Coolblade
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 1,575
A few observations from the stats:
A frustrating outcome given the context: four straight wins coming into the game, a dominant xG of 2.86 vs 1.41 (our highest xG of the season, although boosted by the two Ings chances both rated more likely goals than a penalty) and 17 shots to Norwich’s 13. Yet, despite creating the better chances (late clean through chance for Norwich aside), Soumaré’s poor own goal shafted us, and took away two points which were there for the taking.
Team Observations
- Shape & Approach: Wilder stuck with the 4-2-2-2, aiming for aggressive vertical transitions and wide overloads. The double pivot of Arblaster and Soumaré recycled possession, while Chong and O’Hare operated as narrow tens linking Cannon and Ings.
- First-Half Pattern: Norwich dominated possession (54.8%) but lacked penetration. United were compact mid-block, springing forward when space opened behind full-backs, creating high-quality chances.
- Second-Half Dynamics: Chong’s assist for Ings was a reward for sustained pressure and clever movement. However, after the goal, United dropped deeper, inviting Norwich onto them. The equaliser was self-inflicted: poor clearance, Makama’s driven ball, Soumaré’s misfortune.
Defensive Analysis
- Structure: The back four held shape well for most of the game. Tanganga was dominant aerially (six duels won, nine clearances), and Seriki’s recovery pace bailed us out twice when Norwich broke wide.
- Issues: The own goal aside, the main concern was passive defending after taking the lead. Norwich’s final-third accuracy jumped to 71% post-60’, and our block line retreated too far, leaving gaps for cut-backs.
- Positives: Set-piece defending was solid with only 0.29 xG conceded from dead balls. Tanganga and Burrows attacked first contact aggressively.
Midfield Bite & Passing
¨ Arblaster’s Return: His 88.9% pass completion and two progressive carries were encouraging. Calm recycling but lacked vertical incision. Our performance dipped after his substitution
- Soumaré: Mixed performance – four tackles and two interceptions showed bite, but his passing was conservative (only three passes into the final third). The own goal capped a frustrating afternoon.
- Overall: The double pivot screened well early on, but when Norwich pressed higher, our out-ball became long. After substitutions, lack of a tempo-setter meant transitions were our main weapon, not sustained possession.
Creativity
- Wide Overloads: Burrows and Seriki pushed high, creating space for Chong and O’Hare to drift inside. Chong’s assist for Ings epitomised this pattern.
Chance Creation:
- Shot Accuracy: 4 on target (23.5%) vs Norwich’s 6 on target (46.2%) – efficiency gap was huge.
- Key Passes: 15 vs 10 – creativity was there, finishing wasn’t.
- Crosses: 18 attempted, only 4 accurate (Burrows 9 crosses, 4 key passes).
Problem: When Norwich sat deeper late on, our creativity stalled. No one dictated play centrally; O’Hare’s two key passes were bright moments, but overall, we lacked variety beyond wide deliveries.
Individual Standouts:
- Tanganga (7.51): Defensive leader. Nine clearances, one block, six aerial wins. Organised the back line. (Oddly I thought he was pretty poor!)
- Chong (7.38): Two key passes, three crosses, and the assist. His ability to drive inside and link play was vital.
- Burrows (7.25): Four key passes, nine crosses. Offered width and delivery, though final ball lacked consistency
- Ings (7.24): Five shots, one goal, clever movement. Missed a gilt-edged header before the break, but his poacher’s finish was classic Ings.
Strategic Takeaways
- Game Management: After going ahead, we ceded too much territory. Norwich’s equaliser was a symptom of passive control rather than proactive dominance.
- Progression Puzzle: Without a natural deep playmaker, transitions remain our lifeline. Against low blocks, this has become a recurring issue.
- Squad Rotation: Eight changes from Stoke win showed improved depth, but rhythm suffered. Arblaster’s return was encouraging, yet cohesion dipped late on after he went off.
Conclusion
A point feels underwhelming given the stats and context. The underlying metrics (xG dominance, box entries, key passes) suggest the process is sound. Cut out individual errors, maintain pressing intensity post-lead, and we can still climb towards the play-offs.
UTB!
A frustrating outcome given the context: four straight wins coming into the game, a dominant xG of 2.86 vs 1.41 (our highest xG of the season, although boosted by the two Ings chances both rated more likely goals than a penalty) and 17 shots to Norwich’s 13. Yet, despite creating the better chances (late clean through chance for Norwich aside), Soumaré’s poor own goal shafted us, and took away two points which were there for the taking.
Team Observations
- Shape & Approach: Wilder stuck with the 4-2-2-2, aiming for aggressive vertical transitions and wide overloads. The double pivot of Arblaster and Soumaré recycled possession, while Chong and O’Hare operated as narrow tens linking Cannon and Ings.
- First-Half Pattern: Norwich dominated possession (54.8%) but lacked penetration. United were compact mid-block, springing forward when space opened behind full-backs, creating high-quality chances.
- Second-Half Dynamics: Chong’s assist for Ings was a reward for sustained pressure and clever movement. However, after the goal, United dropped deeper, inviting Norwich onto them. The equaliser was self-inflicted: poor clearance, Makama’s driven ball, Soumaré’s misfortune.
Defensive Analysis
- Structure: The back four held shape well for most of the game. Tanganga was dominant aerially (six duels won, nine clearances), and Seriki’s recovery pace bailed us out twice when Norwich broke wide.
- Issues: The own goal aside, the main concern was passive defending after taking the lead. Norwich’s final-third accuracy jumped to 71% post-60’, and our block line retreated too far, leaving gaps for cut-backs.
- Positives: Set-piece defending was solid with only 0.29 xG conceded from dead balls. Tanganga and Burrows attacked first contact aggressively.
Midfield Bite & Passing
¨ Arblaster’s Return: His 88.9% pass completion and two progressive carries were encouraging. Calm recycling but lacked vertical incision. Our performance dipped after his substitution
- Soumaré: Mixed performance – four tackles and two interceptions showed bite, but his passing was conservative (only three passes into the final third). The own goal capped a frustrating afternoon.
- Overall: The double pivot screened well early on, but when Norwich pressed higher, our out-ball became long. After substitutions, lack of a tempo-setter meant transitions were our main weapon, not sustained possession.
Creativity
- Wide Overloads: Burrows and Seriki pushed high, creating space for Chong and O’Hare to drift inside. Chong’s assist for Ings epitomised this pattern.
Chance Creation:
- Shot Accuracy: 4 on target (23.5%) vs Norwich’s 6 on target (46.2%) – efficiency gap was huge.
- Key Passes: 15 vs 10 – creativity was there, finishing wasn’t.
- Crosses: 18 attempted, only 4 accurate (Burrows 9 crosses, 4 key passes).
Problem: When Norwich sat deeper late on, our creativity stalled. No one dictated play centrally; O’Hare’s two key passes were bright moments, but overall, we lacked variety beyond wide deliveries.
Individual Standouts:
- Tanganga (7.51): Defensive leader. Nine clearances, one block, six aerial wins. Organised the back line. (Oddly I thought he was pretty poor!)
- Chong (7.38): Two key passes, three crosses, and the assist. His ability to drive inside and link play was vital.
- Burrows (7.25): Four key passes, nine crosses. Offered width and delivery, though final ball lacked consistency
- Ings (7.24): Five shots, one goal, clever movement. Missed a gilt-edged header before the break, but his poacher’s finish was classic Ings.
Strategic Takeaways
- Game Management: After going ahead, we ceded too much territory. Norwich’s equaliser was a symptom of passive control rather than proactive dominance.
- Progression Puzzle: Without a natural deep playmaker, transitions remain our lifeline. Against low blocks, this has become a recurring issue.
- Squad Rotation: Eight changes from Stoke win showed improved depth, but rhythm suffered. Arblaster’s return was encouraging, yet cohesion dipped late on after he went off.
Conclusion
A point feels underwhelming given the stats and context. The underlying metrics (xG dominance, box entries, key passes) suggest the process is sound. Cut out individual errors, maintain pressing intensity post-lead, and we can still climb towards the play-offs.
UTB!
