Baffling

[Sefton owl]

I didn’t watch the game on Saturday but looked like we hammered QPR. 
 

I know we are lacking options up front, but it makes absolutely no sense to play Murphy and Windass up top. Murphy has been our best player since the restart and was always going to be isolated and not winning the headers against their defenders. I know most people don’t like big dave, but he would have been able to play it off to Murphy, maybe even Rhodes could have done if he’d have started. 
 

Murphy got in behind their defence about twice all night, would have been significantly more if he was played out wide. Baffling tactics. 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, Sefton owl said:

I didn’t watch the game on Saturday but looked like we hammered QPR. 
 

I know we are lacking options up front, but it makes absolutely no sense to play Murphy and Windass up top. Murphy has been our best player since the restart and was always going to be isolated and not winning the headers against their defenders. I know most people don’t like big dave, but he would have been able to play it off to Murphy, maybe even Rhodes could have done if he’d have started. 
 

Murphy got in behind their defence about twice all night, would have been significantly more if he was played out wide. Baffling tactics. 

 

 

So you'd have played Jordan Rhodes tonight having seen how Huddersfield set up their banks of 4 to make it impossible to get the ball to the strikers?

[dr. benway]

We played well at QPR but they also gifted us so many balls through sloppy passes etc. Huddersfield closed down quickly and made incisive passes tonight. 

[OwlBiSeeinThi]

Just now, Sefton owl said:

I didn’t watch the game on Saturday but looked like we hammered QPR. 
 

I know we are lacking options up front, but it makes absolutely no sense to play Murphy and Windass up top. Murphy has been our best player since the restart and was always going to be isolated and not winning the headers against their defenders. I know most people don’t like big dave, but he would have been able to play it off to Murphy, maybe even Rhodes could have done if he’d have started. 
 

Murphy got in behind their defence about twice all night, would have been significantly more if he was played out wide. Baffling tactics. 

Our bench was hardly heaving with striking options.

[Philb125]

2 minutes ago, Sefton owl said:

I didn’t watch the game on Saturday but looked like we hammered QPR. 
 

I know we are lacking options up front, but it makes absolutely no sense to play Murphy and Windass up top. Murphy has been our best player since the restart and was always going to be isolated and not winning the headers against their defenders. I know most people don’t like big dave, but he would have been able to play it off to Murphy, maybe even Rhodes could have done if he’d have started. 
 

Murphy got in behind their defence about twice all night, would have been significantly more if he was played out wide. Baffling tactics. 

Same tactics as QPR, but it worked then and not tonight. People were baffled ore match then too, but the work rate and running paid off. Not tonight mind, although we had more shots, more on target....played very similar, maybe watch that game. 

[full fathom five]

3 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

So you'd have played Jordan Rhodes tonight having seen how Huddersfield set up their banks of 4 to make it impossible to get the ball to the strikers?

Impossible you say, other teams strikers seem to have managed it virtually every week against them!!!!

[adelphi1867]

Tonight we had more shots at goal and more shots on target, forcing there G/K to get the MoM for me, where he had to make more saves than Wildsmith.

Yes they had a touch more possession than us, but possession alone does not win games.

[Ash77]

2 small mobile forwards can work on the break away, but hudds sat deeper and we launched it to small players vs cb's, crazy.

 

Needed murphy playing off nuhiu and windass in middle tonight, but ive given up on monk seeing basic stuff like that!

[Sheff74]

Huddersfield worked their arses off. QPR had their slippers on.

[Sergeant Tibbs]

15 minutes ago, OwlBiSeeinThi said:

Our bench was hardly heaving with striking options.

It never is.

[debram]

17 minutes ago, Sefton owl said:

I didn’t watch the game on Saturday but looked like we hammered QPR. 
 

I know we are lacking options up front, but it makes absolutely no sense to play Murphy and Windass up top. Murphy has been our best player since the restart and was always going to be isolated and not winning the headers against their defenders. I know most people don’t like big dave, but he would have been able to play it off to Murphy, maybe even Rhodes could have done if he’d have started. 
 

Murphy got in behind their defence about twice all night, would have been significantly more if he was played out wide. Baffling tactics. 

Just dont get Monks tactics or team selections at the best of times, going nowhere with him in charge.

[GMOwl72]

17 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

So you'd have played Jordan Rhodes tonight having seen how Huddersfield set up their banks of 4 to make it impossible to get the ball to the strikers?

Nothing’s impossible. We just seem to make it that way.

[bobbycraig]

Huddersfield needed a result with other teams picking up points, played their most experienced players, fortunately they can't finish, they had more possession, we had the better chances. Still a clean sheet, 4 points from last 2 games. Even without a crowd, we are still poor at home, but score for fun away, strange.

[heppers]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

So you'd have played Jordan Rhodes tonight having seen how Huddersfield set up their banks of 4 to make it impossible to get the ball to the strikers?

How many banks of 4?
 

I think I may be on to something.

[bobness]

1 hour ago, adelphi1867 said:

Tonight we had more shots at goal and more shots on target, forcing there G/K to get the MoM for me, where he had to make more saves than Wildsmith.

Yes they had a touch more possession than us, but possession alone does not win games.

 

Neither do shots on goal, apparently 

 

[Suzuki_San]

1 hour ago, Sefton owl said:

I didn’t watch the game on Saturday but looked like we hammered QPR. 

 

I think the biggest issue tonight was that we weren't playing a terrible QPR.  

[cookeh]

2 hours ago, adelphi1867 said:

Tonight we had more shots at goal and more shots on target,

they had a touch more possession than us

 

13 shots to their 12. How dominant of us.
16% difference in possession, them having 58 to our 42.
Our pass success rate was 66%  66 ffs!
Wildsmith's pass complete was 21%! Lossl's was 55.
Their lowest outfield player was Chalobah at 67. Iorfa, Reach and Adthe were all below that with special mention for Moses, who managed just 52%
We won less just 37% of aerial balls.

Our tackles attempted was 35 to their 26, while their interceptions was almost double ours at 14.
 

So yes, their keeper had slightly more to do.. yay.

But we were garbage in pretty much every stat going.

 

 

 

[billyblack]

9 hours ago, dr. benway said:

We played well at QPR but they also gifted us so many balls through sloppy passes etc. Huddersfield closed down quickly and made incisive passes tonight. 

So it actually sounds like huddersfield were organised and played quite well. Rather than us just being totally useless and it all being Monks fault. Nice to hear.

[billyblack]

9 hours ago, debram said:

Just dont get Monks tactics or team selections at the best of times, going nowhere with him in charge.

Have you seen our squad, just wondering.

[twolaptops]

Plan was to tire them and then unleash super-sub Reach who failed to deliver.................................................sarcasm.