BladesPod: Millwall Group Therapy Edition

[Beans]

Afternoon all, just about recovered enough from Saturday to get some thoughts out about it... quick pod with myself and Blades Analytics working through some emotions from the game, along with:

- Sharp & Basham’s injury issues / replacements (08:05)
- whether Egan made the right decision to handball it (14:40)
- our feelings on Madine coming on for Bash (17:21)
- trying to work out why we played so negatively (23:13)
- finally, some glass half-full thoughts (30:43).

Thanks as always for listening, and UTB! Back into second place on Friday hopefully



https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bladespod/id1309198119?mt=2

https://open.spotify.com/show/6wLq5qaiQ123cLHHMnTixJ

 

[SwissBlade]

Afternoon all, just about recovered enough from Saturday to get some thoughts out about it... quick pod with myself and Blades Analytics working through some emotions from the game, along with:

- Sharp & Basham’s injury issues / replacements (08:05)
- whether Egan made the right decision to handball it (14:40)
- our feelings on Madine coming on for Bash (17:21)
- trying to work out why we played so negatively (23:13)
- finally, some glass half-full thoughts (30:43).

Thanks as always for listening, and UTB! Back into second place on Friday hopefully



https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bladespod/id1309198119?mt=2

https://open.spotify.com/show/6wLq5qaiQ123cLHHMnTixJ

Do you like picking at scabs, itching mozzie bites?

Will give it a listen in the morning as usual

 

[I should coco]

Another great edition and thanks again lads.

I think you were both a bit harsh on Egan as I'm not sure how much of a conscious 'decision' he made to handball it and to my mind, it was more like a reflex action. I agree however with the comments about lack of 'bravery' going forward.

UTB

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Afternoon all, just about recovered enough from Saturday to get some thoughts out about it... quick pod with myself and Blades Analytics working through some emotions from the game, along with:

- Sharp & Basham’s injury issues / replacements (08:05)
- whether Egan made the right decision to handball it (14:40)
- our feelings on Madine coming on for Bash (17:21)
- trying to work out why we played so negatively (23:13)
- finally, some glass half-full thoughts (30:43).

Thanks as always for listening, and UTB! Back into second place on Friday hopefully



https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bladespod/id1309198119?mt=2

https://open.spotify.com/show/6wLq5qaiQ123cLHHMnTixJ

If ever there was a moment that I needed some reasoned account of our current state, it is now. This will inevitably make my commute home this evening more enjoyable. Unless of course this is an hour of you two jumping on the bottlejob bandwagon, in which case this is the last I’ll be listening to

 

[Addison]

100% agree with why Madine for Basham was the wrong substitution as was Coutts for Duffy later in the game. No width, no wing backs. Worrying stats about drop off of chances created over last few games. We need to get back to our preferred 3-4-1-2 and stick with it.

I'm not sure the players have enough in the tank to play a high pressing game anymore as age, fitness and injuries kick in. Also agree it would help if we knew whether its autos or play offs in the next few games to give us time to prepare for play offs. Going full pelt up to the last game and losing out on autos at the last minute will affect our chances of going up through this route.

 

[Addison]

100% agree with why Madine for Basham was the wrong substitution as was Coutts for Duffy later in the game. No width, no wing backs. Worrying stats about drop off of chances created over last few games. We need to get back to our preferred 3-4-1-2 and stick with it.

I'm not sure the players have enough in the tank to play a high pressing game anymore as age, fitness and injuries kick in. Also agree it would help if we knew whether its autos or play offs in the next few games to give us time to prepare for play offs. Going full pelt up to the last game and losing out on autos at the last minute will affect our chances of going up through this route.

Just to add stats to date put Weeds as the highest ranked team in pressing the opposition, Norwich are fourth and we only come in 13th in the league table.

 

[Roygbiv]

I'm having to walk home from work tonight so I'll listen to this on the way back. If I end up throwing myself in front of a car then it's on your head Beans

 

[Beans]

Another great edition and thanks again lads.

I think you were both a bit harsh on Egan as I'm not sure how much of a conscious 'decision' he made to handball it and to my mind, it was more like a reflex action. I agree however with the comments about lack of 'bravery' going forward.

UTB

I'm really torn on this - I think I'm in the minority but it just felt weird to me. The ball travels a good 8-10 yards after the guy's headed it, Egan has time to see it, reposition himself, then jump and punch it.

That said I don't want to overthink this, it probably won't have THAT much of an effect on our season anyway. I really just found it sort of interesting as a thought experiment, whether in the ~80th minute it's better to be 100% 1-1 with 11 men, or to have a ~20% chance of it staying 1-0 but only having 10 men. My gut feeling is the former but I guess I'd feel different if it was the final game of the season and we needed 3 points to go up.

 

[billyblademan]

I'm really torn on this - I think I'm in the minority but it just felt weird to me. The ball travels a good 8-10 yards after the guy's headed it, Egan has time to see it, reposition himself, then jump and punch it.

That said I don't want to overthink this, it probably won't have THAT much of an effect on our season anyway. I really just found it sort of interesting as a thought experiment, whether in the ~80th minute it's better to be 100% 1-1 with 11 men, or to have a ~20% chance of it staying 1-0 but only having 10 men. My gut feeling is the former but I guess I'd feel different if it was the final game of the season and we needed 3 points to go up.

Can we agree that regardless, the ovation he got off part of the South Stands as he was walking off was inappropriate? It's condoning cheating in my book - how is it different to the abuse we gave Ward for punching it in the net at Wembley a few years back?

 

[JohnDenver]

I'm really torn on this - I think I'm in the minority but it just felt weird to me. The ball travels a good 8-10 yards after the guy's headed it, Egan has time to see it, reposition himself, then jump and punch it.

That said I don't want to overthink this, it probably won't have THAT much of an effect on our season anyway. I really just found it sort of interesting as a thought experiment, whether in the ~80th minute it's better to be 100% 1-1 with 11 men, or to have a ~20% chance of it staying 1-0 but only having 10 men. My gut feeling is the former but I guess I'd feel different if it was the final game of the season and we needed 3 points to go up.

The way we were playing at that stage, the odds of us scoring a winner with 11 players would have seemed pretty slim.

But ultimately Egan did something that reflected our general desperation. Late season shenanigans.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Afternoon all, just about recovered enough from Saturday to get some thoughts out about it... quick pod with myself and Blades Analytics working through some emotions from the game, along with:

- Sharp & Basham’s injury issues / replacements (08:05)
- whether Egan made the right decision to handball it (14:40)
- our feelings on Madine coming on for Bash (17:21)
- trying to work out why we played so negatively (23:13)
- finally, some glass half-full thoughts (30:43).

Thanks as always for listening, and UTB! Back into second place on Friday hopefully



https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/bladespod/id1309198119?mt=2

https://open.spotify.com/show/6wLq5qaiQ123cLHHMnTixJ

I agree with the points made on the substitution – the Madine goal seemed to come about less from the tactical change and more from a bit of luck, and the change restricted our ability to make best use of Stevens and Freeman. The former is fine as a standard full-back, the latter much less so, and the formation change really impacted on our ability to force the overloads and play our normal way.

I think Madine would have had more of an impact 2nd half subbing on for Duffy. We basically played our Plan B option too early, with the subsequent changes (with Madine already used) unable to positively impact the game.

 

[nezimão]

essential listening.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Great podcast as usual.

Posted this elsewhere, my thoughts on the substitutions:

I think Madine was pretty close to starting yesterday. As we lacked tempo and penetration in the first 20 minutes I don't think it was that surprising that we put him on and changed to a diamond formation. Millwall were defending in numbers and also had a couple of breaks. Having Basham in the side has enabled us to switch formations loads of times, but when he had to come off, Wilder had to decide at that moment if a diamond switch would be good for us.

In doing so he kept both the in-form McGoldrick and our usually creative force Duffy, while having the added aerial threat of Madine alongside top scorer Sharp. This was Wilder really going for it - a very attacking line up designed to be even better equipped at breaking down the defensive opposition, while also matching them a bit better in midfield in terms of numbers. Early on, we had two far post crosses towards their right centre back McLoughlin (normally a right back) and Wilder may have thought Madine could cause him problems in the air.

We didn't improve as much as hoped, but we finished the half pretty well and the start of the second half was better and we got ahead. Surely some praise for Wilder's decision was due?

We kept pushing forward, but Millwall also started to go forward more and we did look uncomfortable as they broke a couple of times and won some set pieces. They made an attacking sub, changed formation and we found ourselves with a gung ho team that looked vulnerable as the game looked wide open. Then Sharp had to be taken off and it wasn't surprising that we made another tweak, putting on the steady Cranie and returning to a 3-5-2 formation. Sensible, really.

Millwall made another attacking sub and our players became reluctant to attack. This meant we started passing it around for the sake of it, until they intercepted, broke and caused havoc. It looked like we were panicking and needed someone to calm things down. So Wilder put Coutts on for Duffy in attempt to steady things, let Coutts playmake and allow us to gradually regain control of the match. That was the aim, I didn't see it as a negative move - Coutts is not great defensively. Sadly we couldn't do it. You could tell that we weren't very interested in taking chances offensively. At that stage we could have done with Hogan's pace, but we were out of substitutes, and besides he's not been good in similar situations before. They went very direct and we struggled to keep them out and to deal with their aerial strength. I felt we had boys marking grown men and wanted us to press them and avoid getting too deep, but the players just couldn't do it.

 

[Rodley]

Great podcast as usual.

Posted this elsewhere, my thoughts on the substitutions:

I think Madine was pretty close to starting yesterday. As we lacked tempo and penetration in the first 20 minutes I don't think it was that surprising that we put him on and changed to a diamond formation. Millwall were defending in numbers and also had a couple of breaks. Having Basham in the side has enabled us to switch formations loads of times, but when he had to come off, Wilder had to decide at that moment if a diamond switch would be good for us.

In doing so he kept both the in-form McGoldrick and our usually creative force Duffy, while having the added aerial threat of Madine alongside top scorer Sharp. This was Wilder really going for it - a very attacking line up designed to be even better equipped at breaking down the defensive opposition, while also matching them a bit better in midfield in terms of numbers. Early on, we had two far post crosses towards their right centre back McLoughlin (normally a right back) and Wilder may have thought Madine could cause him problems in the air.

We didn't improve as much as hoped, but we finished the half pretty well and the start of the second half was better and we got ahead. Surely some praise for Wilder's decision was due?

We kept pushing forward, but Millwall also started to go forward more and we did look uncomfortable as they broke a couple of times and won some set pieces. They made an attacking sub, changed formation and we found ourselves with a gung ho team that looked vulnerable as the game looked wide open. Then Sharp had to be taken off and it wasn't surprising that we made another tweak, putting on the steady Cranie and returning to a 3-5-2 formation. Sensible, really.

Millwall made another attacking sub and our players became reluctant to attack. This meant we started passing it around for the sake of it, until they intercepted, broke and caused havoc. It looked like we were panicking and needed someone to calm things down. So Wilder put Coutts on for Duffy in attempt to steady things, let Coutts playmake and allow us to gradually regain control of the match. That was the aim, I didn't see it as a negative move - Coutts is not great defensively. Sadly we couldn't do it. You could tell that we weren't very interested in taking chances offensively. At that stage we could have done with Hogan's pace, but we were out of substitutes, and besides he's not been good in similar situations before. They went very direct and we struggled to keep them out and to deal with their aerial strength. I felt we had boys marking grown men and wanted us to press them and avoid getting too deep, but the players just couldn't do it.

Good post Bergen Blade

 

[LoughboroBlade]

In doing so he kept both the in-form McGoldrick and our usually creative force Duffy, while having the added aerial threat of Madine alongside top scorer Sharp. This was Wilder really going for it - a very attacking line up designed to be even better equipped at breaking down the defensive opposition, while also matching them a bit better in midfield in terms of numbers.

I’m not completely in agreement that this was us “really going for it” in reality. I get that on paper it’s a defender for forward move, but in reality did this really result in us getting more players further forward in dangerous areas where we created good chances? It seemed to reduce the attacking of any of the defence that would usually contribute – shifting us from a formation where we had 4 of the 5 potentially supporting an attack to 2 of a 4 possibly supporting an attack (though much less than they otherwise would in the usual formation).

When we change the formation in this way we seem to rely on individual bursts forward or other individual skill to change the game, rather than on the elements of our usual build-up – on Saturday this was Fleck accelerating onto what was a miss hit pass, vs Bristol City where we had a flat back 4 it was individual skill from Baldock to manufacture the chance. These in both situations seemed like goals out of the blue, and somewhat fortunate. We simply look a more potent, more pressuring side when we play our usual set-up. It’s very rare that we shift this (be it inverting the midfield 3, or switching to 4 at the back) and control a game as much.

 

[Houston_Blade]

You described a very disjointed performance pretty well. I’m agreed with others on the Egan handball, I think he’s just done it as a reflex rather than calculated all the possibilities.

As for questioning Wilder, you’ll have had some listeners spitting feathers and others vigourously nodding along, your listening figures might reduce next week as a result.

Keep up the good work.

 

[SHOREHAMST.com]

Great podcast as usual.

Posted this elsewhere, my thoughts on the substitutions:

I think Madine was pretty close to starting yesterday. As we lacked tempo and penetration in the first 20 minutes I don't think it was that surprising that we put him on and changed to a diamond formation. Millwall were defending in numbers and also had a couple of breaks. Having Basham in the side has enabled us to switch formations loads of times, but when he had to come off, Wilder had to decide at that moment if a diamond switch would be good for us.

In doing so he kept both the in-form McGoldrick and our usually creative force Duffy, while having the added aerial threat of Madine alongside top scorer Sharp. This was Wilder really going for it - a very attacking line up designed to be even better equipped at breaking down the defensive opposition, while also matching them a bit better in midfield in terms of numbers. Early on, we had two far post crosses towards their right centre back McLoughlin (normally a right back) and Wilder may have thought Madine could cause him problems in the air.

We didn't improve as much as hoped, but we finished the half pretty well and the start of the second half was better and we got ahead. Surely some praise for Wilder's decision was due?

We kept pushing forward, but Millwall also started to go forward more and we did look uncomfortable as they broke a couple of times and won some set pieces. They made an attacking sub, changed formation and we found ourselves with a gung ho team that looked vulnerable as the game looked wide open. Then Sharp had to be taken off and it wasn't surprising that we made another tweak, putting on the steady Cranie and returning to a 3-5-2 formation. Sensible, really.

Millwall made another attacking sub and our players became reluctant to attack. This meant we started passing it around for the sake of it, until they intercepted, broke and caused havoc. It looked like we were panicking and needed someone to calm things down. So Wilder put Coutts on for Duffy in attempt to steady things, let Coutts playmake and allow us to gradually regain control of the match. That was the aim, I didn't see it as a negative move - Coutts is not great defensively. Sadly we couldn't do it. You could tell that we weren't very interested in taking chances offensively. At that stage we could have done with Hogan's pace, but we were out of substitutes, and besides he's not been good in similar situations before. They went very direct and we struggled to keep them out and to deal with their aerial strength. I felt we had boys marking grown men and wanted us to press them and avoid getting too deep, but the players just couldn't do it.

It’s like you wrote what I was thinking.

 

[Swannyblade]

On Egan, I think he went for it with his head, quickly realised he wasn’t going to make it and instinctively stuck out a hand. The fact he buried his face in the turf for a good few mins after would suggest instant regret for his actions. Even with 10mins left to play, this act reflected the desperation of our general play after around 70mins. However, it almost worked...think Suarez vs Ghana at 2014 World Cup...but this is the Blades and things like that don’t happen to us.

Re. The Madine switch; it can only be viewed as a positive change if the full backs continue to get forward as though wing backs. In a back four, we lose the overlapping CB’s either side of Egan and they are required to stay in shape. As said previously, this changed forced us very narrow in the final third. We also had Duffy and Didsy trying to operate in the same areas and Ollie’s game was diminished due to the lack of passing options available to him. Millwall’s defenders were barely pulled out of position and held their shape. As the game went on, we invited them onto us and looked devoid of ideas in attack.

 

[Bergen Blade]

On Egan, I think he went for it with his head, quickly realised he wasn’t going to make it and instinctively stuck out a hand. The fact he buried his face in the turf for a good few mins after would suggest instant regret for his actions. Even with 10mins left to play, this act reflected the desperation of our general play after around 70mins. However, it almost worked...think Suarez vs Ghana at 2014 World Cup...but this is the Blades and things like that don’t happen to us.

Re. The Madine switch; it can only be viewed as a positive change if the full backs continue to get forward as though wing backs. In a back four, we lose the overlapping CB’s either side of Egan and they are required to stay in shape. As said previously, this changed forced us very narrow in the final third. We also had Duffy and Didsy trying to operate in the same areas and Ollie’s game was diminished due to the lack of passing options available to him. Millwall’s defenders were barely pulled out of position and held their shape. As the game went on, we invited them onto us and looked devoid of ideas in attack.

In that formation it is more natural that full backs overlap/keep width, combining with the slightly wider Fleck/Duffy, or even the roaming McGoldrick and the two strikers.

 

[AWetFlannel]

I thought more along the lines of Bergen in terms of our subs; I agree we lacked width, but it was an attacking change brought about by injuries rather than choice.

Jay talked about bravery, which we lacked on the ball after our goal. For me this was the most obvious off the ball in our pressing. We stopped pressing the ball in their half, then 2mins later stopped pressing it in our own. Surely Wilder wanted the players to press the ball and keep a higher line. How did Norwood/Coutts/O'Connell etc not say 'c'mon lads get 20 yards higher and start pressing!'

I'd have been angry even if we won it.

 

[Swannyblade]

In that formation it is more natural that full backs overlap/keep width, combining with the slightly wider Fleck/Duffy, or even the roaming McGoldrick and the two strikers.

To be fair, I don’t think the issue was with the fullbacks - I’d have been fuming if they neglected their defensive duties. I think we missed our much lauded marauding CB’s and suffered due to the lack of natural width in midfield. We are very short in terms of attacking width, which given the system we play is to be expected.

 

[Swannyblade]

I thought more along the lines of Bergen in terms of our subs; I agree we lacked width, but it was an attacking change brought about by injuries rather than choice.

Jay talked about bravery, which we lacked on the ball after our goal. For me this was the most obvious off the ball in our pressing. We stopped pressing the ball in their half, then 2mins later stopped pressing it in our own. Surely Wilder wanted the players to press the ball and keep a higher line. How did Norwood/Coutts/O'Connell etc not say 'c'mon lads get 20 yards higher and start pressing!'

I'd have been angry even if we won it.

Agreed, the lack of press in the opposition half was very evident. We dropped further and further back and invited them onto us. Not sure if due to lack of bravery, fitness or confidence, but worrying nonetheless. I know Ollie likes to collect from deep, but he played most of the 2nd half in the same spaces as the CB’s and his only options were close range passes (often sideways, with very little available in the opposition half).

 

[Bergen Blade]

I’m not completely in agreement that this was us “really going for it” in reality. I get that on paper it’s a defender for forward move, but in reality did this really result in us getting more players further forward in dangerous areas where we created good chances? It seemed to reduce the attacking of any of the defence that would usually contribute – shifting us from a formation where we had 4 of the 5 potentially supporting an attack to 2 of a 4 possibly supporting an attack (though much less than they otherwise would in the usual formation).

When we change the formation in this way we seem to rely on individual bursts forward or other individual skill to change the game, rather than on the elements of our usual build-up – on Saturday this was Fleck accelerating onto what was a miss hit pass, vs Bristol City where we had a flat back 4 it was individual skill from Baldock to manufacture the chance. These in both situations seemed like goals out of the blue, and somewhat fortunate. We simply look a more potent, more pressuring side when we play our usual set-up. It’s very rare that we shift this (be it inverting the midfield 3, or switching to 4 at the back) and control a game as much.

I see what you mean regarding players contributing to attacks, formations/team on paper can be misleading in that sense. I thought the change gave us more players that had good attacking attributes at the expense of players with good defensive attributes. I'm not sure what Wilder's instructions to the full backs were, but a lot of full backs bomb forward in a back four too - although they don't have their centre halves overlapping them.

If you compare the performance of the team after the Basham sub to our usual standards I agree it wasn't great, but I maintain that it was a little better than we'd shown before that substitution. Would we eventually have improved with our usual formation? Maybe, but there were warning signs that we were going nowhere, lacked penetration and struggled for tempo. Their centre halves dealt comfortably with everything we put into the box while they had some breaks and some set pieces. I think it was telling that the extended highlights showed nothing of us before the change.

So I think it was a decent team in terms of breaking down a negative opposition that was primarily looking to threaten on breaks and set pieces. But it was also a pretty poor XI when it came to taking care of that lead against an opposition that was realising they had to start attacking - prompting further changes.

After the break we had a couple of corners, Duffy crossed from inside the box, Freeman crossed, McGoldrick had a blocked effort before Madine came very close, giving us at third corner in quick succession. Moments later there was roaming and movement and some luck involved when we scored - so in all, surely not completely out of the blue?

 

[Baaaaaaa Blades]

A great listen again , really enjoys these cheers
Would love a 'Reading-esque ' start to the game and totally go for it and get some goals
def agree that this game is the one we need to press the reset button and go for it and rediscover our attacking intent ,

 

[Revolution]

As I see it, in the last 2 home games Wilder has tried to be too clever. Changed formations for the sake of it, and it's hurt the team. Plus against Bristol City he brought on a player who simply cannot be relied on in a pressure situation, and makes bad decisions.

The lack of pressure on the crosser for the equaliser was amateurish.

Re Egan, I think it was a defensible decision. The way the game was going I didn't see any chance of us scoring again from 1-1.