Coolblade
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 2,260
A Few Observations from the Stats
Football is cruel in very specific ways, and this was one of them. Control without reward. Volume without incision. A lead earned, then undone by soft goalkeeping and a side that needed only a handful of moments to overturn ninety minutes of work. A referee who might at times have been Frank in a Mission Impossible style mask!
The raw numbers look like dominance. We finished with 63.4% possession, completed 508 passes to their 288, took 22 shots to their 11, recorded 35 touches in their box to their 20, and generated an xG of 1.68 to 0.64. On paper, that should be enough to win comfortably. On the pitch, it became another reminder that football does not reward territory or hopeful long shots.
We had the game exactly where we wanted it. And still lost.
Team set‑up: control first, conviction second
We lined up in a familiar 4‑2‑3‑1. Bamford led the line, O’Hare operated underneath, Brooks started wide on the right, Burrows pushed high from left‑back, Peck and Soumaré formed the midfield base, and Hamer drifted inside from the left to occupy the inside‑left channel.
The plan was clear and consistent. We wanted to dominate the ball, play high, pin Coventry back, and make them defend their box for long stretches. The passing profile reflected that intention. We moved the ball cleanly at 84.4% accuracy, played forward with purpose, and spent long periods camped in their half, forcing them into a low block rather than a midfield contest. For large parts of the match, it worked.
First half: pressure without punch and a big decision missed
The first half belonged to us territorially. We had the ball, the field position, and the volume. Coventry sat deep, absorbed pressure, and waited for the game to stretch. We took 15 shots before half‑time, but only one properly tested Rushworth, which became the defining theme. Bamford’s best opening was straight at the keeper. Burrows kept arriving into the final third. Hamer kept probing from the inside‑left space. Peck kept the ball moving and recycled possession to sustain pressure.
Brooks, though, looked the most dangerous player on the pitch. Brooks was not just busy, he was disruptive. He finished the half with five shots, four successful dribbles, and constant central carries from the right. Rather than staying wide and crossing aimlessly, he drifted inside repeatedly, committing defenders and forcing Coventry to step out of their line. Several of our most threatening moments came from Brooks driving at a retreating defence rather than from structured delivery. That pressure should have produced more than shots.
Second half: a deserved lead, then a brutal swing
We finally got what the performance deserved early in the second half, and it came from our strongest attacking pattern. Burrows collected a clever reverse pass from Hamer and finished with conviction. Burrows’ overall performance was strong. He finished with three shots, two on target, five key passes, 73 touches, and 47 passes. For a left‑back often operating as a winger, that level of involvement was control in its purest form.
At 1–0, the game felt like it had tilted decisively our way. Coventry were stretched, the crowd was up, and the pressure finally had a scoreline to match it. Then the game again flipped, and it flipped quickly. Coventry did not need control. They needed moments. Wright equalised with a powerful strike that Cooper got a hand to but should have dealt with. One real look, one error, one goal. Five minutes later, the turnaround was complete. Rudoni timed his run perfectly to meet Mason‑Clark’s inswinging cross and headed home. Two shots on target in quick succession. Two goals. Control gone.
The contrast defines the night. We finished with 22 shots and four on target. Coventry finished with 11 shots and five on target. That efficiency gap, not possession or territory, decided the match.
The decisions: two penalties not given
There were two moments that could, and arguably should, have changed the game. The first came in the first half, when Seriki was pulled back inside the box after getting goal‑side. The pull on his arm looked clear, although he went down too easily. The referee had a clear view. Nothing given. The second came late on, when Campbell darted between defenders and went down inside the area. Clear contact on his right foot. Instead of a penalty, Campbell was booked, Neither decision excuses conceding twice. Both belong in the story of why a controlled performance ended in defeat.
Defence: volume defending, moment punishment
This was not a night where the back line was constantly exposed. The defensive numbers show a unit doing a lot right for long stretches.
Bindon was good throughout. He finished with five tackles, two interceptions, eight clearances, 89 touches, and 85.5% passing. That is a centre‑back stepping in front and defending proactively rather than retreating. Tanganga matched that in a different way. Seven clearances, three tackles, one interception, and 93.7% pass accuracy reflect heavy involvement at both ends. Even after his booking, he defended aggressively. Seriki’s contribution mattered once the game opened up. Three tackles, three interceptions, and 68 touches underline how often he was asked to recover ground once Coventry stopped sitting deep.
The frustration is that we were not undone by sustained pressure. We were undone by two lapses, one powerful strike that should have been dealt with and one aerial action, in a match where Coventry spent long spells simply defending and clearing.
Midfield: control without protection
The midfield performance explains the shape of the match more than the scoreline. Peck was everywhere. He finished with 93 touches, completed 77 passes at 90.9%, made four tackles, and created three key passes. He controlled rhythm and covered ground, especially when Coventry were pinned back. Soumaré recycled possession well, completing 49 passes at 91.8%, and covered space intelligently in the first half. Once Coventry began to break quickly, neither midfielder was consistently close enough to the ball early enough to slow the transitions. Once the match stopped being about phases and started being about momentum swings, the midfield screen was not tight enough to prevent them.
Creativity and attack: volume, danger, and where it fell short
Our attacking structure was clear and consistent. Burrows and Hamer were the creative hub. Between them, they produced the majority of our crosses, key passes, and final‑third entries. Burrows alone delivered five crosses and created five key passes. Hamer added seven crosses, three key passes, and the assist. Roughly three quarters of our qualitative delivery came from the left. That left‑side dominance explains both the pressure we built and the predictability Coventry eventually read. They did not stop us creating volume. They funnelled us into patterns they could absorb.
The right side played a different but important role. Brooks was dangerous throughout. His five shots, four dribbles, and 45 touches reflect genuine attacking threat rather than hopeful involvement. Most of his danger came from central drifts rather than static wide play, and he was the one attacker consistently forcing defenders into uncomfortable decisions. What did not happen often enough was that Brooks’ disruption translated into clear chances for others. The right side destabilised Coventry’s shape but did not become a consistent delivery route. Seriki overlapped selectively and recycled possession well, but the right channel was about sustaining pressure rather than finishing it.
The result was a lopsided attack. Lots of pressure. Lots of shots. Not enough variety. That is why the shot profile matters. Nine of our efforts came from outside the box. When you are taking that many shots from range, you are no longer breaking a defence. You are hoping to beat it from distance. Coventry were happy with that trade‑off.
Final thoughts: Iis the season over?
The season is not mathematically over, but a run to the playoffs (if we want one!) is very very unlikely.
Against the top six, we have taken four points from ten games. Against the top fifteen, a measly eleven points from nineteen games. (I’m sure someone will double check these stats as they look horrendous). That pattern is not random. When teams sit deep but cannot punish moments, our control turns into goals and wins. When teams sit deep and can, our dominance becomes exposure. Coventry did not need to outplay us. They needed to survive our volume, wait for the structure to stretch, and be ruthless when the moment arrived.
This was not a bad performance. In many ways, it was a familiar one (the play off final for example?). We controlled the ball. We controlled territory. We scored first. We created more. And we still lost. This match was not about effort or desire. It was about variety, compression, finishing, and a few decisions that went against us. Until those things change, games like this will keep slipping away, no matter how good the numbers look.
See you at Loftus Road,
UTB
Football is cruel in very specific ways, and this was one of them. Control without reward. Volume without incision. A lead earned, then undone by soft goalkeeping and a side that needed only a handful of moments to overturn ninety minutes of work. A referee who might at times have been Frank in a Mission Impossible style mask!
The raw numbers look like dominance. We finished with 63.4% possession, completed 508 passes to their 288, took 22 shots to their 11, recorded 35 touches in their box to their 20, and generated an xG of 1.68 to 0.64. On paper, that should be enough to win comfortably. On the pitch, it became another reminder that football does not reward territory or hopeful long shots.
We had the game exactly where we wanted it. And still lost.
Team set‑up: control first, conviction second
We lined up in a familiar 4‑2‑3‑1. Bamford led the line, O’Hare operated underneath, Brooks started wide on the right, Burrows pushed high from left‑back, Peck and Soumaré formed the midfield base, and Hamer drifted inside from the left to occupy the inside‑left channel.
The plan was clear and consistent. We wanted to dominate the ball, play high, pin Coventry back, and make them defend their box for long stretches. The passing profile reflected that intention. We moved the ball cleanly at 84.4% accuracy, played forward with purpose, and spent long periods camped in their half, forcing them into a low block rather than a midfield contest. For large parts of the match, it worked.
First half: pressure without punch and a big decision missed
The first half belonged to us territorially. We had the ball, the field position, and the volume. Coventry sat deep, absorbed pressure, and waited for the game to stretch. We took 15 shots before half‑time, but only one properly tested Rushworth, which became the defining theme. Bamford’s best opening was straight at the keeper. Burrows kept arriving into the final third. Hamer kept probing from the inside‑left space. Peck kept the ball moving and recycled possession to sustain pressure.
Brooks, though, looked the most dangerous player on the pitch. Brooks was not just busy, he was disruptive. He finished the half with five shots, four successful dribbles, and constant central carries from the right. Rather than staying wide and crossing aimlessly, he drifted inside repeatedly, committing defenders and forcing Coventry to step out of their line. Several of our most threatening moments came from Brooks driving at a retreating defence rather than from structured delivery. That pressure should have produced more than shots.
Second half: a deserved lead, then a brutal swing
We finally got what the performance deserved early in the second half, and it came from our strongest attacking pattern. Burrows collected a clever reverse pass from Hamer and finished with conviction. Burrows’ overall performance was strong. He finished with three shots, two on target, five key passes, 73 touches, and 47 passes. For a left‑back often operating as a winger, that level of involvement was control in its purest form.
At 1–0, the game felt like it had tilted decisively our way. Coventry were stretched, the crowd was up, and the pressure finally had a scoreline to match it. Then the game again flipped, and it flipped quickly. Coventry did not need control. They needed moments. Wright equalised with a powerful strike that Cooper got a hand to but should have dealt with. One real look, one error, one goal. Five minutes later, the turnaround was complete. Rudoni timed his run perfectly to meet Mason‑Clark’s inswinging cross and headed home. Two shots on target in quick succession. Two goals. Control gone.
The contrast defines the night. We finished with 22 shots and four on target. Coventry finished with 11 shots and five on target. That efficiency gap, not possession or territory, decided the match.
The decisions: two penalties not given
There were two moments that could, and arguably should, have changed the game. The first came in the first half, when Seriki was pulled back inside the box after getting goal‑side. The pull on his arm looked clear, although he went down too easily. The referee had a clear view. Nothing given. The second came late on, when Campbell darted between defenders and went down inside the area. Clear contact on his right foot. Instead of a penalty, Campbell was booked, Neither decision excuses conceding twice. Both belong in the story of why a controlled performance ended in defeat.
Defence: volume defending, moment punishment
This was not a night where the back line was constantly exposed. The defensive numbers show a unit doing a lot right for long stretches.
Bindon was good throughout. He finished with five tackles, two interceptions, eight clearances, 89 touches, and 85.5% passing. That is a centre‑back stepping in front and defending proactively rather than retreating. Tanganga matched that in a different way. Seven clearances, three tackles, one interception, and 93.7% pass accuracy reflect heavy involvement at both ends. Even after his booking, he defended aggressively. Seriki’s contribution mattered once the game opened up. Three tackles, three interceptions, and 68 touches underline how often he was asked to recover ground once Coventry stopped sitting deep.
The frustration is that we were not undone by sustained pressure. We were undone by two lapses, one powerful strike that should have been dealt with and one aerial action, in a match where Coventry spent long spells simply defending and clearing.
Midfield: control without protection
The midfield performance explains the shape of the match more than the scoreline. Peck was everywhere. He finished with 93 touches, completed 77 passes at 90.9%, made four tackles, and created three key passes. He controlled rhythm and covered ground, especially when Coventry were pinned back. Soumaré recycled possession well, completing 49 passes at 91.8%, and covered space intelligently in the first half. Once Coventry began to break quickly, neither midfielder was consistently close enough to the ball early enough to slow the transitions. Once the match stopped being about phases and started being about momentum swings, the midfield screen was not tight enough to prevent them.
Creativity and attack: volume, danger, and where it fell short
Our attacking structure was clear and consistent. Burrows and Hamer were the creative hub. Between them, they produced the majority of our crosses, key passes, and final‑third entries. Burrows alone delivered five crosses and created five key passes. Hamer added seven crosses, three key passes, and the assist. Roughly three quarters of our qualitative delivery came from the left. That left‑side dominance explains both the pressure we built and the predictability Coventry eventually read. They did not stop us creating volume. They funnelled us into patterns they could absorb.
The right side played a different but important role. Brooks was dangerous throughout. His five shots, four dribbles, and 45 touches reflect genuine attacking threat rather than hopeful involvement. Most of his danger came from central drifts rather than static wide play, and he was the one attacker consistently forcing defenders into uncomfortable decisions. What did not happen often enough was that Brooks’ disruption translated into clear chances for others. The right side destabilised Coventry’s shape but did not become a consistent delivery route. Seriki overlapped selectively and recycled possession well, but the right channel was about sustaining pressure rather than finishing it.
The result was a lopsided attack. Lots of pressure. Lots of shots. Not enough variety. That is why the shot profile matters. Nine of our efforts came from outside the box. When you are taking that many shots from range, you are no longer breaking a defence. You are hoping to beat it from distance. Coventry were happy with that trade‑off.
Final thoughts: Iis the season over?
The season is not mathematically over, but a run to the playoffs (if we want one!) is very very unlikely.
Against the top six, we have taken four points from ten games. Against the top fifteen, a measly eleven points from nineteen games. (I’m sure someone will double check these stats as they look horrendous). That pattern is not random. When teams sit deep but cannot punish moments, our control turns into goals and wins. When teams sit deep and can, our dominance becomes exposure. Coventry did not need to outplay us. They needed to survive our volume, wait for the structure to stretch, and be ruthless when the moment arrived.
This was not a bad performance. In many ways, it was a familiar one (the play off final for example?). We controlled the ball. We controlled territory. We scored first. We created more. And we still lost. This match was not about effort or desire. It was about variety, compression, finishing, and a few decisions that went against us. Until those things change, games like this will keep slipping away, no matter how good the numbers look.
See you at Loftus Road,
UTB
