Coolblade
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 279
- Reaction score
- 2,124
A few observations from the stats (from the kop):
Sometimes you have to dig in and hope class shows. This was a win where we started as badly as I could envisage, but improved generally over time such that we looked better than Oxford for long enough that our quality eventually told.
We gave them their opener with a loose moment from Cooper. But beyond that early setback, the match always felt like it was tilting our way. The numbers back it up: 70% possession, 558 passes to their 241, and 31 touches in their box compared to their six. And even though Oxford’s xG (1.06) just shaded ours (1.00), the flow of the game, and the quality of our big moments demonstrated that we set the tone of the match. Oxford’s xG advantage was a mirage. Their only big chance was the rebound goal. Everything else was half-scraps.
Team Set‑Up: Out of possession, our 4‑2‑3‑1 stepped aggressively into a 4‑2‑4 press at times, with Brooks and Seriki jumping high on their back line. In possession, with Burrows providing width on the left and Seriki doing the same on the right, while O’Hare and Brooks drifted into the half‑spaces. Very frustratingly it took its time to work, but it forced Oxford deeper and deeper as the match went on. The final-third numbers show it clearly, with 108 successful final-third passes for us and just 36 for Oxford.
First Half: It was a poor goal to concede (after Cooper had started to look more like his old self in recent games) but from that moment, even though we took our time, the match swung to us. However it did so without us creating real chances. We suffocated them, moved them around, found pockets. But where was the xG? All the stats point the same way, 70% possession, nearly triple the passes, far better territory, 4 attempts but all were from outside the box
Second Half: Oxford threatened only once, in the first minute after the restart, but Seriki produced a superb recovery to clear danger. After that moment, Oxford were rarely seen as an attacking force. The match became all about whether our pressure would eventually convert into chances big enough to score. Thankfully they did. By the end, the key stats told a story Oxford couldn’t escape: 31 touches in the Oxford box to their six, 11 shots to their six, 10 corners to their two, 82.4% pass accuracy to their 61%, and 558 successful passes. We took our time but eventually we controlled the match.
Defensive: Despite conceding early, our defenders had strong games. Bindon, in particular, was excellent with 105 touches, 87 passes at 95.4% accuracy, 3 aerial wins, 7 clearances and 1 key pass. He looked every inch a top Championship centre‑half. Tanganga, our captain, had a poor start, but grew into the game and won 4 aerial duels, made 2 clearances, and passed at 87.5%. Burrows deserves a mention (especially as he is likely to be back as first choice.). He was always involved with 51 passes, 10 crosses, 2 aerial wins, and 72 touches.
Midfield: Peck and Arblaster were a bit hit and miss but were much improved. Peck with 75 touches, 59 passes at 84.8%, 2 shots, 1 on target, 4 turnovers forced and 7 recoveries. Arblaster created the equaliser with the smartest pass of the night and completed 48 passes at 85.4%. Very different from the low accuracy stats last match against Millwall.
Creativity: Hamer was again a key player with 38 passes at 76.3%, 2 key passes, 2 dribbles, superb assist. On the right, Seriki & Brooks were not at their best but still made a big difference. Seriki continues to grow: with 52 passes, 82.7% accuracy, 2 aerial wins, 4 tackles & 1 key pass. Brooks numbers were strong once again. 2 shots, 1 on target, 1 goal, 2 key passes, 1 dribbles, 40 touches, 7.80 rating. This flank is becoming our key weapon.
Attack: Cannon has become a good runner. He presses, he stretches the pitch, he drags centre‑backs into uncomfortable spaces, and he helps us play at a tempo that defenders hate. For example in the Brooks goal, Cannon gets the assist. But in the moments that need someone to hold the ball, lean on a defender, set the play… that’s not Cannon. As the game wore on, Oxford dropped deeper, space reduced, and Cannon faded. His passing dropped, his touches dropped, and the team started to lose the “bounce point” you need against a deep block.
Cannon is a good support striker but not the central reference point. He thrives more when the game is stretched, he’s running diagonally, he’s chasing flick-ons from a proper 9 and he’s arriving onto chances, not creating them Give him a Bamford to play off and he looks dangerous. Ask him to be Bamford and he looks isolated. He’s a weapon but he needs the right platform to explode.
Cannon and O’Hare together are strong at energy and movement. They both run and both press. They both drift into good pockets and both keep defenders honest. But neither of them pins defenders, holds the ball, dictates tempo, wins consistent back‑to‑goal duels, gives you that “play off me” wall pass. We need Bamford back for Boro!
Final Thoughts: This wasn’t a perfect performance, the early mistake showed that we still have soft moments, but tactically it was structured, dominant and controlled Over 90 minutes, we were simply too much for Oxford.
We controlled the ball, controlled the spaces, controlled the tempo, and eventually controlled the scoreline. We created more, imposed ourselves more, and showed more confidence all over the pitch. Oxford couldn’t live with our width, couldn’t handle our rotations, and couldn’t get out of their half once we settled. Although our unbalanced front pairing remains a concern.
A win that perhaps makes you look at the table and fixture list a little differently. Perhaps with a glimmer of hope?
UTB
Sometimes you have to dig in and hope class shows. This was a win where we started as badly as I could envisage, but improved generally over time such that we looked better than Oxford for long enough that our quality eventually told.
We gave them their opener with a loose moment from Cooper. But beyond that early setback, the match always felt like it was tilting our way. The numbers back it up: 70% possession, 558 passes to their 241, and 31 touches in their box compared to their six. And even though Oxford’s xG (1.06) just shaded ours (1.00), the flow of the game, and the quality of our big moments demonstrated that we set the tone of the match. Oxford’s xG advantage was a mirage. Their only big chance was the rebound goal. Everything else was half-scraps.
Team Set‑Up: Out of possession, our 4‑2‑3‑1 stepped aggressively into a 4‑2‑4 press at times, with Brooks and Seriki jumping high on their back line. In possession, with Burrows providing width on the left and Seriki doing the same on the right, while O’Hare and Brooks drifted into the half‑spaces. Very frustratingly it took its time to work, but it forced Oxford deeper and deeper as the match went on. The final-third numbers show it clearly, with 108 successful final-third passes for us and just 36 for Oxford.
First Half: It was a poor goal to concede (after Cooper had started to look more like his old self in recent games) but from that moment, even though we took our time, the match swung to us. However it did so without us creating real chances. We suffocated them, moved them around, found pockets. But where was the xG? All the stats point the same way, 70% possession, nearly triple the passes, far better territory, 4 attempts but all were from outside the box
Second Half: Oxford threatened only once, in the first minute after the restart, but Seriki produced a superb recovery to clear danger. After that moment, Oxford were rarely seen as an attacking force. The match became all about whether our pressure would eventually convert into chances big enough to score. Thankfully they did. By the end, the key stats told a story Oxford couldn’t escape: 31 touches in the Oxford box to their six, 11 shots to their six, 10 corners to their two, 82.4% pass accuracy to their 61%, and 558 successful passes. We took our time but eventually we controlled the match.
Defensive: Despite conceding early, our defenders had strong games. Bindon, in particular, was excellent with 105 touches, 87 passes at 95.4% accuracy, 3 aerial wins, 7 clearances and 1 key pass. He looked every inch a top Championship centre‑half. Tanganga, our captain, had a poor start, but grew into the game and won 4 aerial duels, made 2 clearances, and passed at 87.5%. Burrows deserves a mention (especially as he is likely to be back as first choice.). He was always involved with 51 passes, 10 crosses, 2 aerial wins, and 72 touches.
Midfield: Peck and Arblaster were a bit hit and miss but were much improved. Peck with 75 touches, 59 passes at 84.8%, 2 shots, 1 on target, 4 turnovers forced and 7 recoveries. Arblaster created the equaliser with the smartest pass of the night and completed 48 passes at 85.4%. Very different from the low accuracy stats last match against Millwall.
Creativity: Hamer was again a key player with 38 passes at 76.3%, 2 key passes, 2 dribbles, superb assist. On the right, Seriki & Brooks were not at their best but still made a big difference. Seriki continues to grow: with 52 passes, 82.7% accuracy, 2 aerial wins, 4 tackles & 1 key pass. Brooks numbers were strong once again. 2 shots, 1 on target, 1 goal, 2 key passes, 1 dribbles, 40 touches, 7.80 rating. This flank is becoming our key weapon.
Attack: Cannon has become a good runner. He presses, he stretches the pitch, he drags centre‑backs into uncomfortable spaces, and he helps us play at a tempo that defenders hate. For example in the Brooks goal, Cannon gets the assist. But in the moments that need someone to hold the ball, lean on a defender, set the play… that’s not Cannon. As the game wore on, Oxford dropped deeper, space reduced, and Cannon faded. His passing dropped, his touches dropped, and the team started to lose the “bounce point” you need against a deep block.
Cannon is a good support striker but not the central reference point. He thrives more when the game is stretched, he’s running diagonally, he’s chasing flick-ons from a proper 9 and he’s arriving onto chances, not creating them Give him a Bamford to play off and he looks dangerous. Ask him to be Bamford and he looks isolated. He’s a weapon but he needs the right platform to explode.
Cannon and O’Hare together are strong at energy and movement. They both run and both press. They both drift into good pockets and both keep defenders honest. But neither of them pins defenders, holds the ball, dictates tempo, wins consistent back‑to‑goal duels, gives you that “play off me” wall pass. We need Bamford back for Boro!
Final Thoughts: This wasn’t a perfect performance, the early mistake showed that we still have soft moments, but tactically it was structured, dominant and controlled Over 90 minutes, we were simply too much for Oxford.
We controlled the ball, controlled the spaces, controlled the tempo, and eventually controlled the scoreline. We created more, imposed ourselves more, and showed more confidence all over the pitch. Oxford couldn’t live with our width, couldn’t handle our rotations, and couldn’t get out of their half once we settled. Although our unbalanced front pairing remains a concern.
A win that perhaps makes you look at the table and fixture list a little differently. Perhaps with a glimmer of hope?
UTB
Last edited:
