Match Thread Sheffield Wednesday (2 Viewers)

Frostie

Well-Known Member
Fair. I was thinking two up top but with Biamou a bit fucked I've gone with a form of 4-3-3.

Maroši

Dabo Østigård Hyam McCallum

James Hamer Sheaf

O'Hare Allen
Gyökeres

My worries with a back 4 are we'd likely end up losing all attacking width offered by Dabo & McCallum & they're not as good defensively as they are when on the front foot.
Hyam likely even more exposed in a 4 as well.

I know my team has the risk with young Thompson but he's clearly forced his way ahead of Pask & Drysdale & with Robins giving him a few minutes the other evening I think he's priming him to start.
 

cc84cov

Well-Known Member
My worries with a back 4 are we'd likely end up losing all attacking width offered by Dabo & McCallum & they're not as good defensively as they are when on the front foot.
Hyam likely even more exposed in a 4 as well.

I know my team has the risk with young Thompson but he's clearly forced his way ahead of Pask & Drysdale & with Robins giving him a few minutes the other evening I think he's priming him to start.
Why do we need full backs to attack ? We can’t score from crosses anyway 🤣
 

cc84cov

Well-Known Member
It's not just about attacking & crosses, without the outlet we'd end up with literally every man behind the ball. Wednesday have some decent width too & I'd worry about Dabo & McCallum permanently defending for 90 minutes.
Play 3 CDM - Hamer sheaf and James let them bomb on if we get caught high the CDM can drop in maybe ? How do you see us lining up ?
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
My worries with a back 4 are we'd likely end up losing all attacking width offered by Dabo & McCallum & they're not as good defensively as they are when on the front foot.
Hyam likely even more exposed in a 4 as well.

I know my team has the risk with young Thompson but he's clearly forced his way ahead of Pask & Drysdale & with Robins giving him a few minutes the other evening I think he's priming him to start.

I totally agree regarding the width. Part of the reason I have gone with a back four is because we never seem to use that width to our advantage. I would dread to think how much of an asset Dabo would be in a good team, but I think we need to change it up.
 

Frostie

Well-Known Member
Play 3 CDM - Hamer sheaf and James let them bomb on if we get caught high the CDM can drop in maybe ? How do you see us lining up ?

That isn't going to stop crosses coming in on or attacks from wide which Wednesday are decent at. As good as James & Sheaf are they aren't the most mobile to be covering for the full backs as well as screening the CBs.

I'd be looking at something like:

Maroši (if he's ready)

Dabo Thompson Østigård Hyam McCallum

James Hamer Sheaf

O'Hare

Gyökeres
 
Last edited:

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
They've started Reach and Bannan v Everton (will watch hoping for injuries) and their fans are concerned about the absence of liam Shaw (injured or out of squad as he won't sign a new contract) Hopefully they pick up loads of knocks tonight.
 

shepardo01

Well-Known Member
They are moving the ball/have moved the ball well, so much more movement than when we played them a few weeks back (Pulis-ball).
Playing with energy too. (Hopefully will feel it in their legs come Wednesday!)
Going to be another very tough encounter.
 

cc84cov

Well-Known Member
They are moving the ball/have moved the ball well, so much more movement than when we played them a few weeks back (Pulis-ball).
Playing with energy too. (Hopefully will feel it in their legs come Wednesday!)
Going to be another very tough encounter.
We should of beat them,they made changes to go and win the game robins waited till it was too late...I still
Think we can beat them I just don’t hope the new striker can do the bizz for us
 

Frostie

Well-Known Member
We should of beat them,they made changes to go and win the game robins waited till it was too late...I still
Think we can beat them I just don’t hope the new striker can do the bizz for us

In what way did they make changes to win the game?
 

Sky Blue Harry H

Well-Known Member
They are moving the ball/have moved the ball well, so much more movement than when we played them a few weeks back (Pulis-ball).
Playing with energy too. (Hopefully will feel it in their legs come Wednesday!)
Going to be another very tough encounter.
Agreed - but Everton's pitch was a lot better. Will be tacky again on Wednesday, so expecting a war of attrition.
 

Frostie

Well-Known Member
We don’t see them often but - substitutions Tony pulls made positive subs

He made 1 sub, 2 mins before the goal because their teenage midfielder was knackered, didn't change system/tactics or anything.
The goal came because we gave away a needless free kick & defended it badly, we were well on top at that point.

In fact the player that came on (Jordan Rhodes) hadn't even touched the ball by the time they scored & only took 7 touches in the match, no shots, 50% pass success.

"Changed the game" 🙄
 

SleepyGinger

Well-Known Member
If we’re sticking with the back 5 I’d like to see mccallum at left centre half and Giles infront of him. FWIW id stick with the formation, absolutely played milwall off the park the game before last.

Wilson
dabo Osti Hyam mccallum Giles
James hamer
Ohare shipley
Gyokores
 

cc84cov

Well-Known Member
He made 1 sub, 2 mins before the goal because their teenage midfielder was knackered, didn't change system/tactics or anything.
The goal came because we gave away a needless free kick & defended it badly, we were well on top at that point.

In fact the player that came on (Jordan Rhodes) hadn't even touched the ball by the time they scored & only took 7 touches in the match, no shots, 50% pass success.

"Changed the game" 🙄
They scored after he made changes tho is that right ?
 

stevefloyd

Well-Known Member
The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.

Clear as mud!
 

matesx

Well-Known Member
The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.

Clear as mud!

That hurt my brain
 

stevefloyd

Well-Known Member
That hurt my brain
Maybe this is better....hmmmm


Correlation is a statistical technique which tells us how strongly the pair of variables are linearly related and change together. It does not tell us why and how behind the relationship but it just says the relationship exists.

Example: Correlation between Ice cream sales and sunglasses sold.

As the sales of ice creams is increasing so do the sales of sunglasses.

Causation takes a step further than correlation. It says any change in the value of one variable will cause a change in the value of another variable, which means one variable makes other to happen. It is also referred as cause and effect.


Example: When a person is exercising then the amount of calories burning goes up every minute. Former is causing latter to happen.

So now we know what correlation and causation is, it’s time to understand “Correlation does not imply causation!” with a famous example.

Ice cream sales is correlated with homicides in New York (Study)

As the sales of ice cream rise and fall, so do the number of homicides. Does the consumption of ice cream causing the death of the people?

No. Two things are correlated doesn’t mean one causes other.

Correlation does not mean causality or in our example, ice cream is not causing the death of people.


When 2 unrelated things tied together, so these can be either bound by causality or correlation.

In Majority of the cases correlation, are just because of the coincidences. Just because it seems like one factor is influencing the other, it doesn’t mean that it’s actually does.

Correlation is something which we think, when we can’t see under the covers. So the less the information we have the more we are forced to observe correlations. Similarly the more information we have the more transparent things will become and the more we will be able to see the actual casual relationships.

Consider underlying factors before conclusion
In some cases there are some hidden factors which are related on some level. Like in our example of ice cream sales and homicide rates , weather is the hidden factor which is causing both the things.Weather is actually causing the rise in ice cream sales and homicides. As in summer people usually go out, enjoy nice sunny day and chill themselves with ice creams. So when it’s sunny, wide range of people are outside and there is a wider selection of victims for predators.

So I guess don't eat ice cream ....just in case !!
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
I think either Dacosta and move Østigård inside, or McCallum and move Hyam to the right. That would mean dropping Sheaf out and even if you don’t start him he’s needed to come on for James later on.
The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.

Clear as mud!

All serial killers ate food before they killed. This does not mean eating food makes you a serial killer. Just because the two things happen at the same time (correlation) doesn’t mean one made the other happen (causation).

See also how global warming has increased as the number of pirates has decreased. Doesn’t mean the answer to climate change is training more pirates.
 

oakey

Well-Known Member
I think either Dacosta and move Østigård inside, or McCallum and move Hyam to the right. That would mean dropping Sheaf out and even if you don’t start him he’s needed to come on for James later on.


All serial killers ate food before they killed. This does not mean eating food makes you a serial killer. Just because the two things happen at the same time (correlation) doesn’t mean one made the other happen (causation).

See also how global warming has increased as the number of pirates has decreased. Doesn’t mean the answer to climate change is training more pirates.

Unless they ate cereal?
Sorry, I blame lockdown!
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
Marosi

Dabo
Ostigard
Hyam
Mccallum

Hamer
Sheaf

Shipley
O’hare
Giles

Gyokeres

Forced to play Shipley wide right really. I think Gyokeres can play out there but I’d rather go with Shipley over Max.

If Marosi is unavailable it has to be Camp now surely.

No doubt James will prove a good signing but Sheaf didn’t deserve to be dropped and a 3-0 loss without him just strengthens his case.

I'd go Allen ahead of Shipley right now.

So even though Giles has gone back bring in James for him and Shipley still doesn't make that team for me.
 

johnwillomagic

Well-Known Member
Right with Giles out I am going to have to rethink things - 4-4-2 definitely gone......think I'd like us to play 4-3-1-2 now,

Wilson (think Marosi needs more game time).

Dabo Osti Hyam McCallum

Hamer James Sheaf

O'Hare

Gyokeres Baka/Biamou

Subs: Camp, Pask, DaCosta, Allen, Shipley, Kastaneer, Baka/Biamou, Bapaga,
 

robbiekeane

Well-Known Member
The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" refers to the inability to legitimately deduce a cause-and-effect relationship between two events or variables solely on the basis of an observed association or correlation between them.

Clear as mud!
I think either Dacosta and move Østigård inside, or McCallum and move Hyam to the right. That would mean dropping Sheaf out and even if you don’t start him he’s needed to come on for James later on.


All serial killers ate food before they killed. This does not mean eating food makes you a serial killer. Just because the two things happen at the same time (correlation) doesn’t mean one made the other happen (causation).

See also how global warming has increased as the number of pirates has decreased. Doesn’t mean the answer to climate change is training more pirates.
Another fave of my economics lecturer used to use is the number of streetlamps in the UK and US GDP.

Something like 99.99% correlation but obviously adding more streetlamps in the UK will not make the US economy grow lol

For further reading please see Omitted Variable Bias
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top