A few observations from the stats (QPR, not Derby!):

[Coolblade]

A few observations from the stats (QPR):

• We won the xG battle again (1.41 v 0.52): We dominated the ball and created volume( 20 shots to QPR’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 QPR’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. QPR 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. QPR 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 QPR’s low possession, their counters exposed us. Mee and Tanganga combined for 10 clearances, McCallum added 3, but QPR still carved out 4 shots on target. Our defensive third recoveries (22 v QPR’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; QPR 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

 

[GodricBlade]

These stats confirm what everyone knows - as a team, we carry virtually no threat up front.

Thought Ings did OK yesterday & good to see him get 90 minutes but he should have buried that header. Campbell hardly looks bothered & they didn’t play as a pair - they need to develop some sort of understanding together.
Tom Davies added some forward momentum from midfield but his final pass (and THAT shot) were poor.
COH looked up for it but can’t do it all on his own.
And the big stat for me that isn’t shown is how slowly our build up play is. I don’t know how it’d be measured but we’d be rubbish at it. Teams have ample time to get into shape as we plod sideways with the ball - it’s rare we break quickly & when we do, we can create chances and we need to do it more often.

 

[Millhousesblade1889]

A few observations from the stats (QPR):

• We won the xG battle again (1.41 v 0.52): We dominated the ball and created volume( 20 shots to QPR’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 QPR’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. QPR 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. QPR 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 QPR’s low possession, their counters exposed us. Mee and Tanganga combined for 10 clearances, McCallum added 3, but QPR still carved out 4 shots on target. Our defensive third recoveries (22 v QPR’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; QPR 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

Ings had a header that was saved? Surely that was on target….

 

[Matlock Blade]

It was one of our less bad performances. Similar to what we saw second half of last season, barring a handful of games. Fans seem to have forgotten how bad we were because we scraped fortunate 1-0 wins.

 

[SwitchBLADE Smiles]

Purely from the eye test, we should have won that game by at least 1. That Ings header was guilt edged.

First game this season (I think?) where we haven’t had an absolute calamity moment from one of the defenders that’s costs us a goal - so that’s a positive.

Having 2 forwards on the pitch seems to be working for me. We’re definitely putting ourselves in positions to score much more often. I suspect that’s because we have more bodies around the oppositions penalty area. That being said, we’re still painfully slow to get the ball into our forwards. Nothing comes from central midfield and the wide players want to try and beat their man 2 or 3 times before doing anything with the ball instead of getting something in early.

 

[Dkc]

There will be loads more games like that, fairly even where we can also win or lose by the odd goal.

A draw is okay for a team in the relegation zone with five losses in their six previous home games. However we have 31 games to go. Averaging a point per game from now on means relegation. To get to 50 points we need to pick up four points every three games - which means we need to win a minimum of one in three, and draw another.

There are only so many tight games where we can accept a loss or draw because we played well and were unlucky. We have no cushion - we need to look at each sequence of three games and target a minimum of four points. We can't afford to drift further and need, say, five points from every three games.

 

[mattbianco1]

First game this season (I think?) where we haven’t had an absolute calamity moment from one of the defenders that’s costs us a goal - so that’s a positive.

Playing one of the best centre backs in they league at centre back really helped