Real Madrid

[JamDav1982]

Key word - hypothetical.

In the same way that you believe that if they went down a goal, based on how they played, they’d have brought it back to win. Your opinion, not fact.

Realistically if they go down a goal, why would they play the same as they did if they didn’t concede? You believe a goal against them wouldn’t have an effect and change the way they play? Like I said in original post, when Madrid go down nowadays they don’t come back the same as they used to.

No but you are claiming the post and then the offside goal means it was almost 2-0.

The offside goal doesnt happen if that first goal goes in and it ignores the chances Real had prior to that as well.

Could hypothetically make up and number... Valencia could score 5 and Real wont come back.

 

[El Gato]

Realistically if they go down a goal, why would they play the same as they did if they didn?t concede? You believe a goal against them wouldn?t have an effect and change the way they play? Like I said in original post, when Madrid go down nowadays they don?t come back the same as they used to.

Not entirely what it is, but kind of. Madrid right now struggle most when they find it laborious to score, do so after suffering a large part of the game, and then somehow, either by lapse of concentration or some freak accident/golazo, concede undoing all their earlier effort.
If they concede first they're still pretty OK trying to pull off remontadas (i.e. Brugge, Celta or Osasuna in Feb, Valencia pre-Dec Clasico, Villarreal, even Betis before Benzema fucked us). Last season was far worse for it, but with Zidane it's very different.

D never making a mistake is a minimum these days with how structureless our attack is, but that's not to say we are slated to lose points if we concede first. Fightback effect is as strong as it has ever been under Zidane, only lacking skill.

So I don't think it'd make much of a difference if they went 0-1 down. Maybe. But would actually be worse if having led the game, they equalised.

 

[Vilarrubi]

No but you are claiming the post and then the offside goal means it was almost 2-0.

The offside goal doesnt happen if that first goal goes in and it ignores the chances Real had prior to that as well.

Could hypothetically make up and number... Valencia could score 5 and Real wont come back.

I was merely highlighting the clearest chances at the start of the game, not saying the 2nd would have definitely happened if the 1st one had gone in. I get what you’re saying, the game wouldn’t have played out in the same way if they’d scored the 1st and they wouldn’t have necessarily got the VAR chance. The irony in that is that you claimed “bet they would win that if 1-0 down” because they were “so dominant over Valencia”, that’s as hypothetical claim as they come, how do you know the game would still have a dominant Real in it after going down 1-0, actually based on the evidence this season that rarely happens.

Games where Real have conceded first this season:

Sociedad score first - Madrid win 3-1
Osasuna score first - Madrid win 4-1

Villarreal score first - draw 2-2
Brugge score first - draw 2-2
Valencia score first - draw 1-1
Celta Vigo score first - draw 2-2

PSG score first - Madrid lose 3-0
Mallorca score first - Madrid lose 1-0
Sociedad score first - Madrid lose 4-3
Levante score first - Madrid lose 1-0
Betis score first - Madrid lose 2-1

Clear problem after conceding first.

D never making a mistake is a minimum these days with how structureless our attack is, but that's not to say we are slated to lose points if we concede first. Fightback effect is as strong as it has ever been under Zidane, only lacking skill.

So I don't think it'd make much of a difference if they went 0-1 down. Maybe. But would actually be worse if having led the game, they equalised.

Nope. See above.

What use is “fightback effect is as strong as ever” if the results don’t show that. Whether they “look” as if they could comeback means nothing if it doesn’t convert into wins. You’re in denial if you believe this Madrid has anything like the ability to comeback in games like they used to. I have no shame in admitting you used to be the best at that.

Also no... games where you led then the other team equalised:

Madrid score first, City equalise - Madrid lose 2-1

Madrid score first, Valladolid equalise - draw 1-1

Madrid score first, Sevilla equalise - Madrid win 2-1
Madrid score first, Alaves equalise - Madrid win 2-1
Madrid score first, Brugge equalise - Madrid win 3-1
Madrid score first, Unionistas de Salamanca equalise - Madrid win 3-1

Only City won in this situation, must have had a lasting effect on you to think that would be worse

 

[JamDav1982]

It was not the clearest chances and one of them it was due to being offside.

Hazard had a clearer chance that was saved.

As I said the game changes if score that first one so cant then count the offside goal as if could have been 2-0 up.

They were not lucky and were by far the better side and were just as likely to be ahead and even if went behind they were such the superior side that I would bet on them coming back to win.

 

[Vilarrubi]

It was not the clearest chances and one of them it was due to being offside.

Hazard had a clearer chance that was saved.

As I said the game changes if score that first one so cant then count the offside goal as if could have been 2-0 up.

They were not lucky and were by far the better side.

Imo the effort off the post and a goal which any other day could have been given very easily are clearer chances than Hazard’s shot straight at the keeper. You state Hazards chance being clearer as if it’s fact, it’s not, it’s just your opinion.

Yes you did, but then said the same “dominant” Real would have won anyway, when the evidence shows otherwise. It’s clear to see when they concede they rarely win the game like you claimed. But once again, that’s your opinion.

Where did I say they were lucky? Where did I say they weren’t better side?

 

[JamDav1982]

Imo the effort off the post and a goal which any other day could have been given very easily are clearer chances than Hazard’s shot straight at the keeper. You state Hazards chance being clearer as if it’s fact, it’s not, it’s just your opinion.

Yes you did, but then said the same “dominant” Real would have won anyway, when the evidence shows otherwise. It’s clear to see when they concede they rarely win the game like you claimed. But once again, that’s your opinion.

Where did I say they were lucky? Where did I say they weren’t better side?

Hazards chance was better chance and he should have done better.

Valencia were poor and had an xG of 0.16 which is about as low as can remember.

No your evidence doesnt show anything and I am judging on this game alone when I said the way Real were so dominant it is likely they win anyway. Also Real were at home and with Hazard firing. How many of those other games does that apply to on your evidence?

Show me where I said 'Real would have won anyway'.

 

[Vilarrubi]

Hazards chance was better chance and he should have done better.

Valencia were poor and had an xG of 0.16 which is about as low as can remember.

No your evidence doesnt show anything and I am judging on this game alone when I said the way Real were so dominant it is likely they win anyway. Also Real were at home and with Hazard firing. How many of those other games does that apply to on your evidence?

Show me where I said 'Real would have won anyway'.

No it wasn’t. Yes he was closer to the goal, but one defender put him off as he was inches away from him it with another closing him down. Wasn’t a clear one on one where he had time to finish.

How is xG of the game relevant when this discussion was about IF Real has gone down the game would have been different, which you admitted yourself?

Yes it does, it shows Real struggle to win after conceding first. You claimed the opposite if Valencia had scored first.

How is “Real at home with Hazard firing” relevant? Real is a team, with 20 odd players, to say they struggle after conceding first is fact this season whether Hazard is in the team or not. Do draws and losses not count when Hazard isn’t in the team? Also think your overestimating Hazards ability to win points tbh.


Erm.....

I would bet they win that if 1-0 down.

 

[JamDav1982]

No it wasn’t. Yes he was closer to the goal, but one defender put him off as he was inches away from him it with another closing him down. Wasn’t a clear one on one where he had time to finish.

How is xG of the game relevant when this discussion was about IF Real has gone down the game would have been different, which you admitted yourself?

Yes it does, it shows Real struggle to win after conceding first. You claimed the opposite if Valencia had scored first.

How is “Real at home with Hazard firing” relevant? Real is a team, with 20 odd players, to say they struggle after conceding first is fact this season whether Hazard is in the team or not. Do draws and losses not count when Hazard isn’t in the team? Also think your overestimating Hazards ability to win points tbh.


Erm.....

Yes it was an easier chance.

The xG is relevant as it contains the whole game and shows Valencia were very unlikely to have scored at all let alone be 1-0, 2-0 up.

We can disagree but xG who base it on stats have Rodrigo chance as 0.05xG and Hazard as 0.40xG.

Not even close.

Yes I said I bet they win.... you think that is stating as fact the would?

As I said revise your stats for games where Real were at home, had Hazard playing like that and against an opposition they dominated to that extent. Then might be relevant.

 

[Vilarrubi]

How is it relevant when the original discussion was about how the game would have been different if Valencia had scored. The xG of the “whole game” without Valencia scoring first is irrelevant because when Madrid score they usually go on to win and the game is played out differently, you said this yourself.

0.07 and 0.37, actually. I’m not sure how they work out a one on one which comes off the post is a 0.07. That’s a good chance to me, unlucky not to go in.

No, but I never said Valencia would definitely win or draw if they scored first either, but based on Madrid this season they’d have a good chance.

He played in 1 of the wins at home, with no goals or assists. 2 of the draws at home, no goals or assists. Played in 2 of the losses which were away with no goals or assists. Not sure how off that you can say that Real would change that much with Hazard playing.

You’re way overestimating Hazard imo, I don’t believe him playing makes that much difference. You do, your opinion.

 

[JamDav1982]

How is it relevant when the original discussion was about how the game would have been different if Valencia had scored. The xG of the ?whole game? without Valencia scoring first is irrelevant because when Madrid score they usually go on to win and the game is played out differently, you said this yourself.

0.07 and 0.37, actually. I?m not sure how they work out a one on one which comes off the post is a 0.07. That?s a good chance to me, unlucky not to go in.

No, but I never said Valencia would definitely win or draw if they scored first, but based on Madrid this season they?d have a good chance.

He played in 1 of the wins at home, with no goals or assists. 2 of the draws at home, no goals or assists. Played in 2 of the losses which were away with no goals or assists. Not sure how off that you can say that Real would change that much with Hazard playing.

You?re way overestimating Hazard imo, I don?t believe him playing makes that much difference. You do, your opinion.

It is relevant as it is made out Valencia could have been 2-0 up and initially that Real were lucky they were not.

Hazard chance was far better and xG backs that up. On site I looked it said 0.05 and 0.40. Not even close.. the Hazard chance was far better.

Hazard chance alone has a better xG than Valencia in that whole game and by a long way.

No I am judging Hazard on how he played in that game and how he helped Real dominate it.

 

[Vilarrubi]

It is relevant as it is made out Valencia could have been 2-0 up and initially that Real were lucky they were not.

Hazard chance was far better and xG backs that up. On site I looked it said 0.05 and 0.40. Not even close.. the Hazard chance was far better.

No I am judging Hazard on how he played in that game and how he helped Real dominate it.

You’ve said this about 3 times. Where am I saying Real we’re lucky? It’s clear Real were the better team. I said IF those chances for Valencia had gone in/counted which they could very easily, the likelihood of Real coming back would be slim. Just the same as you saying “IF they had gone 1-0 down“. Purely hypothetical. Even if the first one went in, which was before the Hazard chance, it would have changed the game dynamic. You believe Real would probably have won, I think it would have been hard.

Yeah judging him on a game where his team didn’t concede, who are you to presume he would play the same after conceding? Just the same as me presuming Real would struggle after conceding exactly the same, both opinions, yet you present yours as fact.

 

[JamDav1982]

You’ve said this about 3 times. Where am I saying Real we’re lucky? It’s clear Real were the better team. I said IF those chances for Valencia had gone in/counted which they could very easily, the likelihood of Real coming back would be slim. Just the same as you saying “IF they had gone 1-0 down“. Purely hypothetical. Even if the first one went in, which was before the Hazard chance, it would have changed the game dynamic. You believe Real would probably have won, I think it would have been hard.

Yeah judging him on a game where his team didn’t concede, who are you to presume he would play the same after conceding? Just the same as me presuming Real would struggle after conceding exactly the same, both opinions, yet you present yours as fact.

I said original comment I responded to said they were lucky not to be 2-0 down.

Valencia pretty much created on chance that was not all that great and not as good as Real chances prior to that.

Could just say any game 'what if went 1-0 down' when not based on actual game.

Yes I believe Real would have won as they were so dominant in comparison to Valencia who I dont believe could have played in a way to keep them out as they tried that and conceded three.

Where have I presented as fact Real would have won if gone 1-0 down? Could be they play even better and score more than three but I dont think Hazard shits the bed or Valencia come up with some great plan to keep Real out. My opinion based on watching game.

Rodrigo chance was not before Hazard chance.

 

[El Gato]

@Villarrubi

It absolutely is as strong as ever. There's no spirit or motivation problem which is my point that used to be the problem highlighted in 18/19 or 17/18 where both Zidane and fans used to talk about motivation. But now they do not give in when in a losing position. It's the skill gap that gets in the way. We have no great finisher and as a result it's Ramos, Casemiro usually on set pieces that provide these key goals rather than strikers most of the time.

And also this whole trend you've provided is mostly sans Hazard. There is not one game in that list of 'conceding first' which you've quoted where Real had motivation issues or clear discomfort in chasing the scoreline. In the meantime, the shift when the opponent equalises is obvious if you watch the games where it happens. It's not even debatable if you watch Real.

 

[Vilarrubi]

I said original comment I responded to said they were lucky not to be 2-0 down.

Valencia pretty much created on chance that was not all that great and not as good as Real chances prior to that.

Could just say any game 'what if went 1-0 down' when not based on actual game.

Yes I believe Real would have won as they were so dominant in comparison to Valencia who I dont believe could have played in a way to keep them out as they tried that and conceded three.

Where have I presented as fact Real would have won if gone 1-0 down?

Yeah I didn’t post that, so not sure why you keep bringing it up.

Yes, you can say that. That’s my point, I can say “what if Valencia had scored those chances” just like you said “if they’d gone 1-0 down”. Same thing. Forums have a lot of “what if” posts, no need to take it so literally then do the exact same thing yourself.

You’re entitled to that opinion, I believe this Madrid isn’t the same at comebacks as they used to be and the results this season show that.

I didn’t say that, read back. You’re judging how Hazard played in that game when Madrid didn’t concede. If they do concede there’s no doubt the game dynamic changes and there’s no way of knowing if Hazard would have played the same. Applies for the whole team in general which was my original point, when Madrid concede, they struggle to win.

 

[Vilarrubi]

@Villarrubi

It absolutely is as strong as ever. There's no spirit or motivation problem which is my point that used to be the problem highlighted in 18/19 or 17/18 where both Zidane and fans used to talk about motivation. But now they do not give in when in a losing position. It's the skill gap that gets in the way. We have no great finisher and as a result it's Ramos, Casemiro usually on set pieces that provide these key goals rather than strikers most of the time.

And also this whole trend you've provided is mostly sans Hazard. There is not one game in that list of 'conceding first' which you've quoted where Real had motivation issues or clear discomfort in chasing the scoreline. In the meantime, the shift when the opponent equalises is obvious if you watch the games where it happens. It's not even debatable if you watch Real.

What you’ve just said is anecdotal though. Every team has these problems. You surely can’t deny that based on those results you have a problem getting a win when conceding first this season?