A few observations from the stats....

[Coolblade]

A few observations from the stats:

- our stand out performer was Burrows. Out of 17 crosses that we made, he put in 10 of them, with 5 being accurate crosses. No one else put in a single accurate cross. He also made more key passes than any other player. and joint most successful dribbles. And defensively joint most tackles of any starting player. Some have suggested he lost his man for the vital first goal, but as Wilder explained, given Robbo had drifted too far away from their centre forward, leaving him free right in front of goal, Burrows had to come across to cover him, leaving Brownhill free, but with a tighter angle. And on another day Cooper makes that save.

- Midfield was poor, and stood off them too much. Between them Peck, Souza and Davies made just one successful tackle! To compare Brooks made four in the few minutes he played. We gave them too much respect and should have mixed it up more.

- Offensively we looked very disjointed. Changing the positions of O'Hare and Hamer simply didn't work. Hamer is our key creator and following this change (with a far greater distance between him and his mate O'Hare) he managed one weak shot, just one successful dribble and no key passes. It resulted in us playing to our weaknesses rather than our strengths; for example, I thought Brewster did ok (unlike many) as he was constantly involved and even had joint most successful tackles of any starter. But it shouldn't be a plan for him to be putting through balls in for Moore to run on to. That is bizarre! Making such an experiment against the best defence in the league was an odd decision by the management team, and led to an xg of 0.94.

- As for Burnley, Brownhill was the main difference. Most shots, most shots on target etc. but also the highest pass completion rate of any starting player for either side (94.7%) and he made twice as many successful tackles as any of our starting players, as well as three clearances. A great display.

 

[robbiez666]

It resulted in us playing to our weaknesses rather than our strengths; for example, I thought Brewster did ok (unlike many) as he was constantly involved and even had joint most successful tackles of any starter. But it shouldn't be a plan for him to be putting through balls in for Moore to run on to. That is bizarre!

One of Chris' more bizarre tactical choices. No wonder Hamer was Mr angry first half.

 

[robbiez666]

Also, we need to do better from Burrows' crosses. He puts some great balls in and there's often no one really attacking them.

 

[Barmyblade]

The two games where we have made the biggest tactical change - not necessitated by injuries or suspension - have been against Leeds and Burnley, both lost 2-0. It seems a shame that in the biggest matches we don’t just have the confidence to play our usual game (which had got us to the top) and let them worry about us.

 

[Coolblade]

I am the first to stress that stats never show the complete picture, merely that they are an objective benchmark which can be useful to test our perceptions of the contributions each player made, bearing in mind all of us bring confirmation bias to how we view the game.

However I am still surprised that in the voting on this site, Burrows currently comes 8th, with O'Hare the highest rated out field starter despite this more attacking playing having no shots at, no crosses (attempted or successful), one dribble and only 24 passes with a low completion rate of 66%. To be clear, I think O'Hare is a very good player, and his reduced impact yesterday was more down to the decision to play him out wide. Which as Barmy suggests was a tactical change which backfired. But for our fans to mark O'Hare (and three other defenders including Robbo) higher than Burrows seems a little odd to me. I can only assume that our fans blame him for this first goal despite Wilder's explanation

 

[ATL Recs]

The two games where we have made the biggest tactical change - not necessitated by injuries or suspension - have been against Leeds and Burnley, both lost 2-0. It seems a shame that in the biggest matches we don’t just have the confidence to play our usual game (which had got us to the top) and let them worry about us.

Natural game ? Even with the changes we did play our natural slow turgid game it’s just that two of the three teams at the top beat us very comfortably and the other played us off the park at home even though we nicked a win

 

[Pollingtonblade]

The downside of Wilder is against good sides he gives to much respect, leeds away and yesterday been examples. The new owners will of course have noticed this.

That said, aside from the top 4 we will beat everyone else so will still get promoted

 

[Dnblade]

Yes,i thought Burrows put some good balls in,but in general we aren't creating chances or working the keeper enough..We're relying on low XG chances like KM v Cardiff or a 25 yarder from Harmer.
Also we're not getting much from corners or set pieces,even though we put some good deliveries in..we should be doing better with the likes KM,Souttar in there.
Injuries are killing us at the moment though.

 

[Bell4]

Thanks

Very interesting and insightful

We do seem to be self defeating ourselves with our lineups , positions and tactics at times don’t we - although when you look at our options from the bench and injuries CW is having to shuffle a very tired looking pack

 

[Addison]

Wilders explanation for the first goal was spot on. JLT got under the ball and lost his man and Burrows tried to compensate although he should have been alert to brownhill coming in at the back post. A taller Anel may have been able to get his head to the cross but he wasn't on the pitch. All the back 5 were poor for the first goal. Where Souttar has got it wrong this season Anel has usually mopped up behind him which is why the decision not to start with Anel was costly. Unfortunately Anel will get plenty of game time now following Souttars injury

The stark stat for me is the suggestion from the Burnley fan that we are only 16th for getting shots off. Its indicative of our style of play where we consistently try to walk the ball into the net. The exception to this is Burrows and I agree his crossing was very good yesterday. The problem was Campbell and Rak Saki weren't up front so we had no pace to get on the end of them. Our insistence on playing with inverted wingers means that the opportunity to get crosses in early is limited. Contrast that with Burnley who have pacey wingers driving to the bye line.

Not sure if stats are produced for set pieces but we had twice as many as Burnley yet never won a header Esteve seemed to win them all. Trafford looked dodgy when we had a corner. Why we didn't put a big man on him again is questionable as this was a tactic we used to good effect when we put 5 past them in the 5-2 victory.

CW deserved criticism for his complete change of shape against Weeds away. Yesterday he kept the same formation but confused matters by trying to shoehorn Brewster into a 10 role limiting Ohare and Hamers effectiveness. Why Brewster wasn't a like for like for JRS was puzzling, even more so when we learnt he wasn't fully fit and we had Brooks on the bench. Our injuries limited our ability to change shape and get back in the game. Seriki did it against Sunderland but neither he or Shackleton were available.

Tactically this season in the majority of games we have been very astute. Yesterday against one of the top 3 sides we fell short again but there were injury mitigating circumstances. The bottom line is we are running on empty at the moment and new recruits in early January are crucial for us to maintain our momentum. Todays meetings with the new owners has to provide the starting flag to conclude negotiations and get them through the door.

 

[Frank the tank]

Don't want to go in on wilder as I do think he has done an incredible job to get us in contention for promotion but he is really. Coming up short in these big games

Leeds, boro, sunlan and now Burnley have all looked like far more progressive and slick in possession than our walking pace footballl, constantly recycling possession backwards and sideways

I understand why we have become so predictable and less threatening, we have lost most of our attacking outlets but the thing that worry me most is that in these big games Wilder's age old aversion to pace comes to the fore and we just become penned in and vulnerable

He seems stuck between the two schools of playing out from the back with the high press and no nonsense hoofball without really committing to either and what you end up with is a team of players with no confidence to be brave in possession and constantly looking for a safe pass until it gets to hamer and o hare who always seem to make the wrong decision or in hamers case the path of least resistance
I'm. Sure with a few additions we can get back to our early. Seasons self but I'm not sure wilder shares the same vision as us

 

[BalticBlade]

Our structure is a bit lopsided. Normally our width on the left is provided by Burrows (a full back) and our width on the right by JRS (a forward) which is a bit strange in itself. Yesterday with the absence of JRS we had no width at all on the right. Making the most of the width that Burrows gives us relies on us quickly switching play from the right to the left in the final third but we did very little of this yesterday.

 

[Shawy24]

A few observations from the stats:

- our stand out performer was Burrows. Out of 17 crosses that we made, he put in 10 of them, with 5 being accurate crosses. No one else put in a single accurate cross. He also made more key passes than any other player. and joint most successful dribbles. And defensively joint most tackles of any starting player. Some have suggested he lost his man for the vital first goal, but as Wilder explained, given Robbo had drifted too far away from their centre forward, leaving him free right in front of goal, Burrows had to come across to cover him, leaving Brownhill free, but with a tighter angle. And on another day Cooper makes that save.

- Midfield was poor, and stood off them too much. Between them Peck, Souza and Davies made just one successful tackle! To compare Brooks made four in the few minutes he played. We gave them too much respect and should have mixed it up more.

- Offensively we looked very disjointed. Changing the positions of O'Hare and Hamer simply didn't work. Hamer is our key creator and following this change (with a far greater distance between him and his mate O'Hare) he managed one weak shot, just one successful dribble and no key passes. It resulted in us playing to our weaknesses rather than our strengths; for example, I thought Brewster did ok (unlike many) as he was constantly involved and even had joint most successful tackles of any starter. But it shouldn't be a plan for him to be putting through balls in for Moore to run on to. That is bizarre! Making such an experiment against the best defence in the league was an odd decision by the management team, and led to an xg of 0.94.

- As for Burnley, Brownhill was the main difference. Most shots, most shots on target etc. but also the highest pass completion rate of any starting player for either side (94.7%) and he made twice as many successful tackles as any of our starting players, as well as three clearances. A great display.

Brewster. What does constantly involved mean? Available to pass to someone? Certainly in the second half all I saw was a player who seemed to be standing in a position he was told to be in and making it easy for their defence and difficult for our midfield by failing to move and show for the ball. If there was a position to be taken to allow a pass to him or God forbid a one two, he was never in it because he just stood like a lemon 25 yards away refusing to show for the ball. This may not be his fault as I just don’t see him as the type of player to work in this 3 that Wilder has been forced to come up with. It was noticeable that towards the end when he was dropped back a bit and was facing goal he got involved more even though the passes were over hit. Yes it was Bizarre where he was playing. Either play him as a two up with Moore to take the snap shots Moore seems incapable of taking or just leave him out.

And what is a successful tackle? Does it count if you’ve miss controlled it, lost it and in desperation lunged in and the ball has squirted away? It’s also a bit difficult for a midfield two to make a tackle when they’re being by passed wide as the opposition have identified our weakness at RB and the huge gap between either Hamer/Brewster and Gilchrist. Just before their 1st goal I noticed Parker on the sideline with Laurent who immediately shot off to overload our right side.

Stats eh?

 

[McGrath]

One of Chris' more bizarre tactical choices. No wonder Hamer was Mr angry first half.

It wasn't bizarre. Whoever played in that position would have meant someone else playing out of position.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I am the first to stress that stats never show the complete picture, merely that they are an objective benchmark which can be useful to test our perceptions of the contributions each player made, bearing in mind all of us bring confirmation bias to how we view the game.

However I am still surprised that in the voting on this site, Burrows currently comes 8th, with O'Hare the highest rated out field starter despite this more attacking playing having no shots at, no crosses (attempted or successful), one dribble and only 24 passes with a low completion rate of 66%. To be clear, I think O'Hare is a very good player, and his reduced impact yesterday was more down to the decision to play him out wide. Which as Barmy suggests was a tactical change which backfired. But for our fans to mark O'Hare (and three other defenders including Robbo) higher than Burrows seems a little odd to me. I can only assume that our fans blame him for this first goal despite Wilder's explanation

Agree that it was difficult for Burrows on the first goal. Our midfield's high press failed and Flemming's involvement both took Souttar out of defence and found their left back in space down their left. In the middle Burrows had three opposition players around him.

 

[McGrath]

A few observations from the stats:

- our stand out performer was Burrows. Out of 17 crosses that we made, he put in 10 of them, with 5 being accurate crosses. No one else put in a single accurate cross. He also made more key passes than any other player. and joint most successful dribbles. And defensively joint most tackles of any starting player. Some have suggested he lost his man for the vital first goal, but as Wilder explained, given Robbo had drifted too far away from their centre forward, leaving him free right in front of goal, Burrows had to come across to cover him, leaving Brownhill free, but with a tighter angle. And on another day Cooper makes that save.

- Midfield was poor, and stood off them too much. Between them Peck, Souza and Davies made just one successful tackle! To compare Brooks made four in the few minutes he played. We gave them too much respect and should have mixed it up more.

- Offensively we looked very disjointed. Changing the positions of O'Hare and Hamer simply didn't work. Hamer is our key creator and following this change (with a far greater distance between him and his mate O'Hare) he managed one weak shot, just one successful dribble and no key passes. It resulted in us playing to our weaknesses rather than our strengths; for example, I thought Brewster did ok (unlike many) as he was constantly involved and even had joint most successful tackles of any starter. But it shouldn't be a plan for him to be putting through balls in for Moore to run on to. That is bizarre! Making such an experiment against the best defence in the league was an odd decision by the management team, and led to an xg of 0.94.

- As for Burnley, Brownhill was the main difference. Most shots, most shots on target etc. but also the highest pass completion rate of any starting player for either side (94.7%) and he made twice as many successful tackles as any of our starting players, as well as three clearances. A great display.

Stats are very binary. I'm not sure we should read too much into what they say yesterday.

Burrows had loads of crosses but they couldn't exploit our height advantage in their box.

The midfielders didn't get many tackles in, but I thought that was because both teams dropped deep quickly when out of possession, got organised and let the other team have the ball. It wasn't a midfield battle. I thought Peck and Davies played well though

I think the key stats were man power numbers on and off the pitch. Burnley had pacey wingers, we didn't. Burnley have squad depth, we don't

 

[Tony_Kaufman]

Part of the reason why Peck, Souza and Davies didn't put in many tackles is because everything Burnley did came down the channels. Brooks put in more tackles because he was playing out wide.

 

[Shawy24]

Agree that it was difficult for Burrows on the first goal. Our midfield's high press failed and Flemming's involvement both took Souttar out of defence and found their left back in space down their left. In the middle Burrows had three opposition players around him.

View attachment 200385

Yep. 6 against 4. That’s an overload.

 

[Addison]

Agree that it was difficult for Burrows on the first goal. Our midfield's high press failed and Flemming's involvement both took Souttar out of defence and found their left back in space down their left. In the middle Burrows had three opposition players around him.

View attachment 200385

Perfectly illustrates the point the manager was making post match JLT lost his man and ball watching. They had 6 up on the break our midfield players were treading water.

 

[Coolblade]

Part of the reason why Peck, Souza and Davies didn't put in many tackles is because everything Burnley did came down the channels. Brooks put in more tackles because he was playing out wide.

I half agree, as they certainly attacked us more down the wings than centrally. But for our three central midfielders to win one tackle between them in 95 minutes of football suggests we perhaps dropped off them and allowed them time on the ball a little too much? We showed them a lot of respect, as we did Leeds, with a similar outcome.

 

[Snowflake]

The downside of Wilder is against good sides he gives to much respect, leeds away and yesterday been examples. The new owners will of course have noticed this.

That said, aside from the top 4 we will beat everyone else so will still get promoted

You are assuming that our new owners have some knowledge of soccer. Do they ?
I would think they would look at results and not the niceties of how we set up or play.

 

[Montymagic]

The two games where we have made the biggest tactical change - not necessitated by injuries or suspension - have been against Leeds and Burnley, both lost 2-0. It seems a shame that in the biggest matches we don’t just have the confidence to play our usual game (which had got us to the top) and let them worry about us.

Bodes well should we get promoted.....

 

[nopigfansintown]

Burnley's two tricks were to nick the ball in our half from a high press, or to counter attack down their left. They looked poor whenever we bypassed their press, crossed the ball or hit a decent diag or played off someone. Unfortunately we mainly played out, playing right into their hands. We didn't punish their positional gambles in our half by playing over or round them.The space was out wide and behind their backline. We didn't exploit it except on maybe two occasions: when O'Hare made a vertical run and was narrowly offside when clean through. When Moore should've slipped through Hamer just before the second goal. It would've been interesting to see JRS with all that space to run into. Our press was also pretty poor. Whenever it was half decent they gave us the ball.

 

[Tony_Kaufman]

Burnley's two tricks were to nick the ball in our half from a high press, or to counter attack down their left. They looked poor whenever we bypassed their press, crossed the ball or hit a decent diag or played off someone. Unfortunately we mainly played out, playing right into their hands. We didn't punish their positional gambles in our half by playing over or round them.The space was out wide and behind their backline. We didn't exploit it except on maybe two occasions: when O'Hare made a vertical run and was narrowly offside when clean through. When Moore should've slipped through Hamer just before the second goal. It would've been interesting to see JRS with all that space to run into. Our press was also pretty poor. Whenever it was half decent they gave us the ball.

We had plenty of chances to play through them, around them or over them but wasted it with needless pathetic safety first possession passing. Gilchrist, Peck, Robinson and O'Hare were the worst culprits, constantly passing sideways or backwards under no pressure when a quick counter attack with Burnley close to the half way line beckoned. As I said yesterday, we made it easy for them and we essentially defended our own attacks for Burnley.