ChanceWatch vs Wycombe

[Bergen Blade]

Just watched the Wycombe highlights and thought I'd have a look at our attacking this time. Now, I know that these highlights often show only a selection of the chances created in a match, and this analysis is ONLY about the chances shown on BladesPlayer.

1 Evans first hits a tame free kick, but the ball comes back to him 25 yards out. It's a cracking strike and he hits the bar, but at the time of shooting, this is by no means a 100% chance. It's probably not even that, but let's be nice and call it a 50% chance.

2 Through neat passing we work the ball into the box and Lowton gives it to Evans who shoots first time. The goalkeeper is there to block him though, and Wycombe have three defenders who could also have blocked the shot. Another 50% chance.

3 Continuing from (2), the ball falls to Doyle (?) on the 18 yard line. He volleys it high and wide. Some of these flies in, but there are 10 players in front of Doyle who also has to volley it, ie it would have taken a lot of skill to get it down, as well as some luck to avoid all the players in front of him. Another 50% chance.

4 A superb through ball finds Evans in some space, but his first touch isn't good and he has to use his weaker left foot to shoot, plus he is off balance. At the time of shooting a defender has got back between him and the goal and the goalie is also waiting. I'll be a bit harsh this time and put this in the 50% chance bracket as well.​

Questions:
A Did we create more and bigger chances than the ones shown on Blades Player?
B Does nice and neat build up make chances appear more dangerous than they actually are?
C Does our lack of pace and urgency mean the opposition often have defenders still positioned between our finisher and their goal at the time of shooting?

 

[Bergen Blade]

Furthermore, let's also take a look at Wycombe's chances.

The photos below show three of their four BP chances at the time of their players finishing. Unlike our chances, they have got free of our defenders and have only the goalkeeper to beat. They have managed to make our defenders face our own goal, and that's when goals tend to be scored. These are all 100% chances.

 

[Santos]

You are correct Bergen, lots of nice build up play and trying to work an opening but we lacked penetration and to be honest I couldn't see a goal coming, compared to the colchester gwmevwe literally created nothing, I didn't have one of those 'we're going to score' moments apart from when Ched fluffed his chance and put it very badly wide.

I was and am puzzled to DW comments along with those of the media that we somehow created loads. I felt on chances created we deserved to lose.

Just watched the Wycombe highlights and thought I'd have a look at our attacking this time. Now, I know that these highlights often show only a selection of the chances created in a match, and this analysis is ONLY about the chances shown on BladesPlayer.

1 Evans first hits a tame free kick, but the ball comes back to him 25 yards out. It's a cracking strike and he hits the bar, but at the time of shooting, this is by no means a 100% chance. It's probably not even that, but let's be nice and call it a 50% chance.

2 Through neat passing we work the ball into the box and Lowton gives it to Evans who shoots first time. The goalkeeper is there to block him though, and Wycombe have three defenders who could also have blocked the shot. Another 50% chance.

3 Continuing from (2), the ball falls to Doyle (?) on the 18 yard line. He volleys it high and wide. Some of these flies in, but there are 10 players in front of Doyle who also has to volley it, ie it would have taken a lot of skill to get it down, as well as some luck to avoid all the players in front of him. Another 50% chance.

4 A superb through ball finds Evans in some space, but his first touch isn't good and he has to use his weaker left foot to shoot, plus he is off balance. At the time of shooting a defender has got back between him and the goal and the goalie is also waiting. I'll be a bit harsh this time and put this in the 50% chance bracket as well.​

Questions:
A Did we create more and bigger chances than the ones shown on Blades Player?
B Does nice and neat build up make chances appear more dangerous than they actually are?
C Does our lack of pace and urgency mean the opposition often have defenders still positioned between our finisher and their goal at the time of shooting?

 

[Ollessendro]

Just watched the Wycombe highlights and thought I'd have a look at our attacking this time. Now, I know that these highlights often show only a selection of the chances created in a match, and this analysis is ONLY about the chances shown on BladesPlayer.

1 Evans first hits a tame free kick, but the ball comes back to him 25 yards out. It's a cracking strike and he hits the bar, but at the time of shooting, this is by no means a 100% chance. It's probably not even that, but let's be nice and call it a 50% chance.

2 Through neat passing we work the ball into the box and Lowton gives it to Evans who shoots first time. The goalkeeper is there to block him though, and Wycombe have three defenders who could also have blocked the shot. Another 50% chance.

3 Continuing from (2), the ball falls to Doyle (?) on the 18 yard line. He volleys it high and wide. Some of these flies in, but there are 10 players in front of Doyle who also has to volley it, ie it would have taken a lot of skill to get it down, as well as some luck to avoid all the players in front of him. Another 50% chance.

4 A superb through ball finds Evans in some space, but his first touch isn't good and he has to use his weaker left foot to shoot, plus he is off balance. At the time of shooting a defender has got back between him and the goal and the goalie is also waiting. I'll be a bit harsh this time and put this in the 50% chance bracket as well.​

Questions:
A Did we create more and bigger chances than the ones shown on Blades Player?
B Does nice and neat build up make chances appear more dangerous than they actually are?
C Does our lack of pace and urgency mean the opposition often have defenders still positioned between our finisher and their goal at the time of shooting?

Bergs. Not seen the highlights, but here are my thoughts from the stands.

The first chance (Evans) that hit the bar was just plain unlucky. Lovely strike, great technique, keeper beaten etc. Just off the bar and back out to safety.
The second chance (United's best move of the game - where some neat passing saw us carve them open) was a good save from the keeper
The third chance (I though it was Doyle yesterday, but the match report read McDonald and the picture looks like him) was actually brilliant defending. The hooked left footed shot was going in, but a defender throws himself in the way and gets hit head to it. It was not a high and wide shot and actually brave and brilliant defending. I was right behind it and it was going in. The ref gave a corner.
The fourht was our best chance. Brilliant pass from McDonald and Ched really blew it. That was like getting on an X Factor audition and then choking and not singing at all. Snatched at his shot and did not work the keeper. Ched obviously did not realise how much time he had, but he really should have worked the keeper.

Your other questions:
- yes. Williamson headed over in the first half. Free header from 6 yards out. Collins also had a good headed chance in the first half, but did not get enough on it.
- No. They were good ahcnes. The nice and neat build ups created space and gave United players cleart cut chances. We just did not tkae them.
- not sure exactly what this questions means. We lack pace that is for sure. However yesterday we created more than enough good chances to win the game. We just did not take them. We generally played well but a mixture of poor final ball, lack of ruthlessness, bad luck and poor finishing meant we did not score.

 

[Bergen Blade]

What I am interested in is if our failure to beat Wycombe can be put down to bad luck, bad finishing, or if there are problems that may lie a little deeper.

The first chance (Evans) that hit the bar was just plain unlucky. Lovely strike, great technique, keeper beaten etc. Just off the bar and back out to safety.

Sometimes 50% chances results in goals being scored. There's no doubting that Evans did well, but how big a chance is a volley from 25 yards falling to a player's weaker foot.

The second chance (United's best move of the game - where some neat passing saw us carve them open) was a good save from the keeper.

The diving keeper got so close to Evans that he was always going to block it, and there were three defenders behind him. Good bravery mind.

The third chance (I though it was Doyle yesterday, but the match report read McDonald and the picture looks like him) was actually brilliant defending. The hooked left footed shot was going in, but a defender throws himself in the way and gets hit head to it. It was not a high and wide shot and actually brave and brilliant defending. I was right behind it and it was going in. The ref gave a corner.

Not good enough resolution on BP to see it properly so cheers. My point again though is that there were a crowd of ten players in front of the shooter (isn't McDonald the guy behind the shooter/Doyle?), and if on target it would take a bit of luck (or wizard-like skill) to avoid all of them - which it didn't.

The fourht was our best chance. Brilliant pass from McDonald and Ched really blew it. That was like getting on an X Factor audition and then choking and not singing at all. Snatched at his shot and did not work the keeper. Ched obviously did not realise how much time he had, but he really should have worked the keeper.

Agree that Evans could have done better, though I don't think it was an easy ball to take down - he had to jump to get his foot on it.

However yesterday we created more than enough good chances to win the game. We just did not take them. We generally played well but a mixture of poor final ball, lack of ruthlessness, bad luck and poor finishing meant we did not score.

Completely disagreeing with my concerns then. I'm fine with that and hope that you are correct!

 

[alcoblade]

C = Yes, it's a significant problem which gets less obvious after we've scored and they have to come at us.

And Ollie, correct me if I'm wrong, but their keeper didn't make a real save all match did he? Plenty of half chances, very few good ones, and what we had were squandered with very poor finishing which is forming a theme.

UTB

 

[Trafford]

The worrying thing for me is that it wasn't just yesterday, we've been poor at finishing in most games this season. That might sound harsh given how many goals we've scored but weve made a shed load of chances, we've just not converted that many. Some say don't worry, we're making chances, but yesterday demonstrated why it matters. A lot of the goals that we have scored have also been from close range - seems to me that we're either trying to walk it into the net or can only score when we get right up close.

 

[Bergen Blade]

The worrying thing for me is that it wasn't just yesterday, we've been poor at finishing in most games this season. That might sound harsh given how many goals we've scored but weve made a shed load of chances, we've just not converted that many. Some say don't worry, we're making chances, but yesterday demonstrated why it matters. A lot of the goals that we have scored have also been from close range - seems to me that we're either trying to walk it into the net or can only score when we get right up close.

On average you need three or four real chances to get a goal. Ollesssendro mentioned a couple of headers, but with the three or four half chances mentioned above, is finishing our only problem? I think we produced more than enough vs Colchester, but we got an early goal then, and our tempo was higher than what people haved described yesterday.

 

[Ollessendro]

C = Yes, it's a significant problem which gets less obvious after we've scored and they have to come at us.

And Ollie, correct me if I'm wrong, but their keeper didn't make a real save all match did he? Plenty of half chances, very few good ones, and what we had were squandered with very poor finishing which is forming a theme.

UTB

No, we did not work him hard enough. There was the Ched shot that Bull smothered, Collins header that he scooped off the line (it was straight at him and he made a real meal of it) and then a couple of routine saves (shot from Ched first half - straight at him, header from Cressy at back post that was straight into his arms). Bull actually looked a bit flappy (punching high balls when unnoposed) and I think if we had tested him more we might have got a couple of goals.

On average you need three or four real chances to get a goal. Ollesssendro mentioned a couple of headers, but with the three or four half chances mentioned above, is finishing our only problem? I think we produced more than enough vs Colchester, but we got an early goal then, and our tempo was higher than what people haved described yesterday.

It is never that simple. It's the beauty of football. The goal completely changed the game. Had we not conceded (and we were looking very comfortable before that) my opinion is that we would have done them easily. Easy to say, but the extra pressure got to us and we snatched at efforts. I also think that we lacked quality in the final third. Quinn had an off day, Williamson did bugger all, Doyle is limited and that left McDonald (and Lowton) to create things. There were a few occassions when a bit of composure or quality would have lead to a goal.

Ched's shot, Williamson's header and Doyle's effort were not half chances. Collins header first half and Maguire's, Cresswell and Collins at the end had headed opportunities that they could have done better.

(with due respect) I doubt any sensible person that went to the game would argue that we did not create enough chances to win it. However our finishing was poor and (as alco says) if it is not on target (ou don't work the keeper) you waint get nowt.

 

[cooperblade]

What I am interested in is if our failure to beat Wycombe can be put down to bad luck, bad finishing, or if there are problems that may lie a little deeper.

Our main problem, as it has been often, is a complete lack of width. Quinny continues to drift all over the place. I'd love to see one of those 'maps' showing a player's positions and runs throughout a match for Quinny on Saturday. I bet it wouldn't look like most left sided player's.

On the right we had Williamson who continues to be the biggest disappointment of the season for me. He should be tearing this league apart but has, largely, been poor. He isn't a natural wide player either.

I'm far from convinced about either of them but I think it's time to give NML or Flynn a run of games on the right hand side.

On the left, DW should either encourage Quinn to stay wide or look for a different position for him.

Overall, I thought we started the game well and looked in total control until they scored. After that I thought we were too direct and looked like we'd lost faith in our passing game a little.

 

[Patrick Suffaux]

My thoughts having just watched the highlights:-

Chances - both sides had them, Blades had slightly better ones.

Defence - someone needs to attack those high balls, caused our own problems.

Simonsen - couple of good saves to keep us in it.

Ched - looked threatening, but needs match sharpness.

Summary - goal was easily avoidable but we had enough chances to have made it meaningless.

 

[Kentblade]

Our main problem, as it has been often, is a complete lack of width. Quinny continues to drift all over the place. I'd love to see one of those 'maps' showing a player's positions and runs throughout a match for Quinny on Saturday. I bet it wouldn't look like most left sided player's.

On the right we had Williamson who continues to be the biggest disappointment of the season for me. He should be tearing this league apart but has, largely, been poor. He isn't a natural wide player either.

I'm far from convinced about either of them but I think it's time to give NML or Flynn a run of games on the right hand side.

On the left, DW should either encourage Quinn to stay wide or look for a different position for him.

Overall, I thought we started the game well and looked in total control until they scored. After that I thought we were too direct and looked like we'd lost faith in our passing game a little.

Totally agree wqith you.We lack width, Williamson very poor and not a wide player and Quinn all over the place.
I thought we looked better when our usual left back came on and Williams went off and Mendes Laing created some pace down the right.
We need a pacy winger if Mendes Laing or Flynn cannot provide and another striker up front as Porter does not to me to look to be the answer, unless he has more to offer after playing more games.
Using wing play often prevents the oppossing defence from getting to many players back behind the ball.
It was a game to be won and while we are passing it about and playing some neat football it is goals that win games.
Maybe it will all come right against Charlton.
UTB

 

[Trafford]

I haven't seen much from Mendes Laing that suggests he's a solution. I've only seen Flynn a couple of times but thought he looked better, although few seem to share that opinion. Where's Colin Morris when you need him!!

 

[Highbury_Blade]

I thought quinn was all over the place in a good way. No one ever moans when messi doesn't stay out wide do they? Definitely could do with an out an out winger on the right, but if quinny wants to looking for the ball in the centre, then let him.

 

[mall]

I thought quinn was all over the place in a good way. No one ever moans when messi doesn't stay out wide do they? Definitely could do with an out an out winger on the right, but if quinny wants to looking for the ball in the centre, then let him.

The most salient comments on RS regarding Quinn{and Williamson} but Quinn in particular, is that they are both taking too many touches and disrupting the forwards' intuition for the anticipatory runs across defenders.
Quinn in particular is doing a lot of showboating.

 

[Bergen Blade]

You are correct Bergen, lots of nice build up play and trying to work an opening but we lacked penetration and to be honest I couldn't see a goal coming, compared to the colchester gwmevwe literally created nothing, I didn't have one of those 'we're going to score' moments apart from when Ched fluffed his chance and put it very badly wide.

I was and am puzzled to DW comments along with those of the media that we somehow created loads. I felt on chances created we deserved to lose.

On the photos I think it says something that for all our finishes Wycombe have defenders positioned between the goal and our finisher. Then watch our defenders chasing after Wycombe's finishers, three times they only have Simonsen to beat. These are bigger chances than ours.

 

[Ollessendro]

I thought quinn was all over the place in a good way. No one ever moans when messi doesn't stay out wide do they? Definitely could do with an out an out winger on the right, but if quinny wants to looking for the ball in the centre, then let him.

That is because Messi does not play out wide. He has a free role and/or supports the strikers.

The most salient comments on RS regarding Quinn{and Williamson} but Quinn in particular, is that they are both taking too many touches and disrupting the forwards' intuition for the anticipatory runs across defenders.
Quinn in particular is doing a lot of showboating.

Big problem on Saturday. Williamson was too casual and think's he is better than what he is. This results in him hanging onto the ball and trying to be too clever. Quinn has a tendency to hang onto the ball too. All too often he takes an extra touch and holds onto it when he should have released it. He is a big asset and very good player at this level, but if he concentrated on the basics then he would be more effective. He needs to remember he is part of a team, do his job and trust his team mates. If he can do that he will be one of the best midfielders in the division. But at the moment he is having a negative effect (well he certainly was on Sat-di).

 

[Highbury_Blade]

That is because Messi does not play out wide. He has a free role and/or supports the strikers.

I pretty much thought Quinny had a free role as well.