Coolblade
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2015
- Messages
- 262
- Reaction score
- 1,860
A few observations from the stats:
The Harsh Facts: We had the ball, we had the territory, we had the chances, and we’re still out. That’s the FA Cup: it doesn’t reward control, it rewards ruthlessness, hunger and desire. Mansfield had more than we did. This shouldn’t have happened and on paper this should never be a defeat; but football isn’t played on spreadsheets.
Although we won the xG: 2.39 vs 1.33, Mansfield turned that 1.33 xG into four goals. Indeed we won every key stat bar the one that matters. Possession: 79% vs 21%; Passes: 745 vs 196 (89.5% vs 62.2% accuracy); Touches in their box: 45 vs 9; Shots: 23 vs 12 (5 on target vs 6); Corners: 11 vs 5; Final third passes: 205 vs 46; Crosses: 29 vs 10.
First Half: We were hit early, but we responded well. At that point, it felt like control would tell. And for 20 minutes it did. We dominated territory and chances. But then, right before the break, Reed again, against the run of play. A warning sign: they didn’t need volume, we needed bite and to be clinical.
Second Half: This is where it fell apart. From 1-1 to 1-4 in 13 minutes. That’s not bad luck, that’s structural failure. Our rest defence was exposed. 3rd and 4th goals came from quick transitions into space we left behind. We fought back, and suddenly it’s 3-4. From there, it’s a siege: 23 shots to their 12; 205 successful final third passes vs 46; 29 crosses vs 10; 45 touches in their box vs 9. But the equaliser never came. Their keeper makes the big saves, whereas ours didn’t, and the clock eventually killed us.
Where It Went Wrong:
- Dominance Without Defence: We had 79% of the ball, but when we lost it, we were wide open. They looked dangerous from direct counters into space we left behind. Our pivot didn’t screen aggressively enough, and our centre backs were left isolated. The tackle count tells the story. Lower-tier opposition won the physical battle against us.
- Tackle Problem: 21 clearances vs 45. They fought for every ball and we didn’t. Ground duels: 41 won vs 50. Aerial duels: 21 won vs 9. We won the air but lost the ground battles when it mattered. But looking at tackle numbers: our centre mid just three tackles (Soumaré 2, Arblaster 1), our defence just three tackles (Hoever 2, Mee 1, McGuinness 0, Burrows 0). In total: 10 tackles from our outfield players. When you’re not winning the ball back aggressively, possession means nothing. Mansfield had 27 tackles because they were hungry for every second ball. We strolled.
- Set Piece Waste: 11 corners, 1 goal. With McGuinness winning 16 aerial duels, that’s a missed weapon. Crossing accuracy was poor overall: 2 accurate from 29 attempts (7%). But dig deeper: Hamer delivered 9 crosses with 5 accurate (56%), showing what’s possible. From wide right, Hoever attempted 5 with 0 accurate (0%). We missed the Seriki/Brooks combination that worked so well recently.
- Missing midfield control: Riedewald’s absence showed. Against Leicester, the pivot of Soumaré (8 tackles) and Riedewald (5 tackles) provided defensive bite. Here, with Arblaster alongside Soumaré, we had technical excellence (217 passes combined at 91%) but minimal defensive aggression (3 tackles combined).
- Clinical Efficiency: 5 shots on target from 23 attempts (21.7%). Mansfield: 6 from 12 (50%). We created 2.39 xG, they created 1.33, yet they scored four. Shots off target: 9 vs 4. Too many wayward efforts when composure should have shown.
Key Individual Contrasts:
- Soumare: 93 passes at 90.3%, 3 key passes, 1 assist, but just 2 tackles. Excellent in possession, exposed in transition. Arblaster; 124 passes at 92.7%, technically superb but only 1 tackle. The midfield pairing lacked defensive aggression.
- Hamer; 57 passes at 80.7%, 3 shots (2 on target), 5 key passes, 9 crosses (5 accurate - 56%), 2 tackles, 1 goal. Our best player: creative heartbeat, especially compared to Chong, but pushed forward constantly, sometimes leaving space behind.
- McGuinness: 95 passes at 91.6%, 5 shots, 2 key passes, 1 assist, 0 tackles but exposed on counters with no midfield protection.
- Hoever: 41 passes at 90.2%, 5 crosses (0 accurate - 0%), 2 tackles. Offered nothing going forward. Burrows; 65 passes at 87.7%, 4 shots, 2 key passes, 0 tackles. Constantly attacking but no defensive contribution when they broke.
Strategic Fixes:
- Defensive Intensity: When we lose possession, the first reaction must be to win it back. We need to restore the midfield pivot balance. Soumaré and Arblaster: technically superb (217 passes at 91%), defensively passive (3 tackles). Against Leicester, Soumaré and Riedewald combined for 13 tackles. Against Mansfield, the pivot managed 3. Bring back Riedewald.
- Set Piece ruthlessness and improved delivery from wide: On the right we need the Seriki/Brooks partnership back. Plus 11 corners, 0 goals. McGuinness’ aerial dominance (16 wins) must translate. Hamer’s crossing (56% accuracy) shows what’s possible. Better delivery, better movement, ruthless execution.
This defeat hurts because our quality should have shown. We dominated all key stats and the tools are there: midfield technical quality, Hamer’s creativity, aerial dominance, attacking skill and experience.
The cup has gone but the league fight continues!
UTB
The Harsh Facts: We had the ball, we had the territory, we had the chances, and we’re still out. That’s the FA Cup: it doesn’t reward control, it rewards ruthlessness, hunger and desire. Mansfield had more than we did. This shouldn’t have happened and on paper this should never be a defeat; but football isn’t played on spreadsheets.
Although we won the xG: 2.39 vs 1.33, Mansfield turned that 1.33 xG into four goals. Indeed we won every key stat bar the one that matters. Possession: 79% vs 21%; Passes: 745 vs 196 (89.5% vs 62.2% accuracy); Touches in their box: 45 vs 9; Shots: 23 vs 12 (5 on target vs 6); Corners: 11 vs 5; Final third passes: 205 vs 46; Crosses: 29 vs 10.
First Half: We were hit early, but we responded well. At that point, it felt like control would tell. And for 20 minutes it did. We dominated territory and chances. But then, right before the break, Reed again, against the run of play. A warning sign: they didn’t need volume, we needed bite and to be clinical.
Second Half: This is where it fell apart. From 1-1 to 1-4 in 13 minutes. That’s not bad luck, that’s structural failure. Our rest defence was exposed. 3rd and 4th goals came from quick transitions into space we left behind. We fought back, and suddenly it’s 3-4. From there, it’s a siege: 23 shots to their 12; 205 successful final third passes vs 46; 29 crosses vs 10; 45 touches in their box vs 9. But the equaliser never came. Their keeper makes the big saves, whereas ours didn’t, and the clock eventually killed us.
Where It Went Wrong:
- Dominance Without Defence: We had 79% of the ball, but when we lost it, we were wide open. They looked dangerous from direct counters into space we left behind. Our pivot didn’t screen aggressively enough, and our centre backs were left isolated. The tackle count tells the story. Lower-tier opposition won the physical battle against us.
- Tackle Problem: 21 clearances vs 45. They fought for every ball and we didn’t. Ground duels: 41 won vs 50. Aerial duels: 21 won vs 9. We won the air but lost the ground battles when it mattered. But looking at tackle numbers: our centre mid just three tackles (Soumaré 2, Arblaster 1), our defence just three tackles (Hoever 2, Mee 1, McGuinness 0, Burrows 0). In total: 10 tackles from our outfield players. When you’re not winning the ball back aggressively, possession means nothing. Mansfield had 27 tackles because they were hungry for every second ball. We strolled.
- Set Piece Waste: 11 corners, 1 goal. With McGuinness winning 16 aerial duels, that’s a missed weapon. Crossing accuracy was poor overall: 2 accurate from 29 attempts (7%). But dig deeper: Hamer delivered 9 crosses with 5 accurate (56%), showing what’s possible. From wide right, Hoever attempted 5 with 0 accurate (0%). We missed the Seriki/Brooks combination that worked so well recently.
- Missing midfield control: Riedewald’s absence showed. Against Leicester, the pivot of Soumaré (8 tackles) and Riedewald (5 tackles) provided defensive bite. Here, with Arblaster alongside Soumaré, we had technical excellence (217 passes combined at 91%) but minimal defensive aggression (3 tackles combined).
- Clinical Efficiency: 5 shots on target from 23 attempts (21.7%). Mansfield: 6 from 12 (50%). We created 2.39 xG, they created 1.33, yet they scored four. Shots off target: 9 vs 4. Too many wayward efforts when composure should have shown.
Key Individual Contrasts:
- Soumare: 93 passes at 90.3%, 3 key passes, 1 assist, but just 2 tackles. Excellent in possession, exposed in transition. Arblaster; 124 passes at 92.7%, technically superb but only 1 tackle. The midfield pairing lacked defensive aggression.
- Hamer; 57 passes at 80.7%, 3 shots (2 on target), 5 key passes, 9 crosses (5 accurate - 56%), 2 tackles, 1 goal. Our best player: creative heartbeat, especially compared to Chong, but pushed forward constantly, sometimes leaving space behind.
- McGuinness: 95 passes at 91.6%, 5 shots, 2 key passes, 1 assist, 0 tackles but exposed on counters with no midfield protection.
- Hoever: 41 passes at 90.2%, 5 crosses (0 accurate - 0%), 2 tackles. Offered nothing going forward. Burrows; 65 passes at 87.7%, 4 shots, 2 key passes, 0 tackles. Constantly attacking but no defensive contribution when they broke.
Strategic Fixes:
- Defensive Intensity: When we lose possession, the first reaction must be to win it back. We need to restore the midfield pivot balance. Soumaré and Arblaster: technically superb (217 passes at 91%), defensively passive (3 tackles). Against Leicester, Soumaré and Riedewald combined for 13 tackles. Against Mansfield, the pivot managed 3. Bring back Riedewald.
- Set Piece ruthlessness and improved delivery from wide: On the right we need the Seriki/Brooks partnership back. Plus 11 corners, 0 goals. McGuinness’ aerial dominance (16 wins) must translate. Hamer’s crossing (56% accuracy) shows what’s possible. Better delivery, better movement, ruthless execution.
This defeat hurts because our quality should have shown. We dominated all key stats and the tools are there: midfield technical quality, Hamer’s creativity, aerial dominance, attacking skill and experience.
The cup has gone but the league fight continues!
UTB
Last edited:
