Coolblade
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 272
- Reaction score
- 2,021
A few observations from the stats (from the pub):
Millwall threw everything they had at us physically and territorially, as they always do. Whilst the numbers are fairly balanced, a deeper dive perhaps tells a different story. Over the game, I suggest we were the more dangerous side. Yes, they had 53.8% possession and made 355 passes to our 317. But the real work happens in both boxes, and in that department, we were well ahead: 29 touches in their box to their 15, almost double. Our final ball was lacking,(often from great positions) so although it’s was 6 shots on target each, our chances came from cleaner patterns rather than hopeful scrambles.
Team Set-Up: We went with our usual 4‑2‑3‑1 that became a 4‑4‑2 without the ball. At The Den, you can’t finesse your way into the game, you have to earn thr right to play, and we did exactly that.
Out of possession, we dropped into that tidy, compact structure that worked so well at Ipswich: O’Hare stepping alongside Cannon, Seriki and Brooks flattening into wide midfield lanes, and Peck and Davies fighting inside.
The block generally held together well, and the numbers show exactly why: despite Millwall’s barrage, we ended with 32 clearances, far more than their 22, and we pretty much matched their physicality with 25 aerial duels won to their 30, close enough to compete, despite their height advantage.
In possession, we again morphed into a 2‑3‑5. Seriki pushed high, Brooks drifted in and out, McCallum overlapped early, and the big difference was Hamer’s ability to stitch play through the right half-space.
Our key issue being thst the clean passing performance we had against Ipswich wasn’t replicated; our overall pass accuracy was only 57.4%, far below our average. Which was such a shame as when we moved it well, Millwall didn’t cope.
First Half: Our first big move ended in a goal , Brooks again showing exactly why he’s become one of our most dangerous wide player (see below).
After the equaliser Millwall ended the half with more of the ball and 14 shots to our 12 overall, but we created the cleaner opportunities. O’Hare had four shots, one on target; McCallum even got forward for three efforts.
Second Half: The second half was less open, more strategic, more about discipline. Hamer kept trying to knit play, (29 passes, 69% accuracy, three key passes) but we kept arriving in the final third without making the killer action. The quality of our touches in the box should’ve meant more: 29 entries compared to Millwall’s 15, an astonishing differential for an away side in that stadium. But what we lacked was the finishing moment.
Cannon faded. O’Hare drifted. Brooks tired. The introduction of Burrows and Arblaster gave us fresh legs, but not fresh patterns. In truth the second half was a war of attrition, and neither side did enough to win it.
Even then: i suggest we had the cleaner threat. The xG was 1.22 for us, 1.38 for them which suggests a fair result. But most of their value came from second phases and deflections, while ours came from structured play.
Defensive Discipline: We defended deeper than usual, but we defended well. McGuinness with six clearances,two interceptions, five aerials won, and the composure to keep threading passes at 75% accuracy despite Millwall’s press. Binden, who needed a big day at centre‑back, delivered one: ten clearances,one interception, and even five aerials himself. This was not a game for finesse, it was a game for standing tall, and he did.
McCallum had a messy afternoon, but he still contributed: 57 touches, three tackles, five aerial duels, and one big block. And let’s not forgot Cooper’s reemergence, with 5 saves, no errors, solid throughout.
Midfield Mechanics: Peck finished with 37 passes at just 54% accuracy although he won five aerial duels, and made three tackles. Davies had only 16 passes at 62%, just too low, with no tackles and no aerial duels. A passenger to day. Arblaster wasn’t much better at 62% pass accuracy, one tackle and one aerial duel. Do we know when Reidewald is back?
Hamer was our creative source: one assist, three key passes, most forward passes and the knack for finding Brooks at the right time (once lost possession dangerously, another time made a great recovery tackle). O’Hare was hot and cold: four shots but only one test of the keeper, and one key pass. Lots of effort, lots of movement, not enough incision.
The Right Side: Brooks was our top-rated player with 8.67, a goal, two key passes, and the most dribbles, four defensive interventions and two clearances, which tells you everything about the tone of the match. Seriki contributed two key passes, one successful dribble, and two defensive recoveries. Together they carried the ball and carried the threat.
Final Thoughts:
This was a scrap and we didn’t just survive, we often outplayed them, although I was glad to hear the final whistle. We created the better moments, had double the box touches and produced patterns that Millwall simply couldn’t match.
A point is fair in the chaos of it all, but the underlying performance, the structure, the threat, the way we imposed ourselves, shows good progress. On another day, with a bit more composure (perhaps with Bamford’s extra quality), we win this.
I feel we have thrown away points recently but this was a well earned point against a well organised team, who were playing with confidence in front of a passionate crowd.
We did well.
UTB!
Millwall threw everything they had at us physically and territorially, as they always do. Whilst the numbers are fairly balanced, a deeper dive perhaps tells a different story. Over the game, I suggest we were the more dangerous side. Yes, they had 53.8% possession and made 355 passes to our 317. But the real work happens in both boxes, and in that department, we were well ahead: 29 touches in their box to their 15, almost double. Our final ball was lacking,(often from great positions) so although it’s was 6 shots on target each, our chances came from cleaner patterns rather than hopeful scrambles.
Team Set-Up: We went with our usual 4‑2‑3‑1 that became a 4‑4‑2 without the ball. At The Den, you can’t finesse your way into the game, you have to earn thr right to play, and we did exactly that.
Out of possession, we dropped into that tidy, compact structure that worked so well at Ipswich: O’Hare stepping alongside Cannon, Seriki and Brooks flattening into wide midfield lanes, and Peck and Davies fighting inside.
The block generally held together well, and the numbers show exactly why: despite Millwall’s barrage, we ended with 32 clearances, far more than their 22, and we pretty much matched their physicality with 25 aerial duels won to their 30, close enough to compete, despite their height advantage.
In possession, we again morphed into a 2‑3‑5. Seriki pushed high, Brooks drifted in and out, McCallum overlapped early, and the big difference was Hamer’s ability to stitch play through the right half-space.
Our key issue being thst the clean passing performance we had against Ipswich wasn’t replicated; our overall pass accuracy was only 57.4%, far below our average. Which was such a shame as when we moved it well, Millwall didn’t cope.
First Half: Our first big move ended in a goal , Brooks again showing exactly why he’s become one of our most dangerous wide player (see below).
After the equaliser Millwall ended the half with more of the ball and 14 shots to our 12 overall, but we created the cleaner opportunities. O’Hare had four shots, one on target; McCallum even got forward for three efforts.
Second Half: The second half was less open, more strategic, more about discipline. Hamer kept trying to knit play, (29 passes, 69% accuracy, three key passes) but we kept arriving in the final third without making the killer action. The quality of our touches in the box should’ve meant more: 29 entries compared to Millwall’s 15, an astonishing differential for an away side in that stadium. But what we lacked was the finishing moment.
Cannon faded. O’Hare drifted. Brooks tired. The introduction of Burrows and Arblaster gave us fresh legs, but not fresh patterns. In truth the second half was a war of attrition, and neither side did enough to win it.
Even then: i suggest we had the cleaner threat. The xG was 1.22 for us, 1.38 for them which suggests a fair result. But most of their value came from second phases and deflections, while ours came from structured play.
Defensive Discipline: We defended deeper than usual, but we defended well. McGuinness with six clearances,two interceptions, five aerials won, and the composure to keep threading passes at 75% accuracy despite Millwall’s press. Binden, who needed a big day at centre‑back, delivered one: ten clearances,one interception, and even five aerials himself. This was not a game for finesse, it was a game for standing tall, and he did.
McCallum had a messy afternoon, but he still contributed: 57 touches, three tackles, five aerial duels, and one big block. And let’s not forgot Cooper’s reemergence, with 5 saves, no errors, solid throughout.
Midfield Mechanics: Peck finished with 37 passes at just 54% accuracy although he won five aerial duels, and made three tackles. Davies had only 16 passes at 62%, just too low, with no tackles and no aerial duels. A passenger to day. Arblaster wasn’t much better at 62% pass accuracy, one tackle and one aerial duel. Do we know when Reidewald is back?
Hamer was our creative source: one assist, three key passes, most forward passes and the knack for finding Brooks at the right time (once lost possession dangerously, another time made a great recovery tackle). O’Hare was hot and cold: four shots but only one test of the keeper, and one key pass. Lots of effort, lots of movement, not enough incision.
The Right Side: Brooks was our top-rated player with 8.67, a goal, two key passes, and the most dribbles, four defensive interventions and two clearances, which tells you everything about the tone of the match. Seriki contributed two key passes, one successful dribble, and two defensive recoveries. Together they carried the ball and carried the threat.
Final Thoughts:
This was a scrap and we didn’t just survive, we often outplayed them, although I was glad to hear the final whistle. We created the better moments, had double the box touches and produced patterns that Millwall simply couldn’t match.
A point is fair in the chaos of it all, but the underlying performance, the structure, the threat, the way we imposed ourselves, shows good progress. On another day, with a bit more composure (perhaps with Bamford’s extra quality), we win this.
I feel we have thrown away points recently but this was a well earned point against a well organised team, who were playing with confidence in front of a passionate crowd.
We did well.
UTB!
