All Change at Shrews: Shrewsbury Away, EFL Cup 2nd Round, Tue 27th Aug 19:45

[irie Cee Bee]

So you could go Southwood; Toal, Forino, Iredale; Osei-Tutu, Matete, Dempsey, Williams; Arfield, Vic, McAtee.

This side on paper looks even better than the team that started yesterday. Evatt has some wonderful talent to work with. If only he could make it work.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

So you could go Southwood; Toal, Forino, Iredale; Osei-Tutu, Matete, Dempsey, Williams; Arfield, Vic, McAtee.

This side on paper looks even better than the team that started yesterday. Evatt has some wonderful talent to work with. If only he could make it work.

Your first sentence seems a bit harsh on some of yesterday's XI – if Southwood's better than Baxter he's a hell of a back-up, and there's a few there with points to prove – but yes, it's possible that some (JOT, Matete) may be upgrades on the incumbents.

Second sentence I fully agree with. This squad should be right up there, and if it's not, questions will rightly be asked. Let's just hope it is soon.

[irie Cee Bee]

Sheehan won awards because he's a good player. It's not that people think he's good because he won awards.

The point of mentioning the awards is just to point out that everyone could see it bar an extreme minority of our own fans.

Sheehan is great under conditions when he has time to play. He is really not very good when he is "attacked" while in possession by players who are bigger than he is and who come at him aggressively and quickly n the press. He is integral to Evatts system which has been found out by the better managers last season, and who have given the blue print to all L1 managers, I am afraid this season for Sheehan will be a poor one by his standard as a result. For me, we will do better with Dempsey or Matete playing with Thomasson more consistently than with Sheehan in there. But then, Will Evatt tweek his system to make that work? That is the question I hope I will see answered in September.

[GhostoftheBok]

Sheehan is great under conditions when he has time to play. He is really not very good when he is "attacked" while in possession by players who are bigger than he is and who come at him aggressively and quickly n the press. He is integral to Evatts system which has been found out by the better managers last season, and who have given the blue print to all L1 managers, I am afraid this season for Sheehan will be a poor one by his standard as a result. For me, we will do better with Dempsey or Matete playing with Thomasson more consistently than with Sheehan in there. But then, Will Evatt tweek his system to make that work? That is the question I hope I will see answered in September.

The problem is that this isn't true. It's repeated a lot, but isn't right. It's something some Bolton fans have agreed is true, but isn't.

Sheehan regularly plays against high-pressure, physical mids and makes them look like mugs. He is one of the most press-resistant midfielders in the division, both to the eye and in the data. He has probably the best touch in the squad and is superb at shielding the ball.

The way he's shut down by teams to to use him as a press trigger for multiple players and to double-mark him.

That then creates space elsewhere and its up to the other players to use that space, which we have often failed to do.

Sheehan has played in a double pivot for a lot of his career without a problem. Part of the reason we've moved to the double pivot is to cut down on teams' ability to put multiple players on Josh.

When Sheehan gets shut down it is by physicality and pressing, that much is correct. The idea it's common isn't. He usually wins those duals and by some distance.

We were told that Sheehan lost the ball against the physicality of Wrexham and Orient. He lost possession once across both games. Once.

109 combined touches. Dispossessed once.

It's a myth.

That doesn't mean he's had a good start to the season, but the reason he's been poor has been his forward passing and decision-making. He's looked to break lines and given the ball away far too often. His passing success is 85.7%, but those failed through balls have mattered a lot. Broadly speaking he hasn't been under huge pressure in those moments, he's just been poor. If you're going to be bad, trying to make things happen is the way to do it.

Where Josh's physicality is an issue is recovery runs. Once he's beaten he's beaten. That means he can be a liability in transition, but he's definitely not in possession.

That weakness on transition has been an issue, because the box midfield has broken down as we get used to it. Matete would be a better choice in broken-up games, but the aim is to sort out the system.

In Sheehan's time here his average dispossession rate in a deep role has been 0.36 per 90, whilst having one of the highest touch rates in the league.

People need to stop saying this.

[irie Cee Bee]

Sheehan is great under conditions when he has time to play. He is really not very good when he is "attacked" while in possession by players who are bigger than he is and who come at him aggressively and quickly n the press. He is integral to Evatts system which has been found out by the better managers last season, and who have given the blue print to all L1 managers, I am afraid this season for Sheehan will be a poor one by his standard as a result. For me, we will do better with Dempsey or Matete playing with Thomasson more consistently than with Sheehan in there. But then, Will Evatt tweek his system to make that work? That is the question I hope I will see answered in September.

The problem is that this isn't true. It's repeated a lot, but isn't right. It's something some Bolton fans have agreed is true, but isn't.

Sheehan regularly plays against high-pressure, physical mids and makes them look like mugs. He is one of the most press-resistant midfielders in the division, both to the eye and in the data. He has probably the best touch in the squad and is superb at shielding the ball.

The way he's shut down by teams to to use him as a press trigger for multiple players and to double-mark him.

That then creates space elsewhere and its up to the other players to use that space, which we have often failed to do.

Sheehan has played in a double pivot for a lot of his career without a problem. Part of the reason we've moved to the double pivot is to cut down on teams' ability to put multiple players on Josh.

When Sheehan gets shut down it is by physicality and pressing, that much is correct. The idea it's common isn't. He usually wins those duals and by some distance.

We were told that Sheehan lost the ball against the physicality of Wrexham and Orient. He lost possession once across both games. Once.

109 combined touches. Dispossessed once.

It's a myth.

That doesn't mean he's had a good start to the season, but the reason he's been poor has been his forward passing and decision-making. He's looked to break lines and given the ball away far too often. His passing success is 85.7%, but those failed through balls have mattered a lot. Broadly speaking he hasn't been under huge pressure in those moments, he's just been poor. If you're going to be bad, trying to make things happen is the way to do it.

Where Josh's physicality is an issue is recovery runs. Once he's beaten he's beaten. That means he can be a liability in transition, but he's definitely not in possession.

That weakness on transition has been an issue, because the box midfield has broken down as we get used to it. Matete would be a better choice in broken-up games, but the aim is to sort out the system.

In Sheehan's time here his average dispossession rate in a deep role has been 0.36 per 90, whilst having one of the highest touch rates in the league.

People need to stop saying this.

I hear you Ghost but pass completion success means nothing to me. I can have 100% pass completion by playing the ball back to my goalkeeper everytime I get it. What I observed yesterday is that Sheehan passes were back to his CHs whenever he came under pressure. So yes, he hardly ever loses the ball because he passes it back to his defense or sidewise. Is this what Evatt system is all about? Possession or pass completion rate? I want a system that is effective. Matete, Dempsey, Thomasson etc are fighting to carry/play the ball forward. Sheehan who plays in midfield is to link defence to forward not pass it backwards. He plays forward when under no pressure. Under pressure, the outlet is backwards. While I can appreciate the need to do so at times, I would like to know how much of his pass completion yesterday went forward.

[GhostoftheBok]

I hear you Ghost but pass completion success means nothing to me. I can have 100% pass completion by playing the ball back to my goalkeeper everytime I get it.

Sorry if I was unclear, I was making the same point as you are here.

Sheehan's passing numbers have looked good if you just glance at percentages, but he's actually been really poor with the ball.

Because he's now in a double pivot he has got to split the lines more with his passing, rather than handing off to an 8.

We need to see accurate forward passing from Josh and he's not shown that enough thus far.

He has it in his locker, but the fact that specific criticism of him isn't right (that he can't play under pressure) doesn't mean he's done well.

Again, sorry if I was unclear.

[Mar]

There's a lot of people that dismiss stats based upon a less than stellar understanding. Trouble is, stats don't paint a good enough picture of a football match when looked at in isolation. The reality of the game is far more nuanced.

A high passing stat as irie cee bee points out means very little unless it is the type of passing that is required. I get the impression that Ghost knows this and is looking for the right metrics in order to dispell the myths about what we take as a given.

Sheehan for instance has shown time and again that he can ride a challenge and attack. He's also shown he can get affected by pressing opposition and lack of bodies around him to receive the ball.

A poor passing percentage from Sheehan would still be questionable. Are the players making the runs that are intended? It's not as simple as intercepted pass forward is bad, it may be a case of forward movement may need resolving.

It's a team game and the nuance is what will provide the evidence. Sheehan receiving the ball, turning and then playing a pass is done quite a lot, so much so that the poor guy gets kicked about quite a bit. He's a very good player who seems to tick a lot of the boxes for us.

[BWFC_Insane]

There's a lot of people that dismiss stats based upon a less than stellar understanding. Trouble is, stats don't paint a good enough picture of a football match when looked at in isolation. The reality of the game is far more nuanced.

A high passing stat as irie cee bee points out means very little unless it is the type of passing that is required. I get the impression that Ghost knows this and is looking for the right metrics in order to dispell the myths about what we take as a given.

Sheehan for instance has shown time and again that he can ride a challenge and attack. He's also shown he can get affected by pressing opposition and lack of bodies around him to receive the ball.

A poor passing percentage from Sheehan would still be questionable. Are the players making the runs that are intended? It's not as simple as intercepted pass forward is bad, it may be a case of forward movement may need resolving.

It's a team game and the nuance is what will provide the evidence. Sheehan receiving the ball, turning and then playing a pass is done quite a lot, so much so that the poor guy gets kicked about quite a bit. He's a very good player who seems to tick a lot of the boxes for us.

Let’s be blunt. If anything Sheehan is Bernardo silva yet we are asking him to be Rodri.

[Worthy4England]

Agree Mar. Stats that we generally see don't tell you should've been there for a 50/50 but wasn't, should've been a header but didn't take it on, lost a man in forward play who's then through onto the CBs. Got nowhere near through poor reading of the transition. That's not intended as a dig at Sheehan, per se, but we see all of those on the pitch too.

I'm sure with detailed tracking, that will be buried in data, but that's generally not published.

I'm not hugely critical of Sheehan and not convinced the answer is as simple as "put Matete in" (maybe a couple of seasons back) but you don't need stats to tell you that there absolutely days when he's not bossing it, even if they're not a majority. I doubt he had the same set if stats v Pies at home as v Exeter (along with the rest of the team), but I know which one will live rent free for longer.

I think we focus too much on that was good how can we make it 2% better, whilst sometimes not challenging enough that was poor and needs to be 10% better. (Acknowledging that no one seemed to be overly enamoured by Saturday, we still had enough suggesting 0-0 v Wrexham at home was ok).

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

IMO the Wrexham performance was good, 'tee to green', but we didn't score so we didn't win (ie the result wasn't OK, which is what you've said). That's a 2%er.

Charlton? Different kettle of stinking fish.

[GhostoftheBok]

IMO the Wrexham performance was good, 'tee to green', but we didn't score so we didn't win (ie the result wasn't OK, which is what you've said). That's a 2%er.

Charlton? Different kettle of stinking fish.

Yeah. I've not watched Charlton back, nor have I fired up the ol' data box to have a look at it with that hat on. However, it felt dreadful to sit through on the day.

I wasn't angry after Wrexham. Disappointed, but saw enough to be fine with it. I was royally pissed off after Charlton.

Orient we went toe-to-toe and found a way to win.
Mansfield we got into gear slowly, played them off the park for a bit, then got sloppy.
Wrexham we were mostly there in 2/3s of the pitch.
Charlton...feck me. Never got off the coach.

It's like getting to the last spud in the peel pile and then taking the skin off your thumb.

[Prufrock]

I still don't agree - I think Charlton was good tee to green as well! Or fairway to green assuming Rico handing two goals to them is a tee shot. But then the result was even worse than Wrexham.

First 20 we were bang on it off the ball, away from home absolutely shut them down and they were just clearing their lines, even from starting points of good possession. We got into loads of good positions. Both from the back, and on the press. We had a very good number where we turned it over 4v3 or similar. And also worked McAtee and Collins into good positions around the box.

But the decision making and the runs were just awful. That's the stuff that we're waiting to click. We do the right things there and we're 2-0 up away from home in half an hour. We didn't, and then gifted them a shocker and something to hold on to.

It wasn't a Dougie "what the hell is the plan here"? If you'd showed any of us the 90 mins but blanked out the boxes you'd think we were much the better side. It was then individual mistakes, but lots of them, at either end. That has to click.

There is still room to improvement fairway to green too, it wasn't an amazing performance ruined by mistakes. When trying to break them down we ended up so narrow at times. But there is a lot of quality in that front 3 and if it clicks soon we will be fine. If it doesn't, well we'll have a new manager.

[GhostoftheBok]

I still don't agree - I think Charlton was good tee to green as well!

I suppose it depends what you mean.

We were in loads of positions where we could have hurt them, but it felt like every single player was off it - bar maybe Johnston.

I don't think Charlton was a tactical issue. It was a properly shite performance, though.

Against Wrexham everyone played better than in London, but you could argue it wasn't tactically that different.

Charlton didn't cut through us and they didn't contain us all that well. We were just diabolical at kicking a ball and running around.

[Prufrock]

I think we're largely saying the same thing, though I don't think it was quite as bad still.

It wasn't that they were horrific all over, you don't get into those good positions, or stop the other team playing if you're diabolical at kicking it out running around. They did most of the 90% of the hard work well, but not the easier but more important "pick the right pass when you're 4v3" or "not roll a nothing ball into central midfield when they're set".

Ultimately that's what kills you. We still weren't great, but I just don't think we were that bad at the big picture "is there a fundamental tactical problem here" stuff.

Johnston was good. Tomo first half also. The rest were ok but then we shot ourselves in the foot, crawled back over to the gun and shot ourselves in the head.

[BWFC_Insane]

Football a game about scoring more goals than your opponents tends to be determined by how good or bad your are at either relative to your opponents.

The rest is pretty much an irrelevance. So if assessing A performance you reflect mainly on the final thirds, because they will likely tell you most about where you will end up.

[GhostoftheBok]

"You press the pedal down in the car and the wheels start to move or they don't. What happens in the middle is pretty much an irrelevance."
"Er...and you're a mechanic?"
"We can tow your car to the positions of maximum opportunity."
"The what?"
"Your driveway and work."

[Prufrock]

It's not an irrelevance though is it or we wouldn't bother with things like "midfield".

Of course you get judged on results, rightly. And they depend on how many you score Vs how many they do.

But there's a whole other 80 odd minutes that are about maximising the number of chances you get to score and minimising theirs. You can still win games when you're bad, and lose them when you're good, but the chance to be successful is determined by how well you do the middle bit over a season.

It's obviously not enough in its own though. Winning a league is hard, you have to be good at all three. Currently we're pretty good in the middle, generally solid but mistake prone at the back, and not clicking on the final third. It's a not a defence, if he doesn't fix both ends he'll be gone and deservedly so. But the issues we have so far this season are more fixable and less fundamental than the last couple.

[GhostoftheBok]

After NY last season we shipped about 1.17 goals per game. You can't concede at that rate and achieve what we want to.

You're usually looking at 0.9 conceded per game or lower to get autos. There have been some closer to 1.0, but usually its lower.

We know we can score goals, so it's about whether we can keep them out.

We're at 1.0 thus far this season and most chances (and all the goals) have come from an error. A lot of goals come from errors in footy, but a 1 to 1 ratio usually means you can improve your defending fairly dramatically in short order.

If you get a team that can consistently win games in which they don't commit horrible errors you'll usually win a heck of a lot of games at any level.

The counter to that is that our style of play encourages errors by placing demands on the players.

We have another football game tomorrow. We'll see how that plays out.

[BWFC_Insane]

^^At this level the sides that do best tend to be the most economical ones in both thirds imho. Score goals and don’t concede. Derby won’t have dominated many games. But who cares? Neither did Wigan a few years back. The best period in our history was about maximum efficiency.

Ultimately Evatts who career here in league one has been defined by an inability to be clinical both ends when it matters.

[Worthy4England]

"You press the pedal down in the car and the wheels start to move or they don't. What happens in the middle is pretty much an irrelevance."
"Er...and you're a mechanic?"
"We can tow your car to the positions of maximum opportunity."
"The what?"
"Your driveway and work."

Great. The outcome of arriving at work/home is achieved! What a wonderful outcome. Some wonderful lateral thinking and getting the achievement!

Better than sorry Mr Mechanic, whilst you bolted it back together, we didn't actually get to work, so I didn't get paid - can you wait?