You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36184
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
If a team comes and plays the ‘low block’ as IE calls it then we will have 60% of the ball plus. But our method for breaking down such a team relies entirely on quality picking out one or two players in the box. And as you say the best sides are threatening from set pieces making it very hard for a ‘low block’ side to see it out for 90 minutes plus. If we’ve had 24 corners in two home games and not scored it suggests that if you can nullify us in open play you will probably get something.Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 12:25 pmBWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:34 amThere is a naivety about Evatt saying they caught us out by putting 7 in the box and we only practised for ‘5 or 6’ which is why their player was unmarked for the second.These two posts being next to each other makes me wonder where half of our players were when defending corners.Harry Genshaw wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 8:51 amIt still annoys the hell out of me that we dont leave anyone up on opposition corners.
Mind you, it happens. Palace went to Anfield yesterday and in open play they successfully thwarted Liverpool (who were, admittedly, without both their brilliant attacking full-backs). But then on one set piece they gave the freedom of the area to Sadio Mane, who'd scored against them in their previous nine meetings - and then they ignored Mo Salah, a similarly unwise oversight.
For me there's absolutely no question our defence needs to improve at set pieces, but so does our attack – which, from set pieces, includes a couple of defenders, notably Big Reeks. BWFCi counts dozens of corners we've had without looking threatening, and I have no reason to disbelieve him.
There's also a statistical anomaly afoot. We are the division's third-highest scorers, which is nice, but of those 14 goals, 11 came in three games; the other three were spread over the other five games – seven games, including the two League Cup fixtures. In chrono order:
GOAL GOAL GOAL
.
GOAL GOAL GOAL
GOAL
GOAL GOAL
.
.
GOAL GOAL GOAL * vs Port Vale semi-reserves
.
GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL GOAL
.
It's feast or famine. And as I say, the famines are coming not because we're clueless or timid - we're having plenty ball, plenty of efforts on goal, but few on target considering the football we're playing. It's neither sacrilege nor ridiculous to say that we need to sharpen up - and as I say, while the gorgeous football is utterly welcome, I'd be very happy to go 1-0 up off a centre-back's head now and again – or the increasing occurence of teams holding us at arm's length could turn a concern into a worry.
Other way to look at it is we don’t look great defensively when pressed or defending set pieces. So hang in the game and no matter how nice we look you have a chance. Try and play against us and we are very good. So here is the margins we need to be more threatening
from set pieces around the box and less worried about them around our box. That swings the pendulum massively as we should if teams sit in have more set pieces than they do.
I think that’s easier than say finding the players who can just create something out of nothing against a low block or the striker who never miss.
For me it’s about where you can find the gains and right now it’s being better organised on set plays and defensively generally and adding Baka back in for an extra option in the front three. In January it might be finding another forward who can operate front three and offer something else - as Iles says we have no real pace in the side with Baka out - and maybe looking at the midfield and back four.
This will be controversial but as good as Sheehan is on the ball I feel we often carry him off it. And the balance in there isn’t right yet. Neither am I convinced that our back four are solid enough against physical teams like Rotherham.
Of our home games thus far we conceded 3 to MK. 1 to Oxford but they could have scored many more. 2 to PV. Burton clean sheet. 2 yesterday.
Any side wanting promotion keeps clean sheets at home relatively regularly and for me the consistency of conceding is worrying. We are conceding out of the blue too. Not like Rotherham were building a head of steam. And when that starts to happen to me it always rings some alarm bells that perhaps we have overperformed early doors.
I’m confident we can be top 8 but we need a little luck for that. And to fix the issues we can.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Agreed on both, although as always there's truth on both sides. I bet Evatt would love to have had the chance to move Crawford and Comley off the wage bill this summer - but I'm still worried MJ's out of contract next summer. Nothing's ever perfect. But we should now be fine-tuning rather than overhauling.
I would also be interested to know (but havcen't time to check) how long Rotherham's squad has been together, considering they've had five successive relegations and promotions – but under the same manager. Warne was confident enough to make two changes before the hour yesterday, and then another tweak when he removed forward Grigg for midfielder Sadlier; meanwhile, our fella felt he didn't have a third change worth making, and TBH I find it hard to disagree with him. Again, I just feel that having a surprise young attacking loanee to spring from the bench might have made a difference; I also know that's an undisprovable theory, and thus somewhat unfair, but I did worry that the lack of an extra attacker might make us predictable, and here we are with four blanks in five.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Agreed that it's possible for a low block to stifle passing teams altogether, but from the attempts on goal it doesn't necessarily look like that.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:07 pmIf a team comes and plays the ‘low block’ as IE calls it then we will have 60% of the ball plus. But our method for breaking down such a team relies entirely on quality picking out one or two players in the box. And as you say the best sides are threatening from set pieces making it very hard for a ‘low block’ side to see it out for 90 minutes plus. If we’ve had 24 corners in two home games and not scored it suggests that if you can nullify us in open play you will probably get something.
Looking at the attempts on goal from our blank games:
BAR 7
WIG 9
CAM 13
BUR 25
ROT 17
Now, some of those were blocked (by that low, er, block), but still, here's the unblocked shots:
BAR 7 (no blocks)
WIG 5
CAM 7
BUR 15
ROT 11
That's a lot of unblocked shots for zero goals. Some of them will have gone wide/over, but that's our bad. And while I don't think it's as simple as "Make them stay behind for shooting practice", there's certainly fair scope for questions to be asked.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
We didn't have 17 attempts "on goal" yesterday. We had 4. 5 yards wide, is not a shot "on goal" and therefore wouldn't need blocking as you watch it go harmlessly wide. It doesn't matter whether that's "our bad" or not, off target isn't going in. We'd have had to have converted 3 of our 4 chances that might have gone in, had someone not prevented them from doing so, to bagbus three points. 58 chances "on goal" but hitting the corner flag wins nothing.
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
I think the potential is there for us to challenge.
I also think it's huge that our two main attacking signings have played 2 and a bit league games between them.
I also think we've had relatively hard games. To take the venerable FourFourTwo magazines pre-season predictions, the teams we've played so far have an average predicted position of 10.75 ("par" would be 12.3).
We're still second on the "expected points" table, Rotherham are top. But oddly it's at home where we're top according to that. We keep out-playing teams and not taking our chances.
My reckon is that a lot of the current home results are noise, mixed with missing those options off the bench. We've still only played 8 games, we're a point off the play offs and all the "proxy" markers suggest we're one of the best teams in the league. Only time will tell ultimately but I'm confident with my top 8 prediction still.
I also think it's huge that our two main attacking signings have played 2 and a bit league games between them.
I also think we've had relatively hard games. To take the venerable FourFourTwo magazines pre-season predictions, the teams we've played so far have an average predicted position of 10.75 ("par" would be 12.3).
We're still second on the "expected points" table, Rotherham are top. But oddly it's at home where we're top according to that. We keep out-playing teams and not taking our chances.
My reckon is that a lot of the current home results are noise, mixed with missing those options off the bench. We've still only played 8 games, we're a point off the play offs and all the "proxy" markers suggest we're one of the best teams in the league. Only time will tell ultimately but I'm confident with my top 8 prediction still.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
"Attempts on goal" is standard terminology, of which "attempts on target" is a subset. But if you prefer, we had 17 occasions in which we decided to shoot, but nothing came of it.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:03 pmWe didn't have 17 attempts "on goal" yesterday. We had 4. 5 yards wide, is not a shot "on goal" and therefore wouldn't need blocking as you watch it go harmlessly wide. It doesn't matter whether that's "our bad" or not, off target isn't going in. We'd have had to have converted 3 of our 4 chances that might have gone in, had someone not prevented them from doing so, to bagbus three points. 58 chances "on goal" but hitting the corner flag wins nothing.
However you phrase it, I'd say our attack isn't beyond reproach.
.
So do I - if we tune up at both ends.
Slightly selective. We wanted Kachunga but couldn't afford him – but I know what you mean and it's fair.
I wouldn't believe those jokers, the season Leicester won the league they'd backed them for relegation
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36184
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Yesterday for all our possession we created one real clear cut chance. Doyle’s. He hit the post. The rest was lots of positions we should have done better with the final ball in. The issue is less our finishing - though of course that can always improve - but more our conversion of possession into good chances. You can argue that we maybe lack another goal getter especially from midfield but we didn’t score 5 last week because our finishing is woeful. We drew blanks in last two home games because any team in the world finds it harder to score against a low block and a packed defence. And we struggled to create genuine clear chances.Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:41 pmAgreed that it's possible for a low block to stifle passing teams altogether, but from the attempts on goal it doesn't necessarily look like that.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 1:07 pmIf a team comes and plays the ‘low block’ as IE calls it then we will have 60% of the ball plus. But our method for breaking down such a team relies entirely on quality picking out one or two players in the box. And as you say the best sides are threatening from set pieces making it very hard for a ‘low block’ side to see it out for 90 minutes plus. If we’ve had 24 corners in two home games and not scored it suggests that if you can nullify us in open play you will probably get something.
Looking at the attempts on goal from our blank games:
BAR 7
WIG 9
CAM 13
BUR 25
ROT 17
Now, some of those were blocked (by that low, er, block), but still, here's the unblocked shots:
BAR 7 (no blocks)
WIG 5
CAM 7
BUR 15
ROT 11
That's a lot of unblocked shots for zero goals. Some of them will have gone wide/over, but that's our bad. And while I don't think it's as simple as "Make them stay behind for shooting practice", there's certainly fair scope for questions to be asked.
I think there is a general view from football fans that when you don’t score it’s the striker or forwards and it can be. But truth is our game is lovely to watch but yesterday didn’t produce too much especially second half.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Aye never under estimate the marketing department's ability to come up with bullshit. They're excellent at it in my business. The point is we needed to score 3 yesterday to win. In pursuit of that we managed 4 on target...we need to tighten up at both ends, but we absolutely need to stop conceding 2.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36184
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Indeed. The second goal they scored yesterday was a horror. Looks worse on second viewing. We also need to stop conceding first. Makes games much harder especially against good opposition.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:34 pmAye never under estimate the marketing department's ability to come up with bullshit. They're excellent at it in my business. The point is we needed to score 3 yesterday to win. In pursuit of that we managed 4 on target...we need to tighten up at both ends, but we absolutely need to stop conceding 2.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Yeah, not too disheartened and they were pretty tidy, but you could make the "not going in the net" number 50 if you want, don't think anyone came away from yesterday, thinking we were somehow short-changed or likely to bag 3.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:57 pmIndeed. The second goal they scored yesterday was a horror. Looks worse on second viewing. We also need to stop conceding first. Makes games much harder especially against good opposition.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:34 pmAye never under estimate the marketing department's ability to come up with bullshit. They're excellent at it in my business. The point is we needed to score 3 yesterday to win. In pursuit of that we managed 4 on target...we need to tighten up at both ends, but we absolutely need to stop conceding 2.
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Not selective, idiotic, I'd forgotten himDave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 2:13 pmSlightly selective. We wanted Kachunga but couldn't afford him – but I know what you mean and it's fair.
But yeah, 2/3, and it's fair to say Kachunga is miles off at the moment. If we play most of the season with Isgrove starting and Delf as our second option off the bench I don't think we'll be troubling the top end. But I don't think we will.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43267
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Totally wrong. Not what I said or meant at all.. Analysing and improving is part of moving on, but you can't change a result, you have to accept it and not dwell on the fact.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:32 amSo when you lose, you just accept and move on? You don't try an analyse where you did well and not so well? You don't try and improve? You just say "ahh well, it's only a game." Wrong answer for me. You look to improve. As Brucie said if Dapo is occupying 2 or 3 of them, you try to work out where the gaps are and how you exploit them.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:18 amIn short, although we can't expect to win every game, it happens in every league, even the highest :bad defending and lack of taking chances can't be denied. Every game's a cup final. Accept it and move on.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
Grand. Coz we're not dwelling on the result, we're saying the defence needs to improve and the attack needs to get more clinical.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 4:11 pmTotally wrong. Not what I said or meant at all.. Analysing and improving is part of moving on, but you can't change a result, you have to accept it and not dwell on the fact.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:32 amSo when you lose, you just accept and move on? You don't try an analyse where you did well and not so well? You don't try and improve? You just say "ahh well, it's only a game." Wrong answer for me. You look to improve. As Brucie said if Dapo is occupying 2 or 3 of them, you try to work out where the gaps are and how you exploit them.TANGODANCER wrote: ↑Sun Sep 19, 2021 11:18 amIn short, although we can't expect to win every game, it happens in every league, even the highest :bad defending and lack of taking chances can't be denied. Every game's a cup final. Accept it and move on.
- officer_dibble
- Immortal
- Posts: 14028
- Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:33 pm
- Location: Leeds
Re: You're not from New York City - Bolton v Rotherham (H) - 18-Sep-21
We definitely could do with scoring first a bit more!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 150 guests