| Match Stats 18:26 - Aug 13 with 2481 views | BrianMcCarthy |
I know, I knoow...stats aren't everything.
And I'm still really concerned about our formation and our press.
But I'm not sure I agree that we didn't deserve a draw out of this.
52% Ball possession 48%
16 Total shots 20
8 Shots on target 4
5 Shots off target 8
3 Blocked shots 8
4 Corner kicks 3
1 Offsides 0
2 Big chances 4
0 Big chances missed 4
1 Hit woodwork 0
9 Shots inside box 14
7 Shots outside box 6
2 Goalkeeper saves 6 |  |
| |  |
| Match Stats on 18:27 - Aug 13 with 2451 views | danehoop |
missed out final stat on goal keepers scores |  |
| Never knowingly understood |
| |
| Match Stats on 18:30 - Aug 13 with 2406 views | qpr_1968 |
definitely deserved a draw with them stats. |  |
| |
| Match Stats on 18:40 - Aug 13 with 2330 views | Antti_Heinola |
Brian, I’m a bit surprised at you. A new formation with none of the new signings will not work over night. I suppose concern is fine, but for me its more how thin the squad feels - at least when we have about 6 pros you’d expect to start being unavailable. |  |
| |
| Match Stats on 18:56 - Aug 13 with 2229 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Match Stats on 18:40 - Aug 13 by Antti_Heinola |
Brian, I’m a bit surprised at you. A new formation with none of the new signings will not work over night. I suppose concern is fine, but for me its more how thin the squad feels - at least when we have about 6 pros you’d expect to start being unavailable. |
Well, I suppose my concerns (and they're just concerns right now, I'm not hitting the drink, like!) is that we're trying a narrow 433 for the following reasons.
1) It puts massive pressure on our full-backs, where we lack options right now
2) The press of the narrow front three is chatoic and/or non-existant so the oppo are bypassing the front three with ease, down the wings
3) The midfield is narrow and is getting by passed (I thought it was better today in that the three were a straight line when defending so the oppo didnlt come through us)
4) However, because we're narrow in midfield the oppo either continue their break down the line or switch if our midfield (usually Field) gets across in time.
5) Either way, the point of attack is nearly always on our full-backs
6) Despite having two fine centre-backs, and a promising new one, Plan A has been and continues to be to only play two of them.
7) The one that has been left out (for passing/balance reasons which I understand) is our best pure defender, Dunne.
8) Going back to 5) most of our defending has been against crosses, I'd want Dunne in there, and he's only in there because JCS got injured, and finally
9) The only time we've really given our full-backs some protection was (belatedly) when Adomah and Niko came on against Boro to finally double on their two main threats, the wing-backs. It worked, we haven't done it again, which leads me to believe that we're going long-term with this plan.
Having said that, your point is bang on, of course - Beale and the players are only getting used to each other. Also, to get back on topic, I thought we were worth a draw today and - despite my tactical concerns - I wasn't as depressed as many at half-time. We created plenty chances, and today most of those chances were in the box. | |
| |
| Match Stats on 19:35 - Aug 13 with 2159 views | dmm |
Brian, even though it's an evening to celebrate, you have valid points. The main issue you identify is our narrow shape and is one that causes me concern too.
I just hope the pronlems this seems to create are the result of the new system Beale has brought in and that those problems will be ironed out as players get better acquainted with how it should work. |  | | |
| Match Stats on 19:37 - Aug 13 with 2147 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Match Stats on 19:35 - Aug 13 by dmm |
Brian, even though it's an evening to celebrate, you have valid points. The main issue you identify is our narrow shape and is one that causes me concern too.
I just hope the pronlems this seems to create are the result of the new system Beale has brought in and that those problems will be ironed out as players get better acquainted with how it should work. |
My hope too, dmm. | |
| |
| Match Stats on 20:09 - Aug 13 with 2042 views | Antti_Heinola |
| Match Stats on 18:56 - Aug 13 by BrianMcCarthy |
Well, I suppose my concerns (and they're just concerns right now, I'm not hitting the drink, like!) is that we're trying a narrow 433 for the following reasons.
1) It puts massive pressure on our full-backs, where we lack options right now
2) The press of the narrow front three is chatoic and/or non-existant so the oppo are bypassing the front three with ease, down the wings
3) The midfield is narrow and is getting by passed (I thought it was better today in that the three were a straight line when defending so the oppo didnlt come through us)
4) However, because we're narrow in midfield the oppo either continue their break down the line or switch if our midfield (usually Field) gets across in time.
5) Either way, the point of attack is nearly always on our full-backs
6) Despite having two fine centre-backs, and a promising new one, Plan A has been and continues to be to only play two of them.
7) The one that has been left out (for passing/balance reasons which I understand) is our best pure defender, Dunne.
8) Going back to 5) most of our defending has been against crosses, I'd want Dunne in there, and he's only in there because JCS got injured, and finally
9) The only time we've really given our full-backs some protection was (belatedly) when Adomah and Niko came on against Boro to finally double on their two main threats, the wing-backs. It worked, we haven't done it again, which leads me to believe that we're going long-term with this plan.
Having said that, your point is bang on, of course - Beale and the players are only getting used to each other. Also, to get back on topic, I thought we were worth a draw today and - despite my tactical concerns - I wasn't as depressed as many at half-time. We created plenty chances, and today most of those chances were in the box. |
fair plat bri, and i echo dmm's thoughts. This will take time - even though i was sure we'd get gubbed today!
With new full backs and fit TRs, Willock and Amos, we will be a very different side imo. | |
| |
| Match Stats on 20:32 - Aug 13 with 1973 views | WatfordR |
| Match Stats on 20:09 - Aug 13 by Antti_Heinola |
fair plat bri, and i echo dmm's thoughts. This will take time - even though i was sure we'd get gubbed today!
With new full backs and fit TRs, Willock and Amos, we will be a very different side imo. |
I think I’m more or less in this camp too. Although I also have concerns of the non alcoholic variety with MB; not as a coach, but whether his management skills are going to be up to it. He’s been quite forthright about how he wants us to play, and I wonder if he’ll have the experience to keep the squad onboard.
Having said that, we could have the following line up before long:
Dieng
Kakay-Dickie-Dunne/JCS-Paal
Chair-Field-Amos/Richards
Roberts-Willock
Armstrong
And you’ve still got Walsh, Jojo, Dozzell, Albert, Dykes, Bonne. A new RB wouldn’t go amiss and then the one position we don’t have any cover for is Field. But you’ll immediately have more mobility and pace, and maybe the high press becomes easier, and the narrower formation may seem less problematic.
If we look to bring in a loan upfront, I’d be looking for someone who’s got the type of attributes Armstrong already appears to have, so I think we should keep and try to further develop what we have.
Glass half full ish I think. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Match Stats on 15:18 - Aug 14 with 1647 views | dmm |
Like many, I'm not quite sure what xG stats really tell us and feel there has to be a subjective element to them. However, the difference between us and Sunderland's stats does look encouraging, particularly given the players we didn't have playing. | | | |
| Match Stats on 10:10 - Aug 15 with 1442 views | francisbowles |
I always try and see the stats if I'm watching on the stream both at ht and ft.
This game the stats improved remarkably in the second half and would indicate that possession wise we must have bossed it. It didn't seem like that!
Sometimes I don't understand how they arrive at them either, at ht on Saturday it had Seny down with 0 catches. I can remember him catching a volleyed effort from a second phase after a corner! Other times, they have percentage stats for tackles won and headers won but they don't add up to 100? | | | |
| Match Stats on 10:22 - Aug 15 with 1415 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Match Stats on 10:10 - Aug 15 by francisbowles |
I always try and see the stats if I'm watching on the stream both at ht and ft.
This game the stats improved remarkably in the second half and would indicate that possession wise we must have bossed it. It didn't seem like that!
Sometimes I don't understand how they arrive at them either, at ht on Saturday it had Seny down with 0 catches. I can remember him catching a volleyed effort from a second phase after a corner! Other times, they have percentage stats for tackles won and headers won but they don't add up to 100? |
You're right on possession, fb: we had 36% in the first half and 61% in the second.
As bad as that first half was, though - and it was far from good - we still had 11 shots, 8 in the box. That showed that we could score if we made the expected changes and/or changed things tactically. | |
| |
| Match Stats on 10:58 - Aug 15 with 1334 views | daveB |
When you get Richards, Paal, Laird, Amos, Willock and Roberts into this team I think we'll be an exciting team to watch, would agree with you though Brian with the current players avaliable the system doesn't really work or get the best out of what we have. We look very easy to score against |  | | |
| Match Stats on 11:26 - Aug 15 with 1237 views | ngbqpr |
I'm with you Brian - much as stats only tell part of the story, as "one of the 904", I think there's a good case to be put that a draw wasn't totally unwarranted.
Clive's report is a masterpiece, but I took more positives from the first 85 minutes than he and a lot of other Rs did. Most of the players he awarded 5 I'd give 6 - so nothing special, but not shockers.
Up to the first goal, I thought the front three were pressing well, and JoJo and Field were doing ok. After that goal, I feared a Blackburn style "heads down / give up / we'll never score" response but it didn't happen. The second was an absolute shocker to concede...but equally Adomah and Dykes take those very presentable chances, and we go in at HT at 2-2.
Our travelling party all felt 2-0 was harsh - level or a one goal lead to the Mackems would've been a fairer reflection.
Beale has spoken about his half time change of plan, Neil about his response - that made for an interesting tactical battle. We had a really good opening 20 (if Roberts had taken that chance...), then they got on top again, but weren't scary. I wasn't expecting the comeback, but was just saying, if there's a third goal, please let us grab it as 2-1 is not only so much better than 3-0 for confidence, it also would've felt fairer.
When we did score, with Armstrong on and seeing how pumped the players were, I did then think, just maybe...
At the end of it all...a great point with a depleted squad achieved in a way that surely must have done wonders for the group. And even the mackem exile in our car on the way home said one goal win to them would've been fair but he'd take the draw once the dust had settled on how it came about. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
