Scottish Cup: The Pars v The Wee Team

[Digs]

3 hours ago, parsforlife said:

We haven't been the better team in either league game,  we lost both and neither were by ridiculous bad luck nor farcical refereeing decisions.  

We may have done some things better than them,  but football is entirely about putting the ball in the net more than your opponents and they have done that better than us.

They certainly aren't good enough we should be concerned about them, beating them is more than within our capabilities. But they aren't a point per game better off than us by accident either.

We lost because we couldn't turn pressure and chances that we created into goals (far more than them) and they took the 3 they had over the course of the two games. That's it, that's all the difference was. Obviously, goals are what count, but scoring most goals doesn't necessarily make you the better team, and it's obtuse to say otherwise. In terms of performance, we absolutely were the better team. In my opinion. Just the same as it's only yours that we weren't. 

[parsforlife]

37 minutes ago, Digs said:

We lost because we couldn't turn pressure and chances that we created into goals (far more than them) and they took the 3 they had over the course of the two games. That's it, that's all the difference was. Obviously, goals are what count, but scoring most goals doesn't necessarily make you the better team, and it's obtuse to say otherwise. 

🤣 what a ridiculous thing to say.  Turning pressure and chances into goals is an essential part of a good performance, you can’t ignore it and say because you failed in that department but did better in others then they outweigh that.  

The better team wins the vast majority of times and the rare time they don’t is due to factors outwith either team, failure to finish chances isn’t covered by that.

Claims over being the better team due to chances is dangerously close to Mcglynn like corner counts.

I do agree the margins are small and there’s not a huge amount we need to turn around, but there are some and we can’t go claiming to have played better until we do that

Edited November 21, 2023 by parsforlife

[Digs]

57 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

🤣 what a ridiculous thing to say.  Turning pressure and chances into goals is an essential part of a good performance, you can’t ignore it and say because you failed in that department but did better in others then they outweigh that.  

The better team wins the vast majority of times and the rare time they don’t is due to factors outwith either team, failure to finish chances isn’t covered by that.

Claims over being the better team due to chances is dangerously close to Mcglynn like corner counts.

I do agree the margins are small and there’s not a huge amount we need to turn around, but there are some and we can’t go claiming to have played better until we do that

I often wonder if you just deliberately misinterpret what folk say for an argument so you can post condescendingly about why they’re wrong…why can’t you just give an opposing view? 

If you think that you can’t objectively look at an overall performance whilst saying it is only a better performance based on goals scored, then I’m not sure I can say any more here. That’s such a myopic view as it’s only focused on one thing which isn’t what looking at a performance as a whole is all about. 

We’re talking about the overall performance of how the team played. Did they create lots of chances? Yes. Did they take the chances? No. Did they do much else wrong? Also no. Did Rovers create more chances than we did? No. Did they defend slightly better? Questionable as the keeper played well in both games (albeit that’s his job as an individual)

If you’re saying they didn’t do much wrong whilst admitting the opposition allowed us to create way more chances than they did, it’s a logical conclusion, that OVERALL, ie not just in terms of the result, that we were the better team. 

It’s fairly common for a team to play well and take nothing, and able to feel that they were a bit unlucky. Does that mean they did everything right? Obviously not, they didn’t score but that’s not what I said and wasn’t the point being made. 

Can we do better? Absolutely. Should we have done better in those games to win them? Also yes. That doesn’t mean Rovers were the better team, that’s just clearly not true. I never said we got robbed, just that we didn’t take what was deserved and the Rovers got more than their play merited, as they have in several games this season, not just against us. 

Saying this is akin to McGlynn’s corner nonsense is just clearly an attempt at a bite. I’d like to give you more credit than to think you believe that nonsense.

[kelty_par]

Looking like could be a poor crowd, I’d be surprised if we are over 5,000 on the night 

[scottyboy]

I think it fair to say Raith are a better team than us just now. They will be favourites and rightly so. They've won double what we have and are 12 points ahead of us. Saying that, it wouldn't be a shock if we turn them over.

[parsforlife]

4 hours ago, Digs said:

I often wonder if you just deliberately misinterpret what folk say for an argument so you can post condescendingly about why they’re wrong…why can’t you just give an opposing view? 

If you think that you can’t objectively look at an overall performance whilst saying it is only a better performance based on goals scored, then I’m not sure I can say any more here. That’s such a myopic view as it’s only focused on one thing which isn’t what looking at a performance as a whole is all about. 

We’re talking about the overall performance of how the team played. Did they create lots of chances? Yes. Did they take the chances? No. Did they do much else wrong? Also no. Did Rovers create more chances than we did? No. Did they defend slightly better? Questionable as the keeper played well in both games (albeit that’s his job as an individual)

If you’re saying they didn’t do much wrong whilst admitting the opposition allowed us to create way more chances than they did, it’s a logical conclusion, that OVERALL, ie not just in terms of the result, that we were the better team. 

It’s fairly common for a team to play well and take nothing, and able to feel that they were a bit unlucky. Does that mean they did everything right? Obviously not, they didn’t score but that’s not what I said and wasn’t the point being made. 

Can we do better? Absolutely. Should we have done better in those games to win them? Also yes. That doesn’t mean Rovers were the better team, that’s just clearly not true. I never said we got robbed, just that we didn’t take what was deserved and the Rovers got more than their play merited, as they have in several games this season, not just against us. 

Saying this is akin to McGlynn’s corner nonsense is just clearly an attempt at a bite. I’d like to give you more credit than to think you believe that nonsense.

First point, you are thinking way to much about my posts if that’s the case, I’ve got no desire to do that. People have their own opinions I have mine, and if I see someone’s opinion that I feel is worth comment on then I’ll do so, just as I am happy for anyone to comment on mine. We’re posting them out into public view and should invite debate as part of that. 

secondly, you keep on repeating overall as if performances aren’t judged on that, they are and the sum of those is results, I’m not saying you can’t break them down, you can and judge certain elements and look at where to improve, or areas where you think you can put out perform them in future and use that to take results.   But it’s not a tick box exercise where you say we outperformed them in x areas compared to Y, each area has weighting towards the overall judgment.

It maybe common for teams to feel unlucky but it’s something that happens way to often, you hear things like he was unlucky there for a shot that goes narrowly wide for example, that’s nothing to do with luck, it’s physics.  And it’s certainly not anything to do with luck if a keeper makes a worldly save to stop you, even if he does it 10 times, he has just bettered you.

Small thing which I think you acknowledge and isn’t directly what you said but it plays on an idea that keepers performance is somehow separate from that of a team and that’s I absolutely ****ing hate. They aren’t assigned on a random basis, they’re as part of everything as much as any outfield player.  You hear nonsense such as they should have lost but the keeper played well but you rarely/never here a team dismissed as undeserving of a win cos they were lucky the striker got a hat-tick

Edited November 21, 2023 by parsforlife

[da_no_1]

Christ, if you were at Starks Park a few weeks ago as a Pars fan and left the ground thinking we got what we deserved then I really worry about you.

I've had numerous level-headed Raith pals tell me since that they were extremely fortunate to win the game, one even said sorry! (He got told to fork off to be fair...)

As someone says above they ARE a better team than us just now (as the table shows) but not by much & we've more than competed with them 3 times this season. 

Edited November 22, 2023 by da_no_1

[Digs]

11 hours ago, parsforlife said:

Small thing which I think you acknowledge and isn’t directly what you said but it plays on an idea that keepers performance is somehow separate from that of a team and that’s I absolutely ****ing hate. They aren’t assigned on a random basis, they’re as part of everything as much as any outfield player.  You hear nonsense such as they should have lost but the keeper played well but you rarely/never here a team dismissed as undeserving of a win cos they were lucky the striker got a hat-tick

I hate it too which is why I said, "albeit that is his job". He is separate though, it's a specialist position, a singular position unlike that of midfield or defence where one player can have an off day and his part of the team can still do well. If a keeper does that, more often than not, it's a goal.

The point is again, about the overall performance and this relates to how they played, ie they were clearly second best in midfield and at the back if we created more chances than they did and if not for their goalkeeper doing what he is supposed to well to make up for that, the result would have been different so they have him to thank for that. A team can be atrocious and yet still get a result due to their keeper having a worldie, just like a striker can get them out of bother with a goal. 

[Secure Par]

I have a good feeling about this game tbh. 2-0 and onto the next round of the cup!

[the saline hill puma]

14 hours ago, kelty_par said:

Looking like could be a poor crowd, I’d be surprised if we are over 5,000 on the night 

I think it will be over 5000, most folk will just buy tickets on the day.

[da_no_1]

Over 5000 for a Friday night game live on TV isn't a poor crowd IMO. There are more than a few top-flight clubs who'd bite your hand off for that.

[Digs]

2 hours ago, the saline hill puma said:

I think it will be over 5000, most folk will just buy tickets on the day.

There's going to need to be a lot of them, there was only 2500 sold total as of yesterday afternoon.

[Superally]

I was in the club shop today which was reasonably busy. The excellent Dave Lamming tells me tickets are selling well and usually for a TV fixture there is a fall off of 500-600 in foot fall. I reckon 4.5-5k for a crowd  

[da_no_1]

Raith news.....Byrne unavailable for selection and Murray suspended 

[Superally]

McKay say the squad will be similar to last week. Summers will be 50-50, and Breen and Bene are longer term.