Jump to content

We need to tighten up...


Recommended Posts

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 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by HootHoot
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Night King
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

729192991_Screenshot2021-11-28at18_20_27.thumb.png.dbe73cb64c33bdd3c966c5d502d0c55a.png

 

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.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

729192991_Screenshot2021-11-28at18_20_27.thumb.png.dbe73cb64c33bdd3c966c5d502d0c55a.png

 

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...