Teams always seem to boss us for long periods

[Top Robin]

I can't remember many games last season when the opposition didn't boss us at some point during the game and in many cases that allowed them to score.

Saturday was no exception as Hull were better than us for most of the 2nd half with dire consequences. 

I can only conclude that this is all down to a weak and poorly directed midfield and I think we need to address this asap.

Surely it's the midfield which should control the game and ultimately stop the opposition from taking over.

 

 

 

 

[Port Said Red]

We're playing in the Championship, how many teams don't get bossed for periods in the games?

There were periods on Saturday when we were 'bossing it' I suppose the Hull fans were thinking the same thing in those periods 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

7 minutes ago, Top Robin said:

I can't remember many games last season when the opposition didn't boss us at some point during the game and in many cases that allowed them to score.

Saturday was no exception as Hull were better than us for most of the 2nd half with dire consequences. 

I can only conclude that this is all down to a weak and poorly directed midfield and I think we need to address this asap.

Surely it's the midfield which should control the game and ultimately stop the opposition from taking over.

 

 

 

 

As Jean-Paul Sartre said:

“In football everything is complicated by the presence of the opposite team.”

[GrahamC]

36 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

We're playing in the Championship, how many teams don't get bossed for periods in the games?

There were periods on Saturday when we were 'bossing it' I suppose the Hull fans were thinking the same thing in those periods 

Yes, but we let 15 players leave last summer, then 6 more this, have drastically reduced our wage bill & often play sides with parachute payments, why can’t we dominate games for 90 minutes?

[chinapig]

We're a counter attacking team so we're less likely to dominate possession. I'm not sure we have the players to do that anyway.

Swansea on the other hand tend to keep the ball for ages but couldn't win at relegation favourites Rotherham.

It's the outcome that matters not the process.

[GrahamC]

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

We're a counter attacking team so we're less likely to dominate possession. I'm not sure we have the players to do that anyway.

Swansea on the other hand tend to keep the ball for ages but couldn't win at relegation favourites Rotherham.

It's the outcome that matters not the process.

Saw that & did smile.

There is some sort of Russell Martin is the son of God narrative in the media, yet Rotherham, who lost their best 2 players for nothing this summer & definitely recruit in the bargain bins, as you say, got a good point against them.

I actually think Paul Warne has achieved far more & yet barely gets a mention.

Lots of different ways to play, results determine whether it is right.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

As Jean-Paul Sartre said:

“In football everything is complicated by the presence of the opposite team.”

Yep. Abd yet so many fail to take that into account.  We dominated decent parts of the first half and bits of the second.  Hull the opposite way around.  There are also periods in a game where neither team is dominating too…that never gets factored in.

If you are of a half-glass persuasion then if City aren’t dominant then you will wrong (imho) taje tgat to be the opponent is.  It’s just not the case.

2 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Saw that & did smile.

There is some sort of Russell Martin is the son of God narrative in the media, yet Rotherham, who lost their best 2 players for nothing this summer & definitely recruit in the bargain bins, as you say, got a good point against them.

I actually think Paul Warne has achieved far more & yet barely gets a mention.

Lots of different ways to play, results determine whether it is right.

Martin under a bit of pressure this season.  The glory boy of passing football, yet you’ve got to get results too.  You are so right that some of the media “wink” themselves silly over passing football.  There is more than one way to play this game.

[Oh Louie louie]

That season, under jw and benny,.

Watford thrashed us at home, 5 0r 6 i think.

They kept the ball for the last ten mins.

I swear we never touched it.

[JoeAman08]

Yea the possession does not bother me much. However, did feel like we tired later on and allowed them not only possession but dangerous possession within say 40 metres from our goal.
 

I agree we are a counter attacking side but what made the first half so good was winning the ball back higher up and being a bit more patient on the ball. Second half thought we tired, our first half defending was more intense than I remember. So thought NP missed on not using all 5 subs. Massengo and Wells on for Martin and Weimann would have been my call. Both looked leggy last 10-20 min. 
 

Look it is early and we need to find our balance in game situations. Saturday was a good performance without most likely 2 of our top 5-6 players. I would not fret too much about what happened.

[GrahamC]

20 minutes ago, Oh Louie louie said:

That season, under jw and benny,.

Watford thrashed us at home, 5 0r 6 i think.

They kept the ball for the last ten mins.

I swear we never touched it.

It was 4-1.

[downendcity]

4 hours ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

As Jean-Paul Sartre said:

“In football everything is complicated by the presence of the opposite team referee.”

I think this is what he actually said!  

[LondonBristolian]

I wasn’t there on Saturday but - from everything I have heard since - it was one of those days where we could replicate pretty much the exact performance again, come away with a 2-0 win and have everyone buzzing about how good the side looked.

We could do without the bad luck and collapses in composure that happened last season but, if we play well enough to win more than we lose, the results will come over time. At the same time, it is obviously deflating to concede two late and lose on the first day. Nothing kills pre-season optimism faster than a bad result on the first day but it is way too early to see it as the story of the season.

[spudski]

You've only got to look at Stats and studies to see over a season, generally teams who dominate possession win more games.

We play as a counter attacking team...often with less possession.

Less possession means you tire quicker, physically and mentally.

Is it ever any wonder we concede late and often from individual errors.

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I wasn’t there on Saturday but - from everything I have heard since - it was one of those days where we could replicate pretty much the exact performance again, come away with a 2-0 win and have everyone buzzing about how good the side looked.

We could do without the bad luck and collapses in composure that happened last season but, if we play well enough to win more than we lose, the results will come over time. At the same time, it is obviously deflating to concede two late and lose on the first day. Nothing kills pre-season optimism faster than a bad result on the first day but it is way too early to see it as the story of the season.

We could (have come home with a 2-0 win) but we’d have been incredibly fortunate to have done so. There’s no doubt in my mind that Hull (to use the OPs expression) bossed us for much of the second half. Their two goals may have been very fortunate, but there always seemed to be a goal coming during that second half. A draw would probably have been the right result.

A former manager of ours, and I genuinely can’t recall who, used to talk about “dictating the pace of the game” and I think there’s a lot in that. It’s not so much about possession per se, or about a particular style or tempo being better than another, but about imposing what you want to do as a team. We all recognise the difference between passing it across the back four with a slow tempo because that’s what we choose to do rather than because the opposition stop you doing anything else. 

We dictated the pace first half Saturday because they let us. We kept the ball as long as we wanted at the back and then upped the tempo just when we wanted to set Sykes or Weimann off on a run. Second half they forced us to play it out a lot quicker and we tried, but failed, to retain possession for very long in our own half. 

Edited August 1, 2022 by italian dave

[Simon bristol]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

You've only got to look at Stats and studies to see over a season, generally teams who dominate possession win more games.

We play as a counter attacking team...often with less possession.

Less possession means you tire quicker, physically and mentally.

Is it ever any wonder we concede late and often from individual errors.

Problem is We play with less possession, but we arent reliable enough defensively to deal with the other team having the ball more. But if the team is set up specifically to play that way then is it any wonder we struggle!! Semenyo is obviously key to this and without him the plan is even less likely to work

[italian dave]

32 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Problem is We play with less possession, but we arent reliable enough defensively to deal with the other team having the ball more. But if the team is set up specifically to play that way then is it any wonder we struggle!! Semenyo is obviously key to this and without him the plan is even less likely to work

Agree on Semenyo. But interesting discussion at the match Saturday about where Semenyo fits in when fit. Given that Martin is seemingly assured a place, then presumably Weimann drops back to ‘midfield’. But at whose expense? Alex Scott? Or a holding midfielder (which Weimann isn’t). You might get away with the latter at home, but not away. What’s your view? 

[Mr Popodopolous]

55 minutes ago, Simon bristol said:

Problem is We play with less possession, but we arent reliable enough defensively to deal with the other team having the ball more. But if the team is set up specifically to play that way then is it any wonder we struggle!! Semenyo is obviously key to this and without him the plan is even less likely to work

Unsure how successful low possession sides can be in the medium to long term personally. Although we had plenty and looked very sharp for much of the first half! I think we need to control the ball better and for longer but hopefully that will come with time.

With how the game has changed, the ability to win without the ball seems harder now than it was- less important away from home of course, as @spudskisays less ball can mean being pushed deeper, being pushed deeper can mean momentum falls away and goes into reverse which leaves the possibility of more physical and mental fatigue creeping in which can lead to more costly mistakes over time.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Baba Yaga]

Last season if you took just the 1st half of games City would have ended up in the play offs, and if you took just the 2nd half they would have been in the relegation zone. Don't think there was another Championship club with such a contrast. Makes sense over a season lots of teams would have a spell in control especially in 2nd half of games (although I can recall a few in the 1st half too).

[Redrascal2]

7 hours ago, GrahamC said:

Yes, but we let 15 players leave last summer, then 6 more this, have drastically reduced our wage bill & often play sides with parachute payments, why can’t we dominate games for 90 minutes?

Agree with you but I was surprised that a defensive midfield player wasn't the first player we signed in the window. This need has  been there for a few seasons. And seems to cause us continued problems when we take leads and can't hold on to them. I can only imagine it  is all down to money. But some crunching tackler from somewhere would be great. 

 

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

You've only got to look at Stats and studies to see over a season, generally teams who dominate possession win more games.

Or is it the inverse that's true? Is it just that teams that win tend to have high possession?

If there is a correlation between possession and winning, then can we be sure that it is a causal factor in the direction of More Possession = More wins. 

It could be that a team tends to win simply because they play in red. Then, because they often win, they tend to have high possession (because their opponents sit back, afraid to break, etc). This can give a false impression of the importance and impact of high possession.

Do you have the studies as they should explain their methodology and account for this. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

13 minutes ago, Redrascal2 said:

Agree with you but I was surprised that a defensive midfield player wasn't the first player we signed in the window. This need has  been there for a few seasons. And seems to cause us continued problems when we take leads and can't hold on to them. I can only imagine it  is all down to money. But some crunching tackler from somewhere would be great. 

 

When you play 2 in CM AND can be exposed in wide areas- 3-4-1-2 vs 4-3-3 for example can be bad for this, you have a big tactical issue.

3-4-3 otoh can double up in wide areas- 3-4-1-2 is neither one nor the other, 3-5-2 should provide the basis for a central advantage at least. In theory Naismith going back and forth and Scott too should give some control in there vs similar sides.

Not a terminal one but it's a factor- or can be. Naismith being able to step into CM and form a 3 can be a gamechanger of course and I will still reserve judgement until we have Semenyo back- that extra threat on the break which in turn helps us to get higher up the pitch- while Tanner and Wilson fighting it out for RB/RWB which might give us more stability overall and Scott- well his best position will be interesting to see when all are fit, I think we have had and still have some fundamental tactical issues but will caveat that with injuries and new players still integrating.

Edited August 1, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

3 hours ago, spudski said:

You've only got to look at Stats and studies to see over a season, generally teams who dominate possession win more games.

We play as a counter attacking team...often with less possession.

Less possession means you tire quicker, physically and mentally.

Is it ever any wonder we concede late and often from individual errors.

 

 

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

 

Versus shots/shots on target per game.

Still not perfect, but a better indicator of league position. Still can't be certain that it's causing teams to win, but it's a much tighter correlation than possession. Suggests it's not how (ie possession and build up v counter v wing-backs crossing v set pieces etc) you get your shots that matters, it's the fact that you take them when you get the chance.

Ps. What the hell were Luton actually doing last season. How did they ever get play offs!?!?

Edited August 1, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[GrahamC]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Versus shots/shots on target per game.

Still not perfect, but a better indicator of league position. Still can't be certain that it's causing teams to win, but it's a much tighter correlation than possession. Suggests it's not how (ie possession and build up v counter v wing-backs crossing v set pieces etc) you get your shots that matters, it's the fact that you take them when you get the chance.

Ps. What the hell were Luton actually doing last season. How did they ever get play offs!?!?

They play ugly football very successfully as did Barnsley the year before.

Compete for every ball, not at all afraid to hit it in the air a lot (& long) without necessarily an obvious target.

Pretty terrible to watch (or play against) but effective.

Nathan Jones is still a massive *** though.