will repeat as many times as it's necessary though: Bennett is NOT this Conference-level garbage player you seem determined to present him as.

[champs95]

The weird thing is, in every come-back, you write as if I'm arguing that Bennett should be in the team.
I have said, very clearly, at least three times, that I would NOT have him in my starting XI. Nowhere have I argued, either, that Mulgrew and Smallwood should be included. You're putting words into my mouth.
Even Graham, I would only have on the subs-bench. Having said that, if TM decided that a particular opposition line-up might be tested most by a player with Graham's qualities, I wouldn't complain.
You keep missing the point and going to extremes. Even Mowbray said that Buckley found the going tough on Saturday. That's going to happen sometimes with inexperienced players.
My argument all along has been that there isn't a one-case-suits-all scenario in football, which is why I have always supported Mowbray's "horses for courses" approach.
On Wednesday, for example, he might use Joe R-C or Rothwell instead of Buckley.
One last point: I was one of Nyambe's strongest supporters, even when he was going through a bad patch. I was not in favour when he was dropped for a while, to be replaced by Bennett. Whether you like it or not, though, the match-reports and fan-reaction at the time suggested that EB DID provide a bit of extra security in that position for a while, before his own form declined.
Of course, I wouldn't replace Nyambe with Bennett NOW! Where on earth do you think I said that? We have clearly moved on and Nyambe has found, consistently, the form we only saw cropping up irregularly last season.
I will repeat as many times as it's necessary though: Bennett is NOT this Conference-level garbage player you seem determined to present him as.

Buckley has only made a handful of league starts in his career. Damn right he found it tough. It was a very tough game vrs a a side everyone has raved about. Did he look way out of his depth? I'd say a resounding no. He scored and played well at Charlton. And made a telling contribution winning the pen. And played well. I've never said Bennett is non league. But tell me the last time he played midfield, scored or made a telling contribution and played well in one game? Never mind 2 in a week. If Bennett left in the summer it would likely be a Div2 side picking him up. Nowhere near good enough for us.

[champs95]

Trouble with so many injuries, it can catch up with us. The one who looked like he needed a rest towards the end of Sat game was Travis. Who like Johnson, got through a hell of alot of work. And covered miles. Johnson was excellent first half on Sat. But did fade aswell. Had we gone 3 up he'd have given Davenport minutes I think. I do think he is the next one who will be introduced more & more alongside JRC. Good to have Rothwell back.

[AucklandRover]

I have high hopes for Davenport too.
Johnson is a classic example of how generalisations don't work. In his first month with us, he looked very good. Then he faded very badly - as you were the first to note on here. Suddenly, he is extremely effective again.
The big question is WHY? - but I honestly don't believe there is a straightforward answer to that question.
"Form" is a simple word, but it's actually a very complex and puzzling attribute. This is part-and-parcel of my general reluctance to accept simple "solutions" in football (like "It's all down to the manager"). All too often, fans believe they "know" the answers!
If you look at our players, these same variations in form have happened with most of them.
Evans is the perfect example. It's only a few months since he was finding it hard to get into the team. Many of us concluded he was nearing the end of the road (as with Bennett), but his form just before the injury was a revelation.
All of this is why I am reluctant to write players off, and why I don't always go with, "We must play 'A' because he's younger and represents the future."
As far as I'm concerned, you pick the best combination for a particular match, even if that does involve minor changes from game to game. As things stand, there is absolutely no need to consider changing the back five, but there is definitely an argument for adjusting the attacking options (in a minor way), according to the strengths and qualities of the opposition. This is particularly true because we have so MANY possibilities in the forward positions (and - to some extent - in midfield).
A final word on the Bennett saga: he will continue to be in the match-day squad because he has the versatility to cover many positions in the event of injury.

[robinrover]

The same team for stoke will be ideal.
Stewart downing is my only concern because of being in his twilight years.
Feeling a little uncomfortable about tonight's game,due to the enormous bigging up from our fan base.
Think we have been here before.

[champs95]

I have high hopes for Davenport too.
Johnson is a classic example of how generalisations don't work. In his first month with us, he looked very good. Then he faded very badly - as you were the first to note on here. Suddenly, he is extremely effective again.
The big question is WHY? - but I honestly don't believe there is a straightforward answer to that question.
"Form" is a simple word, but it's actually a very complex and puzzling attribute. This is part-and-parcel of my general reluctance to accept simple "solutions" in football (like "It's all down to the manager"). All too often, fans believe they "know" the answers!
If you look at our players, these same variations in form have happened with most of them.
Evans is the perfect example. It's only a few months since he was finding it hard to get into the team. Many of us concluded he was nearing the end of the road (as with Bennett), but his form just before the injury was a revelation.
All of this is why I am reluctant to write players off, and why I don't always go with, "We must play 'A' because he's younger and represents the future."
As far as I'm concerned, you pick the best combination for a particular match, even if that does involve minor changes from game to game. As things stand, there is absolutely no need to consider changing the back five, but there is definitely an argument for adjusting the attacking options (in a minor way), according to the strengths and qualities of the opposition. This is particularly true because we have so MANY possibilities in the forward positions (and - to some extent - in midfield).
A final word on the Bennett saga: he will continue to be in the match-day squad because he has the versatility to cover many positions in the event of injury.

Good points well made. Hard to argue any of that. I did say the other week, despite my reservations of certain players, everyone now has a part to play. Whether is Bennett, Brereton or Buckley.
Every result fell our way last night. And expectancy is in the air. I prefer it when we have been written off,but if we really want this and it is our time, then we will find a way of winning tonight.
Looking at last night's results, made me relook our remaining fixtures. Are Leeds & West Brom Bristol the tough games? Or is it Luton, Wigan, Barnsley away? Or Stoke tonight who all need points.

[AucklandRover]

Just heard from my cousin. His verdict is that Bristol City were abysmal last night. He says that fans - like him - just don't know which City team is going to turn up. To be fair, two of the defeats in their run of three losses were against the top two, but he reckons they were clueless against Huddersfield. We play them in a fortnight. Let's hope they haven't improved. (He doesn't seem to be keen on a side-bet, this time around!)
I share the worry that too many fans are writing Stoke off. With Luton beating Brentford, anything can happen!

[champs95]

Just heard from my cousin. His verdict is that Bristol City were abysmal last night. He says that fans - like him - just don't know which City team is going to turn up. To be fair, two of the defeats in their run of three losses were against the top two, but he reckons they were clueless against Huddersfield. We play them in a fortnight. Let's hope they haven't improved. (He doesn't seem to be keen on a side-bet, this time around!)
I share the worry that too many fans are writing Stoke off. With Luton beating Brentford, anything can happen!

I just like the fact that say Brentford have now seen us. They know we are probably as good as them, and they faltering. If you are PNE or them, you are nervously looking over your shoulder. Its not about how good you have been over the season, its about form going into the play-offs. Maybe we are peaking too early? Who knows. Tonight will give us more of an insight. As will Saturday.
Personally, I don't think we are feeling the pressure like Brentford are, and our mindset appears to be good. The system is working, individual players are performing well within.
We have somehow managed to get stronger and better, after losing certain key players.
If Dack was still fit, I don't think we would be looking this good. As we would never have found this way of playing, as Dack would not have been dropped. As Greavsie said, its a funny old game!
I am pretty sure we would not be looking this good with some of the so called better players playing.
And at the moment, we are actually seeing who is important and who appeared so, but in reality was holding us back.
Armstrong's pace and eye for a goal, is far more effective than Dack who was far too slow, and could only play well with Danny Graham. Good player, but we were not ever going to go anywhere with that style of attack. We reliled too heavily on both, and the tactic was simply to bully the opposition. Decent sides soon figured out how to stop that, and it only works now in very very small spells in a game, vrs only a few sides. Ie ...we tried it vrs Hull, realised it wasn't working, hooked DG brought Brereton and Samuel on and looked a new team. Other than that, we scrapped this old style of play, that just wasnt working anymore. Again, more by the fact we got forced into it, than we chose to do so. But either way, here we are now. Going into 2 games that could see us in the play-offs. Once we get in, IF we get in, I don't think we will slip back out.
One side always comes out of nowhere, this time it could be us.