Jump to content
IGNORED

Some Scandalous Positive Thoughts


ExiledAjax

Recommended Posts

I honestly think tweaks are needed rather than an overhaul.

When you take everything else away, the major glaring issues are the absence of Kalas and Semenyo and the departure of Cundy meaning our current formation is lacking two components essential to making it work.

In the short term, Pearson needs to find a way for us to play that compensates for a shortage of right sides centre backs and the absence of an exceptional forward. In the longer term, everyone - Pearson included - seem to know where we need to strengthen but it is just a question of when we can do it.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Accept this isn't in line with the broader narrative after two games, but I think it's important to discuss the good things as well as the bad. Celebrate the small successes in an attempt to resist a spiral down into full on "City are useless" depression. So here's an attempt, without going into huge detail, to note down a few of the good things I've seen over the first 180 minutes of our season.

1. Decent passing numbers. 78% success yesterday (436 attempted passes), 82% success at Hull (382 attempted passes). 

2. We're still dangerous going forward. 4 shots on target v Hull, 5 yesterday. 39% of shots are on target. 3 goals in 2 games is ok. Just think back to Holden's days and do a comparison.

3. The shots we're taking are dangerous. xG per shot is 0.116 and per shot on target is 0.29. those are good figures. Lower than last season's final figures, but still good.

4. Weimann's carried on his form. Perhaps surprising, but he's still performing at a very high level.

5. Sykes is looking to like a pleasantly surprisingly great addition. He looks to be working well with Weimann. 

There's other positive points as well, but that's just a few that I think we can bear in mind when we look at what's not working. 

Very ready to be accused of happy-clapping and ignoring the failures, and yeh in this particular opening post I am. There's other threads where the bad aspects of our games are being picked over ad nauseam.

1. How many of those were progressive? Wonder what the stats were for O'Driscoll - context more important than numbers.

2. Which leaves us far too open at the back, the stat is negative not positive considering we are conceding chance after chance could easily have been 5 yesterday.

3. So lower than last season and still conceding hatfulls of chances.

4. Yep a positive.

5. Got bullied yesterday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I honestly think tweaks are needed rather than an overhaul.

When you take everything else away, the major glaring issues are the absence of Kalas and Semenyo and the departure of Cundy meaning our current formation is lacking two components essential to making it work.

In the short term, Pearson needs to find a way for us to play that compensates for a shortage of right sides centre backs and the absence of an exceptional forward. In the longer term, everyone - Pearson included - seem to know where we need to strengthen but it is just a question of when we can do it.

I would say the major issue defensively, as Nigel said post-match, is the constant individual errors leading to goals.

We bring in Naismith, previously a reliable defender, and he immediately catches the disease.

This seems to be so entrenched in the mindset of the team whoever plays (a case of we expect to give away goals so we do) that I am at a loss to know what to do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I honestly think tweaks are needed rather than an overhaul.

When you take everything else away, the major glaring issues are the absence of Kalas and Semenyo and the departure of Cundy meaning our current formation is lacking two components essential to making it work.

In the short term, Pearson needs to find a way for us to play that compensates for a shortage of right sides centre backs and the absence of an exceptional forward. In the longer term, everyone - Pearson included - seem to know where we need to strengthen but it is just a question of when we can do it.

Spot on.

Worth pointing out though that Cundy was taken off at half time last week by Barnsley & dropped yesterday, so whilst I’m not saying he’s a naughty boy, he’s certainly not the Messiah, either.

For all the nonsense spouted about us being a better side without Kalas, he’s a huge miss & Semenyo is integral to how we play.

I would say though that Pearson knew this before a ball was kicked & also knew we were in real difficulties because of FFP, so he needed to find better solutions than those deployed so far.

To me that’s Tanner or Wilson (when fit) at RWB, & just accept the fact that Klose has little pace & see Sykes as a midfield option.

Edited by GrahamC
  • Like 9
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, chinapig said:

I would say the major issue defensively, as Nigel said post-match, is the constant individual errors leading to goals.

We bring in Naismith, previously a reliable defender, and he immediately catches the disease.

This seems to be so entrenched in the mindset of the team whoever plays (a case of we expect to give away goals so we do) that I am at a loss to know what to do about it.

Also the midfield being completely over run which could contribute to individual defensive errors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, RudiRed said:

1. How many of those were progressive? Wonder what the stats were for O'Driscoll - context more important than numbers.

2. Which leaves us far too open at the back, the stat is negative not positive considering we are conceding chance after chance could easily have been 5 yesterday.

3. So lower than last season and still conceding hatfulls of chances.

4. Yep a positive.

5. Got bullied yesterday.

Yes context is important for passing stats, as I said, what I posted were headlines rather than detail. In general it's good numbers. Are numbers from SOD's time still relevant? Different division, completely different players, different football. If you want one piece of context then Sunderland had just a 66% success rate from only 297 passes.

"Conceding hatfuls of chances". I accept that we are conceding a high number of shots on target, but they are weaker chances than our own. Lower xG per shot against, so that suggests its possible to keep them out. Also, having one penalty in the 10 shots on target we've conceded will drastically raise the average quality of those shots. So it's a bit warped. Anyway, the positive is that we are dangerous ourselves. That's what we can control completely, and we're good there.

We can debate, counter-argue, and tear down the positives if we like, or we can build them up and treat them as we should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, chinapig said:

I would say the major issue defensively, as Nigel said post-match, is the constant individual errors leading to goals.

We bring in Naismith, previously a reliable defender, and he immediately catches the disease.

Just out of curiosity - and this is a serious question - when did Naismith last play in central defence for a sustained period, and when as the centre of a back three?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yes context is important for passing stats, as I said, what I posted were headlines rather than detail. In general it's good numbers. Are numbers from SOD's time still relevant? Different division, completely different players, different football. If you want one piece of context then Sunderland had just a 66% success rate from only 297 passes.

"Conceding hatfuls of chances". I accept that we are conceding a high number of shots on target, but they are weaker chances than our own. Lower xG per shot against, so that suggests its possible to keep them out. Also, having one penalty in the 10 shots on target we've conceded will drastically raise the average quality of those shots. So it's a bit warped. Anyway, the positive is that we are dangerous ourselves. That's what we can control completely, and we're good there.

We can debate, counter-argue, and tear down the positives if we like, or we can build them up and treat them as we should.

They are still relevant because it shows that tons of passing means very little if it isnt effective, look at swansea yesterday lost 3 zip with far superior passing numbers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RudiRed said:

They are still relevant because it shows that tons of passing means very little if it isnt effective, look at swansea yesterday lost 3 zip with far superior passing numbers.

Sure, I've indirectly acknowledged that twice now. Take it to the extreme and you can have 100% passing accuracy if it's just kicked between CBs for 90 minutes.

Last season our average across the whole 46 games was 70%. Season before was 73%. So for this very narrow measurement, these first two matches are an improvement on those general, raw numbers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Just out of curiosity - and this is a serious question - when did Naismith last play in central defence for a sustained period, and when as the centre of a back three?

Pretty much all of last season. Played LB a few times.  Mainly as the central CB in back three.

Edited by Davefevs
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RudiRed said:

Also the midfield being completely over run which could contribute to individual defensive errors.

Have to point fingers at Han yesterday, he was woeful.

27 minutes ago, TomF said:

I really do wonder if a change to 4-3-3 might help us at back 

Think we'd need Pring back for that - Jay gets massively targeted at FB for his height.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RudiRed said:

Also the midfield being completely over run which could contribute to individual defensive errors.

Who in turn have no outlets so run into blind alleys which contributes still further to individual errors. 

I lost count of the number of times yesterday Scott and Massengo particularly were crying out for someone wide to give them an option. Personally, whatever they may have done on the ball, I thought JD and Sykes were poor positionally. Too far forward when we didn’t have the ball and needed to defend and when we did have the ball the only option they seemed to offer was for a long hoof from the back, they just didn’t drop back to give midfield a shorter ball option. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

I would say the major issue defensively, as Nigel said post-match, is the constant individual errors leading to goals.

We bring in Naismith, previously a reliable defender, and he immediately catches the disease.

This seems to be so entrenched in the mindset of the team whoever plays (a case of we expect to give away goals so we do) that I am at a loss to know what to do about it.

He caught the disease from our very own super spreader.

Why oh ******* why put him under pressure and play the ball to him so early on? Sunderland chappie was close and before you had time to say “he’s behind you” the ball was sailing past Desperate Dan.

But twas ok. Back slapping, fist pumping and DD doing what he does best - that arms out hand circling motion - and we’re back in the game…..

Shot stopper might be. Everyone might love him. But watching him from where we watch him and he ain’t the best.

I fear many changes will be needed. From top to bottom.

Last full house to this.

Man City to Sunderland. Progress? Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TomF said:

I really do wonder if a change to 4-3-3 might help us at back 

Seems like NP has recruited for three at the back (not saying its set in stone).

Its only two games in, but there are signs that the form of the last 10 games or so last season is not being replicated. I'd give it another three games, but if its no better then a reassessment will be needed.

If so, I'd like to see Sykes and Scott in midfield.

A box midfield with Williams and James at the base and Sykes with Scott in the forward positions supporting Weimann, with a more pragmatic approach with regard to the wing backs.

Lots of movement up top.

It won't happen as it means dropping Martin, but I would love to see Scott, Sykes, and Weimann linking up, interchanging, making runs etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, OP - it's not all bad.

In both games I think we've looked decent for large periods.

Perhaps controversial given some of the negativity, but I think we looked the better team vs Sunderland. I still wouldn't be at all surprised to see us finish above them.

xG wise, yesterday's game finished approx City 2 - 1.25 Sunderland. That suggests we were probably unlucky not to get something out of the game.

Similarly, the Hull game finished Hull 1.55 - 1.05 City, but when you consider that 0.76 of Hull's xG came from that ludicrous penalty, it becomes Hull 0.79 - 1.05 City. Again, a game we don't really deserve to lose. 

Admittedly, we don't help ourselves. It's criminal to be conceding goals like Sunderland's first and second. Though I suppose one positive about conceding such soft goals is that it's something that's very much in our power to change?
Equally, we seem to have periods where we lose any control over the game (e.g. the 20 mins after Sunderland's second goal). By no means should we expect to always have possession or always be attacking, but there's a difference between having to defend, and losing all control over the match.

0 points from our first 2 games is incredibly disappointing, especially given that we've played Hull and Sunderland. However, as frustrating as these games have been, there are definitely some positives in there. 

  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Hmmm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were  some great passing moves, including the one for the first goal, in the first 20-30 mins, and in the last 10., which was good to see. 
 

it was all the bits in between that were the problem.  I said at the start of the second half to the person sitting next to me, we’ll have a great view of all the action second half because it will all be up our end.  Got the goal, and then didn’t see the ball again until the last 10. 
 

From where I was sitting, Sunderland bossed the majority of the game.  They were better organised, they were tactically superior, and they spotted our weaknesses and exploited them, particularly Vyner and Sykes on the right.  Even though I think we have the better team in terms of players, for sure defensively where they look suspect,  they outfought, outthought, and outplayed us. 
 

And yet we still created enough chances to get something from the game.  I know it’s not fair to single out any one player, and I won’t do that, but just to say that 2 yards out ,right in front of goal is not a chance that we can afford to miss. . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Fuber said:

Have to point fingers at Han yesterday, he was woeful.

Think we'd need Pring back for that - Jay gets massively targeted at FB for his height.

Han had a decent first half…but was nowhere second half.

They didn’t target Jay yesterday…they targeted Vyner (with Simms).  They kept any direct ball forward away from Atkinson.  They didn’t really attack our left back, everything was inside right.

31 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Who in turn have no outlets so run into blind alleys which contributes still further to individual errors. 

I lost count of the number of times yesterday Scott and Massengo particularly were crying out for someone wide to give them an option. Personally, whatever they may have done on the ball, I thought JD and Sykes were poor positionally. Too far forward when we didn’t have the ball and needed to defend and when we did have the ball the only option they seemed to offer was for a long hoof from the back, they just didn’t drop back to give midfield a shorter ball option. 

My biggest bugbear.  Great when we have got good control of possession and you can spring a long pass, as Williams did a couple of times first half…but their starting position has to be deeper in less secure possession. I moan and moan about this!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

They didn’t target Jay yesterday…they targeted Vyner (with Simms).  They kept any direct ball forward away from Atkinson.  They didn’t really attack our left back, everything was inside right.

People often claim he is targeted because of his height but I struggle to remember games when it has actually happened to any effect.

Seems to be a case of "he's short so I will assert that teams target him whether they actually do or not."

  • Like 2
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting to see it statistically- thought we played okay at times, in certain aspects but their winner was soft and their opener came through being too slow at the back albeit they capitalised well.

Equaliser- just watching back highlights now as in our equaliser was very well worked, thought Massengo carried it into and past midfield well in that move,. 1:37-1:45. 2nd goal a decent move too.

We certainly did create chances- the two near misses 2nd half and the Martin shot cleared off the line...we certainly concede too many of course- goals and chances- but that's for another thread. I did think some of our moves- watching it back- were lovely.

Their 2nd- okay reasonably worked, but the gaps from our perspective- frightening!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RudiRed said:

1. How many of those were progressive? Wonder what the stats were for O'Driscoll - context more important than numbers.

2. Which leaves us far too open at the back, the stat is negative not positive considering we are conceding chance after chance could easily have been 5 yesterday.

3. So lower than last season and still conceding hatfulls of chances.

4. Yep a positive.

5. Got bullied yesterday.

I wish this forum could permaban that word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, chinapig said:

I would say the major issue defensively, as Nigel said post-match, is the constant individual errors leading to goals.

We bring in Naismith, previously a reliable defender, and he immediately catches the disease.

This seems to be so entrenched in the mindset of the team whoever plays (a case of we expect to give away goals so we do) that I am at a loss to know what to do about it.

I think the individual errors are a symptom of the other weaknesses in the team.

If players are confident that their teammates will do their jobs effectively, they can focus on their own roles with confidence and will get into a headspace where they get on with it and don't make mistakes. If players constantly think a mistakes going to happen elsewhere, they'll start changing their game to compensate for the perceived mistakes they think their teammates will make and suddenly they'll be making mistakes too. 

What the number of mistakes we are making at the moment tells me is the players know about our weaknesses as a team just as much as we and the opposition do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Supersonic Robin said:

xG wise, yesterday's game finished approx City 2 - 1.25 Sunderland. That suggests we were probably unlucky not to get something out of the game.

Similarly, the Hull game finished Hull 1.55 - 1.05 City, but when you consider that 0.76 of Hull's xG came from that ludicrous penalty, it becomes Hull 0.79 - 1.05 City. Again, a game we don't really deserve to lose. 

I'd be cautious with using xG from individual games to say that we "should have" or "deserved" to win/lose/draw that particular match.

xG is really best suited to looking at a span of games and considering whether results - or even better points per game - are what you'd expect would be 'reasonable'.

Now, I admit to bring it up originally. But note I quoted only our figures and I quoted an average per shot over the two matches. That's a bigger sample, and is perhaps more useful right now. Regardless, xG is in our favour right now, and you're correct to point out that roughly 0.8 of the xG against us is down to a ropey pen.

Truly, honestly, speaking xG is probably best ignored until we're about 10 games in. But it's interesting to note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

I'd be cautious with using xG from individual games to say that we "should have" or "deserved" to win/lose/draw that particular match.

xG is really best suited to looking at a span of games and considering whether results - or even better points per game - are what you'd expect would be 'reasonable'.

Now, I admit to bring it up originally. But note I quoted only our figures and I quoted an average per shot over the two matches. That's a bigger sample, and is perhaps more useful right now. Regardless, xG is in our favour right now, and you're correct to point out that roughly 0.8 of the xG against us is down to a ropey pen.

Truly, honestly, speaking xG is probably best ignored until we're about 10 games in. But it's interesting to note.

Yepp, completely agree with you on all of that.

Fundamentally, I'm just making the point that the xG is an indication of yesterday's game not being the one-sided battering some are making out. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fuber said:

Think we'd need Pring back for that - Jay gets massively targeted at FB for his height.

Unfortunately, my limited experience of FaceBook indicates that is frequently the case; puerile, scurrilous insults with little, if any justification.

JD may well be short, but he is a very skilful player, and perhaps more suited to a wing back or midfield role once Pring is fit.

Edited by PHILINFRANCE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

Unfortunately, my limited experience of FaceBook indicates that is frequently the case; puerile, scurrilous insults with little, if any justification.

JD may well be short, but he is a very skilful player, and perhaps more suited to a wing back or midfield role once Pting is fit.

I see what you did there.....

Is Pting a new signing ? Should line up with Pringle. Unstoppable duo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...