We need to tighten up...

[jonnyowl]

Apart from todays first goal where he could have been closed down quicker, I'm not sure what could have been done about MK dons goal and Wycombe second goal today!

 

 

[Brissy-owl]

13 hours ago, We are all Wednesday said:

...we can’t be expecting to win games by scoring 3, 4 goals. I know we’re short on numbers at the back but I think it’s time to consider a back four. We have the quality in this league and are scoring the goals but we’re letting way too many in

We are shipping every week, however a good goalkeeper would have secured the pts yesterday, their 2nd was just pathetic 

[Box_Man]

If Paterson isn’t on the pitch we win that game yesterday.

 

Headed in the first and gave a stupid free kick away when he didn’t need to climb all over their player on the edge of our box.

 

Bloke is a liability, play him as a striker and he misses shed loads of chances, play him as a defender and he’s a bomb scare waiting to happen.

 

Hope Palmer is only missing the one game, it really shows how much better he is defensively.

[S72 Owl]

8 hours ago, We are all Wednesday said:

Yeah because we’re not winning enough...

Who would have been your back 4 yesterday? 

[Ellis Rimmer]

Makes you wonder why we brought in NML but not a defender

[Supersiggi2]

16 hours ago, Sefton owl said:

Their first goal was very lucky, but there was times today where we really struggled to get it out.

I struggled to get it out at half time. Bleeding freezing  

[SiJ]

Just not clinical enough in either box atm.

 

We don't give away lots of chances but they're often pretty decent ones when we do.

 

Lack of cutting edge at top is a worry. Fan of both Kamberi and Gregory but thought both were wasteful in front of goal or didn't anticipate good crosses into the box.

[SallyCinnamon]

5 hours ago, jonnyowl said:

Apart from todays first goal where he could have been closed down quicker, I'm not sure what could have been done about MK dons goal and Wycombe second goal today!

 

 

Paterson giving a stupid foul a way on the edge of the box. I’d like to think an actual defender wouldn’t make that challenge.

[McRightSide]

I think we have been pretty tight tbh

 

Esp considering the players we have out and the conditions weve played in

[northeastowl]

To be fair I'm loving the way we are playing since the Accy game. Must rather play like this and draw a game than play like we did before hand.

 

At least its fun to watch. Play like we have the last 3 games and we will win more than not and it will be entertaining while we do it. 

[HootHoot]

17 hours ago, Night King said:

BPF not made a save but we e conceded 2 more goals. Need to sort this out because we’re looking mikes better going forward. 

The first one you can't blame him for that one. It took a massive deflection. If it weren't for that, it looked like he had it covered.

 

And the free kick was a terrific free kick. Not surprising that it went in.

Edited November 28, 2021 by HootHoot

[Night King]

1 hour ago, HootHoot said:

The first one you can't blame him for that one. It took a massive deflection. If it weren't for that, it looked like he had it covered.

 

And the free kick was a terrific free kick. Not surprising that it went in.

Sorry, I Wasn’t blaming him just a general point that we concede too many soft goals 

Edited November 28, 2021 by Night King

[adamwestsleftear]

let's not 'tighten up' let's instead continue to create 20chances a game and dominate on front foot..

with wing backs pushed up and roaming hybrid centre backs ..these are our unique spike proteins that make us the dominant strain...

[HootHoot]

54 minutes ago, Night King said:

Sorry, I Wasn’t blaming him just a general point that we concede too many soft goals 

Oh I agree. 

 

You look back at some of the draws teams have managed to claw back when playing us and you realise that we really should be up there. 

 

Silly mistakes have cost us time and time again so far, but I have to say we do seem to be improving on that front. 

 

Get Palmer back with Brennan and Dunkley and I think our back 3 will be fine until Iorfa and Hutch return.

[A E Neuman NYowl]

13 hours ago, frastheowl said:

 

NO, NO, NO, NO....NO!

 

We played four at the back for much of the season, with much of our defensive players available. And, quite frankly, the football was rubbish, and our performances were lacklustre.

 

Moore has found a system that is getting the best out of these players...whether it be by fluke or design.

 

Dunkley has literally changed overnight, from a dithering defender who struggled to even pass a ball 5 yards to a colossus who'll win everything where ever it is, when we switched to a back three.

 

It's allowed us to be far more adventurous in our play. Playing out and out wingers in the wing back positions, and full backs (or wingers or forwards!) in the wide centre half positions is allowing us to get, sometimes eight or nine offensive minded players on the field.

 

Throughout September and October we bemoaned Moore's defensive, safety first approach. It wasn't yielding performances, nor results. Finally, he's approaching games with a positive mindset, and the players are responding to it. Lets just accept, given we've only got ONE fit first team centre half, that we might concede the odd goal, so long as it's outweighed by attacking, front foot positive football. 

 

I genuinely think, given Windass and Luongo are easing back to full fitness, and with key defenders still to return (or signings to be made), playing this system will see us push the top two very close. Who would've seriously thought that four weeks ago?!

Agree with this.

The extra man in midfield or like today in attack is working really well. We are out playing and out creating our opponents.

[We are all Wednesday]

16 hours ago, frastheowl said:

 

NO, NO, NO, NO....NO!

 

We played four at the back for much of the season, with much of our defensive players available. And, quite frankly, the football was rubbish, and our performances were lacklustre.

 

Moore has found a system that is getting the best out of these players...whether it be by fluke or design.

 

Dunkley has literally changed overnight, from a dithering defender who struggled to even pass a ball 5 yards to a colossus who'll win everything where ever it is, when we switched to a back three.

 

It's allowed us to be far more adventurous in our play. Playing out and out wingers in the wing back positions, and full backs (or wingers or forwards!) in the wide centre half positions is allowing us to get, sometimes eight or nine offensive minded players on the field.

 

Throughout September and October we bemoaned Moore's defensive, safety first approach. It wasn't yielding performances, nor results. Finally, he's approaching games with a positive mindset, and the players are responding to it. Lets just accept, given we've only got ONE fit first team centre half, that we might concede the odd goal, so long as it's outweighed by attacking, front foot positive football. 

 

I genuinely think, given Windass and Luongo are easing back to full fitness, and with key defenders still to return (or signings to be made), playing this system will see us push the top two very close. Who would've seriously thought that four weeks ago?!

Don‘t want us to lose our attracting attributes but we need to tighten up at the back, won‘t win enough games whilst we‘re leaning goals. Appreciate though that we‘ll be much better then Iorfa / Hutch fit and / or maybe signing one more. Think Dunkley is benefitting more from a run of games to be honest but obviously great to see him playing well either way.

[We are all Wednesday]

8 hours ago, S72 Owl said:

Who would have been your back 4 yesterday? 

Hunt, Brennan, Dunkley and Pato maybe or recall the young left back if we can who looked decent when he played in the cup. It‘s a general point though and appreciate we are down on numbers atm.

[frastheowl]

We started playing three at the back against Bolton, since then we've gone 10 games unbeaten in the league, after previously picking up only one victory in six games. 

 

But, far too often, fans use results as a basis for approval, when really performances and trends are far more telling about the process. 

 

Here's a breakdown comparing performances (based on NPxG) between the 4-2-3-1 (4-3-3) system we employed in the early stages of the season, to the more recently adopted 3-5-2/3-4-3 system.

 

 

As you can see, in every single metric we are superior when employing the three at the back.

 

We are 50% for effective from an offensive point of view, but also, despite the OP's concerns about the system, we are marginally more solid from a defensive point of view.

 

Perhaps the biggest discrepancy is the expected points, where under the 4-2-3-1 we great outperformed our xG Points, which often indicates an unsustainability to results. Something we saw. On the other hand however, we haven't picked up quite as many points as we should have, when playing 3 at the back. Which denotes that, statistically, we should see our results improve, if we maintain our performances levels.

 

There is simply no comparison between the two metrics. Three at the back is the way forward for this squad.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 minute ago, frastheowl said:

We started playing three at the back against Bolton, since then we've gone 10 games unbeaten in the league, after previously picking up only one victory in six games. 

 

But, far too often, fans use results as a basis for approval, when really performances and trends are far more telling about the process. 

 

Here's a breakdown comparing performances (based on NPxG) between the 4-2-3-1 (4-3-3) system we employed in the early stages of the season, to the more recently adopted 3-5-2/3-4-3 system.

 

 

As you can see, in every single metric we are superior when employing the three at the back.

 

We are 50% for effective from an offensive point of view, but also, despite the OP's concerns about the system, we are marginally more solid from a defensive point of view.

 

Perhaps the biggest discrepancy is the expected points, where under the 4-2-3-1 we great outperformed our xG Points, which often indicates an unsustainability to results. Something we saw. On the other hand however, we haven't picked up quite as many points as we should have, when playing 3 at the back. Which denotes that, statistically, we should see our results improve, if we maintain our performances levels.

 

There is simply no comparison between the two metrics. Three at the back is the way forward for this squad.

 

Great stuff. It's always great when somebody takes the time to dig into things in a bit more detail for us.

 

What you've found certainly tallies with what many of us are seeing with our own eyes, too. 

 

What's 'NP' short for, though?

 

[Jack of Clubs]

I’d flip the argument in its head and say we need to be more ruthless in the final third. That as well would take the pressure off the defence.