A few observations from the stats (Wrexham)

[Coolblade]

A few observations from the stats:

Team Set Up: Relatively similar to our recent blueprint, this time 4‑2‑3‑1, flattening into a 4‑4‑2 out of possession, again with a double pivot of Arblaster & Riedewald to control first passes and screen the half‑spaces. As often our width was our route to goal with Seriki high and direct on the right; McCallum providing left‑side release and long distribution.

The stats cleanly break into two performances: front‑loaded first half quality, followed by a territorial fade. We lost the xG battle 2.27 to 2.40 vs 1.80 to 2.12, number of shots 18 vs 13, shots on target 8 vs 7, possession 54% vs 46% and corners: 7 vs 5

Our shot accuracy was good 54% (7/13) vs 44% (8/18) so we hit the target more often. but their on target conversion was superior 43% (3/7) vs 63% (5/8) so their finishing/placement on the day was better. So we produced enough to score three; but we didn’t protect the phases that follow chance creation, e.g. the ability to win second balls, structure of rest‑defence, and defending set‑pieces

Creativity: Hamer and O’Hare feeding Bamford was the key success. Touch leaders tell the story of how we built: Seriki 73, Arblaster 73, Bindon 70, Hamer 61, McCallum 54. That triangle was the engine of most of our good moments.

First‑Half: Assertive patterns with clear routes. We looked relatively organised and threatening with the numbers underpinning the patterns:

• Right‑wing impact: Seriki delivered 5 crosses and 2 key passes off 73 touches. That volume is what “plan A” should look like: find Seriki early, attack the box.
• Central finishing: Bamford took 4 shots (3 on target) from just 26 touches—exactly the low‑touch, high‑impact profile we want.
• Left-wing supply: Hamer gave us 8 crosses, 3 key passes, 2 dribbles, and 44 passes @ 81.8%.
• Midfield screen: Arblaster led with 55 passes @ 87.3%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions, with calm release, and good field coverage

Our xG was mainly created in the first half with the bulk of our xG of 1.8 came during this phase because box entries were purposeful and the delivery angles were varied (RB whip, LH half‑space, LB support).

Second‑Half: Territory loss, risk drift. The volume stayed up in some places, but without the control.

• Final‑third usage fell; with touches in the penalty area dipping, ending 26–33.
• Hamer’s involvement remained high (61 touches), but his efficiency dropped (from 8 crosses, only 2 accurate) without the re‑circulation that keeps pressure on.
• Foul profile spiked in the back half: Bindon 4, Riedewald 3, Hamer 2. That’s distances getting too big between lines, leading to late contact rather than early prevention.
• Keeper distribution: 41 passes @ 29.3% as we were forced long too often, which suffocated our share of second balls.

Defensive: : Bindon had 8 clearances, 2 blocks, 3 aerials won, but also 4 fouls. He did the fire‑fighting; the count itself shows how often we defended the six yard box. Tanganga had lower scramble volume (1 clearance) but good anticipation (2 tackles, 2 interceptions)..

The interception map shows Arblaster 3, Tanganga 2, McCallum 2. When we read early, transitions died at source; when we didn’t, they escalated to fouls and scrambles. Conclusion being that our first‑contact numbers are fine; our second‑ball winning structure isn’t.

Midfield: Arblaster was the key: 55 passes @ 87.3%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions, plus 1 shot on target. When he was the recycle point, we kept Wrexham penned. Riedewald (26 passes @ 84.6%, 3 fouls) kept it simple early; as the game stretched he slid deeper and fouled more to protect the defence. Hamer carried creativity (3 key passes , 2 successful dribbles) but we need a defined way of defending any cross clearances, as eight crosses but only two accurate is too much risk when territory is already tilting.

Creativity: Key passes were spread around with Hamer 3, Seriki 2, McCallum 2, O’Hare 1, Bamford 1, Brooks 1. Not a one‑man show. . Cross accuracy needs balance, with Seriki 3/5, McCallum 2/2, Hamer 2/8 (too many from static positions). Carrying threat: Hamer with most successful dribbles, with Seriki and Chong was enough to break lines, but we didn’t recycle the next action often enough in the final third.

Offence: O’Hare had 3 shots (1 on target), 1 key pass, 2 aerial duels, 27 passes @ 70.4%, 39 touches. Chong only made 12 passes (at 100%) with 1 shot on target so low‑involvement. Bamford with 4 shots (3 on target), 1 key pass, 76.9%, 26 touches was a high‑impact centre‑forward profile we want to preserve.

Strategic Takeaways:

1. Right‑side overload works well. So keep it, but vary it. Seriki (5 crosses, 2 key passes, 73 touches) is a valuable route to goal. A necessary evolution is the pre‑planned flip: after 2 or 3 right side actions, to bounce to Arblaster and switch into Hamer/McCallum for the second attack. It stops the block/clear pattern and lifts our xG from being overly cross‑dependent
2. Second‑ball responsibility in the box. Bindon’s clearances and 4 fouls means he’s constantly putting out fires, not defending comfortably. That happens because when the ball drops, no one’s there to help him with 4 fouls representing firefighting. Perhaps fix this with a designated screen (We keep getting pinned back because we don’t win the second ball in our own box). What needs to change, Arblaster stays, Riedewald presses the attacker in possession and on every cross, someone has to cover the near post so loose balls don’t bounce straight to their players. If we do that we win the scraps, the ball actually gets cleared properly. And there are fewer desperate blocks, fewer fouls, less panic.
3. Keeper distribution; Cooper 41 passes @ 29.3% tells us we were forced long. Build in a back‑three approach (Tanganga tucks, Arblaster drops) for two minutes after big chances to absorb the press, reset distances, and keep the next wave.
4. Make Arblaster the structural pivot; He’s already doing the job with 55 passes at 87%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions. That’s someone who stays involved and reads danger. When we attack, Seriki goes high and pins their winger, McCallum tucks in halfway, not bombing on, Tanganga and Bindon stay back, with Arblaster sitting just in front of them. That gives us three defenders plus Arblaster behind the ball at all times. This cuts off the straight counter through the middle, forced them wide instead of straight at us and gives us time to reset instead of scrambling.

The stats matched what we all saw. When our shape was right , Seriki giving us width, Arblaster holding things together, and Hamer finding pockets then we looked dangerous and created the same good chances. When we slowed down and lost our defensive shape, we lost control.

Onward and upward.

Apologies to all!

UTB

 

[finlaytheblade]

A few observations from the stats:

Team Set Up: Relatively similar to our recent blueprint, this time 4‑2‑3‑1, flattening into a 4‑4‑2 out of possession, again with a double pivot of Arblaster & Riedewald to control first passes and screen the half‑spaces. As often our width was our route to goal with Seriki high and direct on the right; McCallum providing left‑side release and long distribution.

The stats cleanly break into two performances: front‑loaded first half quality, followed by a territorial fade. We lost the xG battle 2.27 to 2.40 vs 1.80 to 2.12, number of shots 18 vs 13, shots on target 8 vs 7, possession 54% vs 46% and corners: 7 vs 5

Our shot accuracy was good 54% (7/13) vs 44% (8/18) so we hit the target more often. but their on target conversion was superior 43% (3/7) vs 63% (5/8) so their finishing/placement on the day was better. So we produced enough to score three; but we didn’t protect the phases that follow chance creation, e.g. the ability to win second balls, structure of rest‑defence, and defending set‑pieces

Creativity: Hamer and O’Hare feeding Bamford was the key success. Touch leaders tell the story of how we built: Seriki 73, Arblaster 73, Bindon 70, Hamer 61, McCallum 54. That triangle was the engine of most of our good moments.

First‑Half: Assertive patterns with clear routes. We looked relatively organised and threatening with the numbers underpinning the patterns:

• Right‑wing impact: Seriki delivered 5 crosses and 2 key passes off 73 touches. That volume is what “plan A” should look like: find Seriki early, attack the box.
• Central finishing: Bamford took 4 shots (3 on target) from just 26 touches—exactly the low‑touch, high‑impact profile we want.
• Left-wing supply: Hamer gave us 8 crosses, 3 key passes, 2 dribbles, and 44 passes @ 81.8%.
• Midfield screen: Arblaster led with 55 passes @ 87.3%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions, with calm release, and good field coverage

Our xG was mainly created in the first half with the bulk of our xG of 1.8 came during this phase because box entries were purposeful and the delivery angles were varied (RB whip, LH half‑space, LB support).

Second‑Half: Territory loss, risk drift. The volume stayed up in some places, but without the control.

• Final‑third usage fell; with touches in the penalty area dipping, ending 26–33.
• Hamer’s involvement remained high (61 touches), but his efficiency dropped (from 8 crosses, only 2 accurate) without the re‑circulation that keeps pressure on.
• Foul profile spiked in the back half: Bindon 4, Riedewald 3, Hamer 2. That’s distances getting too big between lines, leading to late contact rather than early prevention.
• Keeper distribution: 41 passes @ 29.3% as we were forced long too often, which suffocated our share of second balls.

Defensive: : Bindon had 8 clearances, 2 blocks, 3 aerials won, but also 4 fouls. He did the fire‑fighting; the count itself shows how often we defended the six yard box. Tanganga had lower scramble volume (1 clearance) but good anticipation (2 tackles, 2 interceptions)..

The interception map shows Arblaster 3, Tanganga 2, McCallum 2. When we read early, transitions died at source; when we didn’t, they escalated to fouls and scrambles. Conclusion being that our first‑contact numbers are fine; our second‑ball winning structure isn’t.

Midfield: Arblaster was the key: 55 passes @ 87.3%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions, plus 1 shot on target. When he was the recycle point, we kept Wrexham penned. Riedewald (26 passes @ 84.6%, 3 fouls) kept it simple early; as the game stretched he slid deeper and fouled more to protect the defence. Hamer carried creativity (3 key passes , 2 successful dribbles) but we need a defined way of defending any cross clearances, as eight crosses but only two accurate is too much risk when territory is already tilting.

Creativity: Key passes were spread around with Hamer 3, Seriki 2, McCallum 2, O’Hare 1, Bamford 1, Brooks 1. Not a one‑man show. . Cross accuracy needs balance, with Seriki 3/5, McCallum 2/2, Hamer 2/8 (too many from static positions). Carrying threat: Hamer with most successful dribbles, with Seriki and Chong was enough to break lines, but we didn’t recycle the next action often enough in the final third.

Offence: O’Hare had 3 shots (1 on target), 1 key pass, 2 aerial duels, 27 passes @ 70.4%, 39 touches. Chong only made 12 passes (at 100%) with 1 shot on target so low‑involvement. Bamford with 4 shots (3 on target), 1 key pass, 76.9%, 26 touches was a high‑impact centre‑forward profile we want to preserve.

Strategic Takeaways:

1. Right‑side overload works well. So keep it, but vary it. Seriki (5 crosses, 2 key passes, 73 touches) is a valuable route to goal. A necessary evolution is the pre‑planned flip: after 2 or 3 right side actions, to bounce to Arblaster and switch into Hamer/McCallum for the second attack. It stops the block/clear pattern and lifts our xG from being overly cross‑dependent
2. Second‑ball responsibility in the box. Bindon’s clearances and 4 fouls means he’s constantly putting out fires, not defending comfortably. That happens because when the ball drops, no one’s there to help him with 4 fouls representing firefighting. Perhaps fix this with a designated screen (We keep getting pinned back because we don’t win the second ball in our own box). What needs to change, Arblaster stays, Riedewald presses the attacker in possession and on every cross, someone has to cover the near post so loose balls don’t bounce straight to their players. If we do that we win the scraps, the ball actually gets cleared properly. And there are fewer desperate blocks, fewer fouls, less panic.
3. Keeper distribution; Cooper 41 passes @ 29.3% tells us we were forced long. Build in a back‑three approach (Tanganga tucks, Arblaster drops) for two minutes after big chances to absorb the press, reset distances, and keep the next wave.
4. Make Arblaster the structural pivot; He’s already doing the job with 55 passes at 87%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions. That’s someone who stays involved and reads danger. When we attack, Seriki goes high and pins their winger, McCallum tucks in halfway, not bombing on, Tanganga and Bindon stay back, with Arblaster sitting just in front of them. That gives us three defenders plus Arblaster behind the ball at all times. This cuts off the straight counter through the middle, forced them wide instead of straight at us and gives us time to reset instead of scrambling.

The stats matched what we all saw. When our shape was right , Seriki giving us width, Arblaster holding things together, and Hamer finding pockets then we looked dangerous and created the same good chances. When we slowed down and lost our defensive shape, we lost control.

Onward and upward.

Apologies to all!

UTBour

You talk like a coach Coolblade ! I wonder if we disect our game plan after it falls apart or is there too much info to take on board.
Great post Coolblade keep it coming its mighty interesting stuff.
Hopefully our coaches are able to breakdown that kind of data! If not why not!

 

[I should coco]

A few observations from the stats:

Team Set Up: Relatively similar to our recent blueprint, this time 4‑2‑3‑1, flattening into a 4‑4‑2 out of possession, again with a double pivot of Arblaster & Riedewald to control first passes and screen the half‑spaces. As often our width was our route to goal with Seriki high and direct on the right; McCallum providing left‑side release and long distribution.

The stats cleanly break into two performances: front‑loaded first half quality, followed by a territorial fade. We lost the xG battle 2.27 to 2.40 vs 1.80 to 2.12, number of shots 18 vs 13, shots on target 8 vs 7, possession 54% vs 46% and corners: 7 vs 5

Our shot accuracy was good 54% (7/13) vs 44% (8/18) so we hit the target more often. but their on target conversion was superior 43% (3/7) vs 63% (5/8) so their finishing/placement on the day was better. So we produced enough to score three; but we didn’t protect the phases that follow chance creation, e.g. the ability to win second balls, structure of rest‑defence, and defending set‑pieces

Creativity: Hamer and O’Hare feeding Bamford was the key success. Touch leaders tell the story of how we built: Seriki 73, Arblaster 73, Bindon 70, Hamer 61, McCallum 54. That triangle was the engine of most of our good moments.

First‑Half: Assertive patterns with clear routes. We looked relatively organised and threatening with the numbers underpinning the patterns:

• Right‑wing impact: Seriki delivered 5 crosses and 2 key passes off 73 touches. That volume is what “plan A” should look like: find Seriki early, attack the box.
• Central finishing: Bamford took 4 shots (3 on target) from just 26 touches—exactly the low‑touch, high‑impact profile we want.
• Left-wing supply: Hamer gave us 8 crosses, 3 key passes, 2 dribbles, and 44 passes @ 81.8%.
• Midfield screen: Arblaster led with 55 passes @ 87.3%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions, with calm release, and good field coverage

Our xG was mainly created in the first half with the bulk of our xG of 1.8 came during this phase because box entries were purposeful and the delivery angles were varied (RB whip, LH half‑space, LB support).

Second‑Half: Territory loss, risk drift. The volume stayed up in some places, but without the control.

• Final‑third usage fell; with touches in the penalty area dipping, ending 26–33.
• Hamer’s involvement remained high (61 touches), but his efficiency dropped (from 8 crosses, only 2 accurate) without the re‑circulation that keeps pressure on.
• Foul profile spiked in the back half: Bindon 4, Riedewald 3, Hamer 2. That’s distances getting too big between lines, leading to late contact rather than early prevention.
• Keeper distribution: 41 passes @ 29.3% as we were forced long too often, which suffocated our share of second balls.

Defensive: : Bindon had 8 clearances, 2 blocks, 3 aerials won, but also 4 fouls. He did the fire‑fighting; the count itself shows how often we defended the six yard box. Tanganga had lower scramble volume (1 clearance) but good anticipation (2 tackles, 2 interceptions)..

The interception map shows Arblaster 3, Tanganga 2, McCallum 2. When we read early, transitions died at source; when we didn’t, they escalated to fouls and scrambles. Conclusion being that our first‑contact numbers are fine; our second‑ball winning structure isn’t.

Midfield: Arblaster was the key: 55 passes @ 87.3%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions, plus 1 shot on target. When he was the recycle point, we kept Wrexham penned. Riedewald (26 passes @ 84.6%, 3 fouls) kept it simple early; as the game stretched he slid deeper and fouled more to protect the defence. Hamer carried creativity (3 key passes , 2 successful dribbles) but we need a defined way of defending any cross clearances, as eight crosses but only two accurate is too much risk when territory is already tilting.

Creativity: Key passes were spread around with Hamer 3, Seriki 2, McCallum 2, O’Hare 1, Bamford 1, Brooks 1. Not a one‑man show. . Cross accuracy needs balance, with Seriki 3/5, McCallum 2/2, Hamer 2/8 (too many from static positions). Carrying threat: Hamer with most successful dribbles, with Seriki and Chong was enough to break lines, but we didn’t recycle the next action often enough in the final third.

Offence: O’Hare had 3 shots (1 on target), 1 key pass, 2 aerial duels, 27 passes @ 70.4%, 39 touches. Chong only made 12 passes (at 100%) with 1 shot on target so low‑involvement. Bamford with 4 shots (3 on target), 1 key pass, 76.9%, 26 touches was a high‑impact centre‑forward profile we want to preserve.

Strategic Takeaways:

1. Right‑side overload works well. So keep it, but vary it. Seriki (5 crosses, 2 key passes, 73 touches) is a valuable route to goal. A necessary evolution is the pre‑planned flip: after 2 or 3 right side actions, to bounce to Arblaster and switch into Hamer/McCallum for the second attack. It stops the block/clear pattern and lifts our xG from being overly cross‑dependent
2. Second‑ball responsibility in the box. Bindon’s clearances and 4 fouls means he’s constantly putting out fires, not defending comfortably. That happens because when the ball drops, no one’s there to help him with 4 fouls representing firefighting. Perhaps fix this with a designated screen (We keep getting pinned back because we don’t win the second ball in our own box). What needs to change, Arblaster stays, Riedewald presses the attacker in possession and on every cross, someone has to cover the near post so loose balls don’t bounce straight to their players. If we do that we win the scraps, the ball actually gets cleared properly. And there are fewer desperate blocks, fewer fouls, less panic.
3. Keeper distribution; Cooper 41 passes @ 29.3% tells us we were forced long. Build in a back‑three approach (Tanganga tucks, Arblaster drops) for two minutes after big chances to absorb the press, reset distances, and keep the next wave.
4. Make Arblaster the structural pivot; He’s already doing the job with 55 passes at 87%, 73 touches, 3 interceptions. That’s someone who stays involved and reads danger. When we attack, Seriki goes high and pins their winger, McCallum tucks in halfway, not bombing on, Tanganga and Bindon stay back, with Arblaster sitting just in front of them. That gives us three defenders plus Arblaster behind the ball at all times. This cuts off the straight counter through the middle, forced them wide instead of straight at us and gives us time to reset instead of scrambling.

The stats matched what we all saw. When our shape was right , Seriki giving us width, Arblaster holding things together, and Hamer finding pockets then we looked dangerous and created the same good chances. When we slowed down and lost our defensive shape, we lost control.

Onward and upward.

Apologies to all!

UTB

I can't pretend to understand all of that, but it's a fantastic analysis.

Thanks very much for the post.