A few observations from the stats (Derby)

[Coolblade]

A few observations from the stats (Derby):

• We won the xG battle again (1.41 v 0.52): We dominated the ball and created volume( 20 shots to Derby’s 13) but lacked quality. Only 3 of our efforts hit the target. Possession was heavily in our favour (60.8% v 39.2%), yet Derby’s compact shape and counters punished our inefficiency. It’s the same story: control without cutting edge.

• Aerial duels remained competitive: We edged the aerial battle (61.4% success), with Tanganga (6 wins) and Mee (3) leading the way. Seriki added 3 wins. Derby weren’t dominant in the air, but their 50 clearances (to our 44) underline how deep they sat and absorbed pressure.

• Midfield screening stretched again: Peck and Riedewald worked hard defensively (Peck: 2 interceptions, 3 clearances; Riedewald: 1 interception, 5 clearances), but transitions hurt us badly. Passing accuracy dipped to 68.4% overall and just 50.6% in the opponent’s half. McCallum struggled most (54.8% from 31 passes), and Brooks offered little progression before being subbed. Derby forced us wide and slowed central progression.

• Creativity came mainly from wide areas: McCallum delivered 10 crosses (only 1 accurate), Seriki added 6, and Peck swung in 7. O’Hare was our most incisive player with 3 shots (1 on target) and 2 key passes. Ings and Campbell combined for 4 shots, none on target. Ogbene’s introduction didn’t change much with 0 shots, 2 crosses, no dribbles. Quality in the final third remains our Achilles’ heel.

• Defensive organisation under strain: Despite Derby’s low possession, their counters exposed us. Mee and Tanganga combined for 10 clearances, McCallum added 3, but Derby still carved out 4 shots on target. Our defensive third recoveries (22 v Derby’s 33) underline how often we were caught high and scrambling back.

• Ongoing striker concerns: 20 shots, 0 goals. Conversion rate is alarming. Ings had 2 shots (1 on target), Campbell 2 shots (none on target). We’re not just missing chances, we’re failing to create high-quality ones. Our xG of 1.41 from 20 attempts says it all.

• Subs impact minimal again: Davies and Burrows combined for 3 shots but no real threat. Ogbene’s pace offered width but no penetration. Tactical changes didn’t alter the flow; Derby stayed compact, and we ran out of ideas.

Special mention for O’Hare, especially given Deadbat’s assessment. Despite being only 5’7” and primarily an attacking midfielder he delivered more of a complete performance than you might expect. Defensive stats: 3 tackles, 2 interceptions, Attacking stats: 3 shots (most in team), 2 key passes, but most surprising, the physical battle where he won 4 aerial duels!

Another frustrating afternoon. We largely dominated the ball, racked up a fair number of shots, and controlled territory, but lacked incision and composure in both boxes. This system gives us structure, but without a reliable finisher and sharper decision-making, dominance means nothing. Confidence is ebbing, a nil nil drew isn’t enough. Our trip to our near neighbours is starting to terrify me.

UTB

 

[Houston_Blade]

QPR?!

 

[MobileBlade]

QPR?!

One of those games when you think you're at a different game to the stats

 

[Coolblade]

Apologies. I am finding our collapse so distressing, I’ve forgotten which team I’m watching now! It’s like a bad dream. I hope to wake up soon.

 

[wadblade]

A few observations from the stats

HI CoolBlade

As there is no game this week could do some stats comparing Sellars v Wilder Team wise = expected goals possession etc

And possibly

For players are there any player whose figures have gone down since Wider returned
if its not to much trouble
thanks
Wadblade

 

[Coolblade]

Your wish…..

However comparing player stats Selles vs Wilder is tricky because:

• the team materially changed just before Wilder’s return as we signed multiple players immediately before Ipswich (Tanganga, Mee, McGuinness etc); and others have departed (Robbo) or been injured (Hamer)
• both have used squad rotation, resulted in insufficient data for most players

Looking at a few who have been used throughout, both Campbell and O’Hare’s stats have remained relatively constant, Campbell consistently non-engaged, O’Hare consistently our most involved creative talent.

Taking another example, Peck, since's Wilder’s return:

• his duel success rate has improved slightly, benefiting from Wilder's more aggressive and pressing style.
• defensive contributions, such as tackles and interceptions, have increased, showing Wilder’s emphasis on intensity.
• our overall defensive organisation remains problematic, with higher goals conceded, and Peck's individual defensive metrics reflect this, with more challenges under pressure.
• his offensive stats (key passes, shots) remain low, consistent with his predominantly defensive midfield role.

So Peck’s key stats have improved somewhat in defensive duels and intensity since the managerial change, but his attacking contributions remain limited, consistent with his role.

As for team stats:

Metric	Sellés (6 matches) — average per match	Wilder (8 matches) — average per match
Possession (%)	58.0%. (Matches: 73.8, 44.3, 61.5, 52.6, 52.9, 63.0).	52.5%. (Matches: 43.9, 48.2, 61.6, 40.1, 48.8, 54.2, 62.3, 60.8).
Shot attempts (total)	12.17	10.88
Shots on target (per match)	2.17	3.25
Corners (for)	8.33	6.63
xG	0.65	1.05
xA	1.8	1.6
Touch opp box	32	41
Key passes	9	11
PPDA (pressing)	12.8	10.4
Duel success	44.8	49.

xG : Selles mixed: Bristol (xG ~2.35) while we still lost; Ipswich match xG showed Ipswich ~2.09 vs ~0.42. Sellés era showed poor chance quality despite possession. Wilder still mixed : Oxford win was low xG / low-event; some Wilder matches show more shots on target and more clinical finishing (e.g. Blackburn 3–1 had higher conversion

Possession down under Wilder: Sellés’ team averaged more possession in the opening six defeats. We tended to dominate the ball but did not convert possession into chances of high quality (see low shots on target and low xG in several matches). Example: Ipswich we had more possession but Ipswich created much more xG (2.1 vs 0.42) and punished them.

Shots on target rose under Wilder: we have produced more on-target shots per game on average, even if total shot attempts are slightly lower. That usually indicates better shot selection / more direct finishing.

Selles’ team: we controlled the ball more on average but created fewer on-target shots and produced low xG in several matches which led to dominant possession but poor chance quality.

Wilder’s team: we had less possession but more shots on target and slightly better game outcomes (wins / cleaner defensive results in several matches). Wilder’s approach so far has traded some possession for more direct / higher-quality offensive output and slightly better results.

But we are still miles off where we need to be, in all aspects!