| Stronger at the back without Hall 16:31 - Mar 21 with 14039 views | WestbourneR |
Got pelters on here a few weeks back for saying I felt Grant Hall had major weaknesses in his game - so here goes for 2nds.
For me he is just too weak and definitely far far too weak in the air. He gets dominated by strikers and when crosses and corners come in he doesn't command the box.
To prove my point you only have to look at the change since Hill & Angella have come in.
|  |
| |  |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 09:09 - Mar 22 with 2636 views | Mvpeter |
Gah at this threads existence! |  |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 10:48 - Mar 22 with 2590 views | WestbourneR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 23:21 - Mar 21 by Northernr |
Sign young, English centre half for a pittance with no hype or publicity. Player massively outperforms expectations, ups resale value by several hundred percent. Displays ability to not only match the physicality of the Championship but also bring a little bit of quality on the ball. In other words, the best of all worlds.
QPR fan reaction - pick fault.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Don't be so sanctimonious Northern it's a football discussion board. | |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:00 - Mar 22 with 2578 views | rsonist |
Could you not have expressed your observations about Hall the way a normal supporter might have done instead of this shrill attention seeking performance? |  | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:08 - Mar 22 with 2570 views | Northernr |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 10:48 - Mar 22 by WestbourneR |
Don't be so sanctimonious Northern it's a football discussion board. |
Which bit of my post isn't true? |  | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:16 - Mar 22 with 2560 views | spencer |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 23:21 - Mar 21 by Northernr |
Sign young, English centre half for a pittance with no hype or publicity. Player massively outperforms expectations, ups resale value by several hundred percent. Displays ability to not only match the physicality of the Championship but also bring a little bit of quality on the ball. In other words, the best of all worlds.
QPR fan reaction - pick fault.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
For me, many positives this season...Perch at left back WTF is that all about. Polter getting better....Henry playing well and ...a keeper with a future. But for me...for the reason quoted ...it has to be Hall... Maybe original poster might be...slightly right...maybe...But for all the right reasons...he has stood head and shoulders above any other player this season(IMO). He still has a lot to learn...and maybe, being more dominant in the air...might be an area he look at and develop.But, again...for all the right reasons..a raving success and a joy to watch him improve week in week out. POTS for sure !!! |  | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:42 - Mar 22 with 2548 views | WestbourneR |
Oh sorry I forgot you're the oracle.
The bit I feel not to be true is that he's coped with the physical nature of the Championship, as my thread lays out. I think he's lightweight and gets sucked into challenges he can never win high up the pitch.
But really it's a discussion so the patronising 'typical QPR fans' thing is a slightly odd way to react to an opinion. I've given due credit to many many Rangers players over the years, Clint Hill being a good example.
Mackie and Hall happen to be two fans favourites I don't rate. Be good if you could just discuss the idea without making some headline dismissive statement, it might encourage some more activity on the board. | |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:46 - Mar 22 with 2546 views | WestbourneR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:00 - Mar 22 by rsonist |
Could you not have expressed your observations about Hall the way a normal supporter might have done instead of this shrill attention seeking performance? |
Eh? How did you work that one out?
'Rsonist' please enlighten me as to how a proper manly football geezer like yourself begins a discussion. I'll take notes. | |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 12:02 - Mar 22 with 2534 views | WadR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:56 - Mar 21 by Hunterhoop |
Again, westberks, Chris, I'm pretty statistically fewer goals have been conceded per game Onouha has played centre half than per game Hall has played centre half. Stats aren't everything, I grant you, but it's interesting everyone's qualitative evaluation doesn't quite match the quantitative one, or at least it definitely didn't a couple of months back when I last worked it out. |
Thought it would be interesting to look into this. Ran through this relatively quickly so there may be some mistakes.
Record when playing CB
Hill - 9 games - 33% win percentage - 0.8 goals conceded p/g
Hall - 29 games - 34% win percentage - 1 goal conceded p/g
Onuoha - 27 games - 26% win percentage - 1.1 goals conceded p/g
Angella - 14 games - 29% win percentage - 1.5 goals conceded p/g
Record of CB partnerships
Angella + Hill 3 games - 67% win percentage - 0.33 goals conceded p/g
Hill + Hall - 4 games - 25% win percentage - 0.5 goals conceded p/g
Hall + Onuoha -18 games - 39% win percentage - 0.9 goals conceded p/g
Hall + Angella - 7 games - 29% win percentage - 1.6 goals conceded p/g
Hill + Onuoha - 2 games - 0% win percentage - 2 goals conceded p/g
Onuoha + Angella - 4 games - 0% win percentage - 2.25 goals conceded p/g
I don't know how much you can read into that. It doesn't take into account the quality of the opponent or mistakes by teammates *Cough* Greeno *cough*. But Hill comes out of it rather well, even for the small sample size. I don't think there's a huge amount of difference between the 4 of them, but next season I think it's important to have a settled and organised defence. That in itself can go along way to getting a side promoted. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 12:17 - Mar 22 with 2512 views | spencer |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 12:02 - Mar 22 by WadR |
Thought it would be interesting to look into this. Ran through this relatively quickly so there may be some mistakes.
Record when playing CB
Hill - 9 games - 33% win percentage - 0.8 goals conceded p/g
Hall - 29 games - 34% win percentage - 1 goal conceded p/g
Onuoha - 27 games - 26% win percentage - 1.1 goals conceded p/g
Angella - 14 games - 29% win percentage - 1.5 goals conceded p/g
Record of CB partnerships
Angella + Hill 3 games - 67% win percentage - 0.33 goals conceded p/g
Hill + Hall - 4 games - 25% win percentage - 0.5 goals conceded p/g
Hall + Onuoha -18 games - 39% win percentage - 0.9 goals conceded p/g
Hall + Angella - 7 games - 29% win percentage - 1.6 goals conceded p/g
Hill + Onuoha - 2 games - 0% win percentage - 2 goals conceded p/g
Onuoha + Angella - 4 games - 0% win percentage - 2.25 goals conceded p/g
I don't know how much you can read into that. It doesn't take into account the quality of the opponent or mistakes by teammates *Cough* Greeno *cough*. But Hill comes out of it rather well, even for the small sample size. I don't think there's a huge amount of difference between the 4 of them, but next season I think it's important to have a settled and organised defence. That in itself can go along way to getting a side promoted. |
Great stats - but I think, to be a little more accurate, you need to factor in the weather conditions as well.Also- I did notice early season Hall was sporting a different style of haircut, but once into a long run in side - his hairstyle changed...so...with Clints always being short back and scrape...think you need to re assess your stats, otherwise fans will just rip these to pieces. | | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 15:53 - Mar 22 with 2439 views | kensalriser |
I just checked goals scored and Hall has none.
Get rid. |  |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 20:06 - Mar 22 with 2392 views | derbyhoop |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 11:42 - Mar 22 by WestbourneR |
Oh sorry I forgot you're the oracle.
The bit I feel not to be true is that he's coped with the physical nature of the Championship, as my thread lays out. I think he's lightweight and gets sucked into challenges he can never win high up the pitch.
But really it's a discussion so the patronising 'typical QPR fans' thing is a slightly odd way to react to an opinion. I've given due credit to many many Rangers players over the years, Clint Hill being a good example.
Mackie and Hall happen to be two fans favourites I don't rate. Be good if you could just discuss the idea without making some headline dismissive statement, it might encourage some more activity on the board. |
You're rowing against the tide, my friend.
What I would say is that, at 24, which is young for a defender, Hall is likely to get better. Even when, he is a virtual shoe-in for player of the year. |  |
| "Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one's lifetime." (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop and now on Bluesky |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 20:31 - Mar 22 with 2381 views | johncharles |
Westbourne, why didn't you say we're better with Hill ?
Because "better without Hall " attracts more attention. 'Nuff said. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:05 - Mar 22 with 2360 views | westberksr |
Something else that the stats don't account for was attributing some of the responsibility on the shower of shit midfield that was often playing in front of Hall and a certain skeletal headed left back that chipped in with a mistake or ten along with Perch's identical twin that played right back.
Hill & Angella haven't had the misfortune of Fer & Sandro playing in front of them and the additional defensive benefit of Seb working his nuts off upfront instead of Phillips as a false nine.
As previously stated, stats are a load of old bollox; Hall's a good 'un. Plenty of other crap to pick holes in about our team/club; this is just a fishing expadition IMHO. |  | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:12 - Mar 22 with 2357 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 15:53 - Mar 22 by kensalriser |
I just checked goals scored and Hall has none.
Get rid. |
Haven't seen him save a penalty all season either. |  | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:13 - Mar 22 with 2356 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
I thought Stan Bowles was below average. And Marsh flattered to deceive.
There i've said it. Even though I wasn't born when they were around.
Also, Shawsank Redemption was shite. [Post edited 22 Mar 2016 22:28]
| | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:19 - Mar 22 with 1896 views | johncharles |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:13 - Mar 22 by BazzaInTheLoft |
I thought Stan Bowles was below average. And Marsh flattered to deceive.
There i've said it. Even though I wasn't born when they were around.
Also, Shawsank Redemption was shite. [Post edited 22 Mar 2016 22:28]
|
There is no doubt that Shawshank Redemption was shite. | |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:30 - Mar 22 with 1881 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:19 - Mar 22 by johncharles |
There is no doubt that Shawshank Redemption was shite. |
The rest of the world (if you are being serious) strongly disagrees with you Sir!
http://www.imdb.com/chart/top | | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 23:37 - Mar 22 with 1864 views | RodneyHarsh |
Stats are still very crude but getting better. Perception is a more information rich way to tell if a player is any good or not.
And I welcome someone arguing against a fan favourite, a contrary view allows everyone to restate just why the player in question is favoured.
Hall is strong, mobile, positionally astute, good on the floor, good with the ball. He could work on his upper body strength, and you wouldn't call him quick, which is probably why he was released by Spurs - the physical basics on which to build the mental aspects of the game are not worldbeating. That said, he doesn't have the obvious physical limitations at CB of someone like Connolly or Mancienne. Is already better than Gorkks, and better than Ned who maybe hasn't developed as far as we'd hoped he might (and is not a great right back either for me: looks like he's concentrating but positionally dubious, leaves far too much space for crosses and always has.) Furthermore, considering CBs reach their peak at about 30, if Hall can continue to develop his game as he clearly has before joining us, he could be pretty masterful in a few years. Currently the least you can say is he represents real potential, and I'd be happy if we signed a grizzled counterpart over the summer to start alongside Hall in a first-choice CB pairing for next season.
Hall is the first young CB I can remember who's shaping for a long and successful career with us (Caulker had raw potential, but his head seems screwed on wrong). As has been said, a real find. |  | | |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 00:10 - Mar 23 with 1854 views | PunteR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 23:37 - Mar 22 by RodneyHarsh |
Stats are still very crude but getting better. Perception is a more information rich way to tell if a player is any good or not.
And I welcome someone arguing against a fan favourite, a contrary view allows everyone to restate just why the player in question is favoured.
Hall is strong, mobile, positionally astute, good on the floor, good with the ball. He could work on his upper body strength, and you wouldn't call him quick, which is probably why he was released by Spurs - the physical basics on which to build the mental aspects of the game are not worldbeating. That said, he doesn't have the obvious physical limitations at CB of someone like Connolly or Mancienne. Is already better than Gorkks, and better than Ned who maybe hasn't developed as far as we'd hoped he might (and is not a great right back either for me: looks like he's concentrating but positionally dubious, leaves far too much space for crosses and always has.) Furthermore, considering CBs reach their peak at about 30, if Hall can continue to develop his game as he clearly has before joining us, he could be pretty masterful in a few years. Currently the least you can say is he represents real potential, and I'd be happy if we signed a grizzled counterpart over the summer to start alongside Hall in a first-choice CB pairing for next season.
Hall is the first young CB I can remember who's shaping for a long and successful career with us (Caulker had raw potential, but his head seems screwed on wrong). As has been said, a real find. |
Top post,I agree.
What's your thoughts on Angella ? |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 12:11 - Mar 23 with 1786 views | WestbourneR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 20:31 - Mar 22 by johncharles |
Westbourne, why didn't you say we're better with Hill ?
Because "better without Hall " attracts more attention. 'Nuff said. |
Because johncharles my point is we're better without Hall - be it Nedum or Angella or Hill in his place. That's why. Ever think of that in your genius logic? 'Nuff said. | |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 12:13 - Mar 23 with 1783 views | WestbourneR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 23:37 - Mar 22 by RodneyHarsh |
Stats are still very crude but getting better. Perception is a more information rich way to tell if a player is any good or not.
And I welcome someone arguing against a fan favourite, a contrary view allows everyone to restate just why the player in question is favoured.
Hall is strong, mobile, positionally astute, good on the floor, good with the ball. He could work on his upper body strength, and you wouldn't call him quick, which is probably why he was released by Spurs - the physical basics on which to build the mental aspects of the game are not worldbeating. That said, he doesn't have the obvious physical limitations at CB of someone like Connolly or Mancienne. Is already better than Gorkks, and better than Ned who maybe hasn't developed as far as we'd hoped he might (and is not a great right back either for me: looks like he's concentrating but positionally dubious, leaves far too much space for crosses and always has.) Furthermore, considering CBs reach their peak at about 30, if Hall can continue to develop his game as he clearly has before joining us, he could be pretty masterful in a few years. Currently the least you can say is he represents real potential, and I'd be happy if we signed a grizzled counterpart over the summer to start alongside Hall in a first-choice CB pairing for next season.
Hall is the first young CB I can remember who's shaping for a long and successful career with us (Caulker had raw potential, but his head seems screwed on wrong). As has been said, a real find. |
Rodney Harsh a fair and considered response. Thank you. Good to have a debate without the histrionics. | |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 12:15 - Mar 23 with 1781 views | WestbourneR |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 00:10 - Mar 23 by PunteR |
Top post,I agree.
What's your thoughts on Angella ? |
Really rate Angella. Slow but he's got a lot of other strong attributes. He can really play too, a passer of the ball. | |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 15:28 - Mar 23 with 1739 views | johncharles |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 12:11 - Mar 23 by WestbourneR |
Because johncharles my point is we're better without Hall - be it Nedum or Angella or Hill in his place. That's why. Ever think of that in your genius logic? 'Nuff said. |
Genius logic. Well thanks for that. You're still taking bollox though. | |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 15:29 - Mar 23 with 1737 views | johncharles |
Wouldn't want it any other way. | |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 22:30 - Mar 23 with 1691 views | TW_R |
| Stronger at the back without Hall on 19:51 - Mar 21 by Hunterhoop |
Donaldson away at Brum. Not at home, but away, early in the season he was bullied, especially the first half.
He and Angella got bullied at home to Bolton, home to Blackburn, and away to Fulham. Go back and read Clive's reports if you want to refresh your memory.
Not that I agree with the OP, but Hall and Angella absolutely were bullied by opposing centre forwards when they were together. Our stats, I believe, in terms or goals conceded per game for the centre halves at the club are best for Hill, then Ned, then Hill, then Angella. Would need to run the numbers again but a couple of months ago (discounting Hill, who had barely played at that point), that was definitely the order.
Hall has been very good this season, surpassing expectations and improving over the season but I'm not sure he's quite as good as some think and some have certainly forgotten some of his weaker performances. |
Sorry Hunter to be a bit of a pedant, but I suggest you should go back and refresh your memory on a couple of these games because, unless you witnessed Hall getting bullied in the tunnel at some point before or after the game, he didn't play any part in Fulham away or Blackburn at home. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
