Coolblade
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 2,138
A few observations from the stats (from the Kop)
For me it was one of the best football matches I’ve seen in the championship this season. But the loss stings because we were nearly good enough… but not quite sharp enough, not quite brave enough, not quite switched on enough at the key moments.
The numbers tell the story. Boro won the xG battle 0.88 v 1.44, had 62.8% possession, 479 passes to our 281, 19 shots to our 13, and 9 shots on target to our 5. In the main Boro controlled the ball but we weren’t passengers: we matched them on box entries (36–38) and had moments where we were the more dangerous side. But it’s hard to come back from gifting a good team a two‑goal lead.
Team Setup: a familiar structure, but slow to click. Wilder went with the usual 4‑2‑3‑1: Burrows and Seriki as aggressive full‑backs, Arblaster + Peck in midfield, Hamer drifting inside from the left, Brooks as the right‑sided outlet, O’Hare floating behind Bamford.
Out of possession, we tried to press in the 4‑4‑2 shape we’ve used well recently. But against Boro’s technical midfield, we never really got tight enough early on. They broke our lines too easily, moved us around, and found Conway & McGree between our units.
In possession, the 2‑3‑5 didn’t carry the same threat as previous matches. Our pass accuracy was only 74.4% to their 81%, but more importantly Boro played the game at their pace, not ours. Their midfield triangle (Hackney, Morris, McGree) gave them control, while we struggled to build sustained attacks until the final half hour.
First Half: Our attacking output in the first half started ok, but stalled once they scored (a classic finish low and hard across the keeper). 5 shots (2 on target), 66 touches in the final third compared to their 139. O’Hare drifting but with little end product, Brooks involved but not decisive, Bamford isolated. We needed to be compact and organised; instead we were loose and reactive.
Second Half: The second half was pretty impressive, arguably one of our better halves in recent weeks. We had 8 shots after the break, matched their box touches, forced them back for spells. We created pressure even with 10 men. And on 73 minutes, we got the goal we deserved: Hamer’s clever ball into the channel, Bamford with the finish. Bamford ended with 3 shots, 2 on target, 4 aerial duels won, and a rating just shy of 7.0; a strong performance considering how isolated he was at times. But the red card killed our momentum just as we were starting to believe. Boro saw the game out professionally.
Defense: The defensive unit had a rough first half but responded well. Bindon had very strong numbers despite the scoreline: 55 touches, 32 passes at 81.3%, 3 interceptions, 8 clearance and 2 blocked shots. He kept us in the game at times. Tanganga struggled early but improved significantly after HT (as he did against Oxford). 32 touches, 22 passes at 86.4%, 2 aerial wins, 3 fouls conceded. Burrows: Not his most best game, 27 passes at 59.3%, but with 5 completed crosses, 2 aerial wins. Seriki: 53 touches, 20 passes at 85%, 1 key pass, 4 dribbles. Although zero tackles (perhaps surprising) so more threat going forward than protection going back. (Although didn’t he put a great challenge in the left back position early in the second half?)
Midfield: Peck struggled to impose himself with just 17 passes at 88%, 2 tackles, 1 interception. Not enough control against a strong Boro midfield. Arblaster had a torrid 45 minutes: just 13 passes (albeit at 92.3% accuracy) but 0 tackles, 0 interceptions, 0 duels won. Just overrun continually. A shadow of his pre injury self. Hamer was our standout midfielder again with 48 touches, pass accuracy 80.7%, 4 key passes, 2 successful dribbles and a great assist.
Creativity & Attack: Brooks was our most dangerous wide player with 2 shots, 2 key passes, 6 tackles (yes, six especially compared to Seriki) and overall 7.45 rating. O’Hare worked hard but lacked bite and never provided the balance we desperately needed. Just 12 passes (pitiful involvement) at 66% accuracy, 1 shot, and 6.06 rating. Bamford battled hard with 3 shots, 2 on target4 aerial wins and a crucial goal. But was feeding off scraps until the second half.
Final Thoughts: It’s a frustrating one because at times, especially in the second half showed exactly what we can be: aggressive, front-foot, energetic, dangerous. But the first half showed exactly why we’re still mid‑table, weak in transition, slow to react, and too often relying on individuals rather than structure.
Boro were good but we made them look better. On the positive side, our fight in the second half was real. We didn’t collapse and we didn’t shrink.nnWe pushed them until the end, even with 10 men. But you can’t give an automatic promotion-chasing side a 2–0 head start.
A step forward in effort.but a step backward in game management. Big response needed at the weekend.No more lapses can be tolerated now.
UTB
For me it was one of the best football matches I’ve seen in the championship this season. But the loss stings because we were nearly good enough… but not quite sharp enough, not quite brave enough, not quite switched on enough at the key moments.
The numbers tell the story. Boro won the xG battle 0.88 v 1.44, had 62.8% possession, 479 passes to our 281, 19 shots to our 13, and 9 shots on target to our 5. In the main Boro controlled the ball but we weren’t passengers: we matched them on box entries (36–38) and had moments where we were the more dangerous side. But it’s hard to come back from gifting a good team a two‑goal lead.
Team Setup: a familiar structure, but slow to click. Wilder went with the usual 4‑2‑3‑1: Burrows and Seriki as aggressive full‑backs, Arblaster + Peck in midfield, Hamer drifting inside from the left, Brooks as the right‑sided outlet, O’Hare floating behind Bamford.
Out of possession, we tried to press in the 4‑4‑2 shape we’ve used well recently. But against Boro’s technical midfield, we never really got tight enough early on. They broke our lines too easily, moved us around, and found Conway & McGree between our units.
In possession, the 2‑3‑5 didn’t carry the same threat as previous matches. Our pass accuracy was only 74.4% to their 81%, but more importantly Boro played the game at their pace, not ours. Their midfield triangle (Hackney, Morris, McGree) gave them control, while we struggled to build sustained attacks until the final half hour.
First Half: Our attacking output in the first half started ok, but stalled once they scored (a classic finish low and hard across the keeper). 5 shots (2 on target), 66 touches in the final third compared to their 139. O’Hare drifting but with little end product, Brooks involved but not decisive, Bamford isolated. We needed to be compact and organised; instead we were loose and reactive.
Second Half: The second half was pretty impressive, arguably one of our better halves in recent weeks. We had 8 shots after the break, matched their box touches, forced them back for spells. We created pressure even with 10 men. And on 73 minutes, we got the goal we deserved: Hamer’s clever ball into the channel, Bamford with the finish. Bamford ended with 3 shots, 2 on target, 4 aerial duels won, and a rating just shy of 7.0; a strong performance considering how isolated he was at times. But the red card killed our momentum just as we were starting to believe. Boro saw the game out professionally.
Defense: The defensive unit had a rough first half but responded well. Bindon had very strong numbers despite the scoreline: 55 touches, 32 passes at 81.3%, 3 interceptions, 8 clearance and 2 blocked shots. He kept us in the game at times. Tanganga struggled early but improved significantly after HT (as he did against Oxford). 32 touches, 22 passes at 86.4%, 2 aerial wins, 3 fouls conceded. Burrows: Not his most best game, 27 passes at 59.3%, but with 5 completed crosses, 2 aerial wins. Seriki: 53 touches, 20 passes at 85%, 1 key pass, 4 dribbles. Although zero tackles (perhaps surprising) so more threat going forward than protection going back. (Although didn’t he put a great challenge in the left back position early in the second half?)
Midfield: Peck struggled to impose himself with just 17 passes at 88%, 2 tackles, 1 interception. Not enough control against a strong Boro midfield. Arblaster had a torrid 45 minutes: just 13 passes (albeit at 92.3% accuracy) but 0 tackles, 0 interceptions, 0 duels won. Just overrun continually. A shadow of his pre injury self. Hamer was our standout midfielder again with 48 touches, pass accuracy 80.7%, 4 key passes, 2 successful dribbles and a great assist.
Creativity & Attack: Brooks was our most dangerous wide player with 2 shots, 2 key passes, 6 tackles (yes, six especially compared to Seriki) and overall 7.45 rating. O’Hare worked hard but lacked bite and never provided the balance we desperately needed. Just 12 passes (pitiful involvement) at 66% accuracy, 1 shot, and 6.06 rating. Bamford battled hard with 3 shots, 2 on target4 aerial wins and a crucial goal. But was feeding off scraps until the second half.
Final Thoughts: It’s a frustrating one because at times, especially in the second half showed exactly what we can be: aggressive, front-foot, energetic, dangerous. But the first half showed exactly why we’re still mid‑table, weak in transition, slow to react, and too often relying on individuals rather than structure.
Boro were good but we made them look better. On the positive side, our fight in the second half was real. We didn’t collapse and we didn’t shrink.nnWe pushed them until the end, even with 10 men. But you can’t give an automatic promotion-chasing side a 2–0 head start.
A step forward in effort.but a step backward in game management. Big response needed at the weekend.No more lapses can be tolerated now.
UTB
