United 1 Middlesbrough 2 - report/ratings

[Balham]

Even according to yourself we played well and yet only 3 players get more than 5.5?
And 7 players get 4 or less?

It was a committed but flawed performance which makes it hard to mark the individual players much higher than Deadbat did. The system meant that our flaws were ruthlessly exposed by a well-drilled Boro side.

For what it's worth, this is what I put on the site's ratings:

Cooper 4: not sure he could have done much more than he did. Possibly a little slow to get down to Conway's shot - would the 24/25 version have saved that? Really poor distribution typified by playing a nothing ball into Peck which should have resulted in a goal rather than an airshot by Conway
Seriki 5: nullified by Boro. Tripped on the edge of the area but nothing given
Tanganga 5: loose in possession, not progressive enough with passes. Dragged out of position for the first
Bindon 5: much like Tanganga; better passing but loses a mark for switching off for their second which effectively killed the game
Burrows 3: really struggled. Didn't know whether to back off or get tight to Whittaker, woeful distribution and poor set pieces. McCallum's absence is a big blow
Brooks 5: couldn't really get into the game as Boro knew to back off and congest the space. When he did get a yard, he'd get tripped and the referee would be oblivious
Peck 4: couldn't get into the game, chased shadows, loose in possession. Not his finish hour before being hooked
Arblaster 2: sad to see. Like Peck but less mobile. Hackney knew Arblaster has limited mobility at the moment and ruthlessly exploited that
Hamer 7: the one bright spark, mixing his usual incredible passing with some absolute howlers in our half. Two sublime balls to Bamford and two decent efforts saved
O'Hare 4: chased the ball like a puppy in a park but Boro just moved it on when he came near. Lovely ball across the 6 yard box but Bamford was on his heels
Bamford 7: led the line well, will be disappointed not to score in the first half but took his goal extremely well. We've missed him.

Subs
Rothwell 1: it's not often I give a mark this low but he was miles off it, giving the ball away repeatedly and then getting himself deservedly sent off for a ridiculous, late and out of control lunge.
Campbell 5: snapshot saved by Brynn who probably knew next to nothing about it. Ran the channels fairly well but Boro's deep defensive line meant we couldn't get him free on the edge of the area which is where he's most effective
Phillips 7: promising cameo. Superb vision to take the quick free kick to Hamer to set up our goal. Picked up one of the most obvious bookings you'll ever see
Hjelde 6: may be a better option at left back than Burrows in matches like this, particularly if he's as quick as is rumoured?

Wilder 3: we were outmanoeuvred in that first hour by Boro's one- and two-touch passing but there was no obvious tactical reaction from Wilder. Might it have been better to drop O'Hare to left midfield to help Burrows out, and Hamer into the middle behind their three to give them something else to think about? Arblaster and Peck was also, frankly, a poor selection against any midfield three as there's no dynamism there. Soumaré, for all his faults, would have been a better partner for Peck.

 

[The Fox]

How can you downmark Phillips for that foul??? They'd have been away otherwise.

Agree , definitely took one for the team .

 

[bruce]

It was a committed but flawed performance which makes it hard to mark the individual players much higher than Deadbat did. The system meant that our flaws were ruthlessly exposed by a well-drilled Boro side.

For what it's worth, this is what I put on the site's ratings:

Cooper 4: not sure he could have done much more than he did. Possibly a little slow to get down to Conway's shot - would the 24/25 version have saved that? Really poor distribution typified by playing a nothing ball into Peck which should have resulted in a goal rather than an airshot by Conway
Seriki 5: nullified by Boro. Tripped on the edge of the area but nothing given
Tanganga 5: loose in possession, not progressive enough with passes. Dragged out of position for the first
Bindon 5: much like Tanganga; better passing but loses a mark for switching off for their second which effectively killed the game
Burrows 3: really struggled. Didn't know whether to back off or get tight to Whittaker, woeful distribution and poor set pieces. McCallum's absence is a big blow
Brooks 5: couldn't really get into the game as Boro knew to back off and congest the space. When he did get a yard, he'd get tripped and the referee would be oblivious
Peck 4: couldn't get into the game, chased shadows, loose in possession. Not his finish hour before being hooked
Arblaster 2: sad to see. Like Peck but less mobile. Hackney knew Arblaster has limited mobility at the moment and ruthlessly exploited that
Hamer 7: the one bright spark, mixing his usual incredible passing with some absolute howlers in our half. Two sublime balls to Bamford and two decent efforts saved
O'Hare 4: chased the ball like a puppy in a park but Boro just moved it on when he came near. Lovely ball across the 6 yard box but Bamford was on his heels
Bamford 7: led the line well, will be disappointed not to score in the first half but took his goal extremely well. We've missed him.

Subs
Rothwell 1: it's not often I give a mark this low but he was miles off it, giving the ball away repeatedly and then getting himself deservedly sent off for a ridiculous, late and out of control lunge.
Campbell 5: snapshot saved by Brynn who probably knew next to nothing about it. Ran the channels fairly well but Boro's deep defensive line meant we couldn't get him free on the edge of the area which is where he's most effective
Phillips 7: promising cameo. Superb vision to take the quick free kick to Hamer to set up our goal. Picked up one of the most obvious bookings you'll ever see
Hjelde 6: may be a better option at left back than Burrows in matches like this, particularly if he's as quick as is rumoured?

Wilder 3: we were outmanoeuvred in that first hour by Boro's one- and two-touch passing but there was no obvious tactical reaction from Wilder. Might it have been better to drop O'Hare to left midfield to help Burrows out, and Hamer into the middle behind their three to give them something else to think about? Arblaster and Peck was also, frankly, a poor selection against any midfield three as there's no dynamism there. Soumaré, for all his faults, would have been a better partner for Peck.

There were 15 players used.
I would say that a score of 5.5 falls into the 'very average' category. And yet he only scored three players above that. Seven players were scored at 4 or below. That scoring suggests we did not play well at all and were average at best.
You cannot have it both ways.

 

[Ecco1889]

It was a committed but flawed performance which makes it hard to mark the individual players much higher than Deadbat did. The system meant that our flaws were ruthlessly exposed by a well-drilled Boro side.

For what it's worth, this is what I put on the site's ratings:

Cooper 4: not sure he could have done much more than he did. Possibly a little slow to get down to Conway's shot - would the 24/25 version have saved that? Really poor distribution typified by playing a nothing ball into Peck which should have resulted in a goal rather than an airshot by Conway
Seriki 5: nullified by Boro. Tripped on the edge of the area but nothing given
Tanganga 5: loose in possession, not progressive enough with passes. Dragged out of position for the first
Bindon 5: much like Tanganga; better passing but loses a mark for switching off for their second which effectively killed the game
Burrows 3: really struggled. Didn't know whether to back off or get tight to Whittaker, woeful distribution and poor set pieces. McCallum's absence is a big blow
Brooks 5: couldn't really get into the game as Boro knew to back off and congest the space. When he did get a yard, he'd get tripped and the referee would be oblivious
Peck 4: couldn't get into the game, chased shadows, loose in possession. Not his finish hour before being hooked
Arblaster 2: sad to see. Like Peck but less mobile. Hackney knew Arblaster has limited mobility at the moment and ruthlessly exploited that
Hamer 7: the one bright spark, mixing his usual incredible passing with some absolute howlers in our half. Two sublime balls to Bamford and two decent efforts saved
O'Hare 4: chased the ball like a puppy in a park but Boro just moved it on when he came near. Lovely ball across the 6 yard box but Bamford was on his heels
Bamford 7: led the line well, will be disappointed not to score in the first half but took his goal extremely well. We've missed him.

Subs
Rothwell 1: it's not often I give a mark this low but he was miles off it, giving the ball away repeatedly and then getting himself deservedly sent off for a ridiculous, late and out of control lunge.
Campbell 5: snapshot saved by Brynn who probably knew next to nothing about it. Ran the channels fairly well but Boro's deep defensive line meant we couldn't get him free on the edge of the area which is where he's most effective
Phillips 7: promising cameo. Superb vision to take the quick free kick to Hamer to set up our goal. Picked up one of the most obvious bookings you'll ever see
Hjelde 6: may be a better option at left back than Burrows in matches like this, particularly if he's as quick as is rumoured?

Wilder 3: we were outmanoeuvred in that first hour by Boro's one- and two-touch passing but there was no obvious tactical reaction from Wilder. Might it have been better to drop O'Hare to left midfield to help Burrows out, and Hamer into the middle behind their three to give them something else to think about? Arblaster and Peck was also, frankly, a poor selection against any midfield three as there's no dynamism there. Soumaré, for all his faults, would have been a better partner for Peck.

This.
“no obvious tactical reaction from Wilder”
Said it before but he should have been ruthless and hooked Blaster after 25 minutes,he was miles off and hardly had a kick.
It’s been the opinion of so many on here that the Peck/Arblaster combination simply doesn’t work.

 

[Working Class Hero]

I don't think we played bad at all, but as most people recognise, we were just beaten by a better team. They were the best team I've seen this year by a long way.

It was a great game to watch, but I have to admit I also enjoyed watching Middleborough, which feels like a weird thing to say. They play football exactly how I like to see it being played; direct, going forward at every opportunity, but doing it with proper skill, close control, one touch passing and a high tempo. We can also do that when we're on it, but Boro excelled at it.

There's no shame in being beaten by the best team in the league. I don't think our midfield helped, but I don't believe we've got anyone else that could have coped (at least not for any worthwhile length time, as they're all unfit). They were better in every department in fairmess, not just midfield. They defended well, their keeper looked good, their midfield was excellent, and their striker showed that you can work hard and actually do something with the ball at the same time.

 

[Deadbat]

There were 15 players used.
I would say that a score of 5.5 falls into the 'very average' category. And yet he only scored three players above that. Seven players were scored at 4 or below. That scoring suggests we did not play well at all and were average at best.
You cannot have it both ways.

I think we did ok and were good for periods but the better team won. They did it for longer periods.

Hamer, Bamford, Brooks, Seriki and Phillips played decent to well. I acknowledged that. Thwy were all a long way better than most of their teammates and kind of carried us with good individual play but as a team there were flaws and some poor individual performances even if we did ok.

There keeper was better, the centre halves were both better. There midfielders were both better. I'm not sure anyone can argue that?

Not sure how I could give more than 5 or 5.5 to any of the above for reasons I mentioned.

5 is average. 5.5 is above average.

What would your ratings be? Genuinely interested.

 

[Deadbat]

How can you downmark Phillips for that foul??? They'd have been away otherwise.

It was a good foul in the sense why he did it but he was in the wrong position to start with, meaning he was then forced to foul. No probs what he did after.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Great report and ratings, thanks Deadbat.

I was working during the game. Luckily in the US streaming channel Paramount+ has the full game replay available almost immediately after the final whistle. I was able to get home unspoiled (uninstalled WhatsApp because my brother and nephew can’t be trusted) and put my feet up to watch the game.

At 0-2 I asked my wife (who knew the score) if I should keep watching and she umm’d and ah’d and eventually said no. So I only watched the first half.

The part I saw was very entertaining. We went toe to toe with the best footballing side I have seen in the Championship for a long time. The midfield was the weak link and agree with your ratings there. I reckon with Reidewald or Phillips able to start we probably get something from the game.

The 2nd half wasn’t quite as good as the 1st but still very entertaining.

We slightly had the better of the 2nd half but didn’t really look like scoring as Middlesboro.
Basically we had no choice but to be postive and attack where as you could see Boro were very happy with the 2-0 and had the game under control.

Then on about 70 minutes Philips takes a quick free kick to Hamer who controls it then plays an incredible pass to Bamford totally splitting the heart of the Boro defence. Bamford is running on to the past and his 1st touch is sublime ensuring he now has an easy chance with just the keeper to beat.
It’s a great goal….the creation of it and execution was like watching a thing of beauty.

Then just a minute later Brooks goes on a mazy run…..it’s a crowd area and from close range Campbell blasts it hard and low.
Normally it would have been a goal but it hits the goalies foot who makes a wonder save.

Once we score Boro lost their composure and you could see them beginning to rock….however we go down to 10 men making it an almost impossible.
However credit to the team, even with 10 men we still had the better of the last 10 minutes forcing Boro to desperately defend.

Our players that impressed were Hamer, Brooks and Bamford. However Bamford was guilty of missing 1 or 2 chances (losing him marks) but I was so impressed with his workrate…..he played like it was personal and he was desperate to beat Boro, he seemed gutted at the final whistle.

 

[bruce]

I think we did ok and were good for periods but the better team won. They did it for longer periods.

Hamer, Bamford, Brooks, Seriki and Phillips played decent to well. I acknowledged that. Thwy were all a long way better than most of their teammates and kind of carried us with good individual play but as a team there were flaws and some poor individual performances even if we did ok.

There keeper was better, the centre halves were both better. There midfielders were both better. I'm not sure anyone can argue that?

Not sure how I could give more than 5 or 5.5 to any of the above for reasons I mentioned.

5 is average. 5.5 is above average.

What would your ratings be? Genuinely interested.

You say Seriki and Phillips played decent to well. That is not reflected in their marks.

For a team that did ok and was good for periods (your words), we seem to have an awful lot of players scoring 4 or less. Seven players! Eleven players scored 5.5 or less.
And only 3 scored above 5.5.

In this game I do not think your scoring matches your overall match assessment.

 

[Balham]

I think we did ok and were good for periods but the better team won. They did it for longer periods.

Hamer, Bamford, Brooks, Seriki and Phillips played decent to well. I acknowledged that. Thwy were all a long way better than most of their teammates and kind of carried us with good individual play but as a team there were flaws and some poor individual performances even if we did ok.

There keeper was better, the centre halves were both better. There midfielders were both better. I'm not sure anyone can argue that?

Not sure how I could give more than 5 or 5.5 to any of the above for reasons I mentioned.

5 is average. 5.5 is above average.

What would your ratings be? Genuinely interested.

*Their

 

[Keen Blade]

I felt as a pair they were not great on the ball but the main issue was not pressing, tackling or getting close to their men. They did not track back and lost runners. They routinely were too far off their man/men. They absolutely domainted midfield. As you say, drop O'Hare back and give us an extra body. He was not pressing but not really helping back. I think the coaching last night was really poor and should have seen the issues. We are too rigid. The Boro players were popping up all over. That is why I like Brooks and Seriki - as they can move around and cause issues.

Wilder and Knill sadly are too formulaic and set in a certain pattern. This means we can be easy to play against. Heard opposition managers talk about the threat down the right and how we press with numbers down here and the left sides comes across in the middle more. Teams will work this out. We need other ways to play (down the middle or through a different style). Wilder has done a good job since he came back but the same issues over his lack of coaching/plan B remains. Boro have some good players but weirdly I look at the two sides last night and if we had say Riedewald in for Blaster - not sure there is much in the two teams man for man, but they are clearly set up better in how to get the best out of players they have.

Blaster was miles worse than Peck , not just half a point.
Blaster should never have been picked and was utterly ineffective.
Peck was trying to do the job of 2 men and thus limited but gave his all.
Blaster 2 , Peck 5.
Watching Boro slice through us first half I had exactly the same thought as you - how well they were coached.
In contrast , how poorly Wilder set us up and how ponderous our play.
I just can't see us reaching Boro's first half level of performance under Wilder , whether it's selection , set-up , fitness , stamina or coaching that's defective.
I've never heard of Boro's manager but he's done a good job.
One of these decades , dem Blades will have to move beyond Wilder & Knill .

 

[Keen Blade]

Good report Deadbat, spot on. I've said many times we always struggle against teams that come at us with pace and we can't handle it, Boro we're too quick and we'll organised for us, interestingly their manager said after the game that they (utd) had a good first 10 minutes and so we changed our game, something that we never do, Wilder is too late in using subs, Arblaster should have been taken off even in the first half as it wasn't working, anyone could see, but not the manager, even at 2-0 he didn't react till the 65 minute (bar the obvious Blaster). Some people on this forum won't like this ,but we won't progress , especially if we go up with this manager and coaching team, why isn’t someone working with Cooper on his kicking, he's been here 18 months!, Bamford and Phillips are good signings on loan and they show what a difference they make, but can we afford to sign them permanently? if not we have another 2 places to fill and Bamford alone only go to show how limited the likes Campbell and McBurnie let alone Brewster are, yet we are stuck in this mind set with Wilder. I love CW as much as other blades for what he's done and he seems a good guy, but we need to move on now if we are to have a better future, yes I know people will throw Selles at me, but deep down it needs changing utb

Your comments about our future under Wilder are spot on.
I dunno where Boro found their manager but he's light years ahead.
As DB said , Boro played like a well-oiled team machine.
In contrast , we play slowly , with no real plan and rely on moments of individual quality from our stars.
We are set-up wrong , badly coached and have no reaction to what's happening in-game.
Eg: Blaster at half-speed , so hook him at 20 mins , don't delay.
Once our loans & stars leave in the summer , Wilder's reliance upon them will be revealed and his poor set-up & coaching & inability to change during a game , will be thrown into cruel focus.
We'll have a very difficult time next season unless by some miracle these defects can be addressed , along with our general levels of strength & pace.
In contrast to Boro , we moved so slowly up the pitch , that we were almost always facing their entire team and having to pass around "in front of their organised defence".
Our goal came from one of the few occasions when we managed to play through them.
When Boro attacked they cut through us at pace and our guys were panicking , barely able to tackle or clear the ball cleanly.
All this schadenfreude that folk are enjoying at the pigs expense makes me wary that it could come back to bite us , if we don't put our 'post-parachutes' house in order.
And we need a keeper to put pressure on Cooper - his distribution was awful last night - someone please coach him.

 

[Servigliano]

Blaster was miles worse than Peck , not just half a point.
Blaster should never have been picked and was utterly ineffective.
Peck was trying to do the job of 2 men and thus limited but gave his all.
Blaster 2 , Peck 5.
Watching Boro slice through us first half I had exactly the same thought as you - how well they were coached.
In contrast , how poorly Wilder set us up and how ponderous our play.
I just can't see us reaching Boro's first half level of performance under Wilder , whether it's selection , set-up , fitness , stamina or coaching that's defective.
I've never heard of Boro's manager but he's done a good job.
One of these decades , dem Blades will have to move beyond Wilder & Knill .

I entirely agree with you re Arblaster and Peck. Our midfield brought back disturbing memories of Selles, poor old Peck thrown under the bus again. It seems there was no alternative though to a still recovering from injury and apparently ill Arblaster who shouldn't have played at all.
I don't think we'd have been easily overrun in midfield had a fit Jairo or Soumare been available.
You can only ever go through, round or over a team. Boro had no need to go over or particularly around us, unfortunately they soon realised they could go through our defensive midfield with ease.
I don't think it's down to the coaching. I don't think Wilder is tactically inept, he simply lacked a very important player on the night.
All that said we had enough good and early chances to have undeservedly won.

 

[Deadbat]

*Their

Sorry typing on my phone. There lies the problem.

 

[Deadbat]

You say Seriki and Phillips played decent to well. That is not reflected in their marks.

For a team that did ok and was good for periods (your words), we seem to have an awful lot of players scoring 4 or less. Seven players! Eleven players scored 5.5 or less.
And only 3 scored above 5.5.

In this game I do not think your scoring matches your overall match assessment.

What are your ratings?

 

[bonobo]

Unless we have a gotten the balance really right, we have struggled in midfield all season, that has been the achilles. Arblaster is clearly off the pace, since his return and it seems his game does need that extra stamina if he is to play a more defensive role, which he has shown he can play in the past. Peck benefits from the freedom to follow the game and therefore it helps to have someone with good anticipation in tandem. Middlesbrough did well to keep the game down our left handisde for long periods. Burrows is a fine player for me, but in this current set up and particularly with Hamer in front, McCallum's box to box energy was really key, as the same with Seriki on the right and we might just have to accept that is a bit weakness til the end of the season. I also think Burrows likes that inside left spot a bit too much - which already gets crowded with Hamer and OHare at times and he needs to stay a bit wider, so we can stretch teams. Keeping more play down the left also kept Brooks of the ball, but when he did get on it, I thought he was excellent, finding different ways to attack them, very creative....just not enough opportunities. My one thought, might have been to swap Brooks and Hamer at some point, so Brooks can backup Burrows and have a run at Ayling ( who was excellent, but whose pace we might exploit), but then Hamers passing right to left, was often our biggest threat.

 

[bruce]

What are your ratings?

Seriki 6, Bindon 6.5, Tanganga 6, Brooks 7.5, Hamer 7.5, Campbell 5.5, Phillips 6, Peck 4, Bamford 7.5. The rest same as you.
However, I think you are missing the point of my original post, which wasn't necessarily that your marks were wrong, but that they bore little relationship to your comments.
Your comments were (broadly) that we played pretty well and were beaten by a very good team. But then you gave 7 players (literally half of them) 4 or below and only 3 players more than 5.5. Those are not the marks of a team that played pretty well for much of the game.

 

[John Street West Terrace]

Quick summary ..Entertaining game but disastrous centre midfield combination cost us the game , way afforded them way too much space for their more influential players to operate in , after the half time changes we looked a lot better , I lay that firmly at the managers doorstep .
It that said we had as many if not more chances than them , the difference been they took their chances & we didn’t & a brain dead challenge finished the game as a contest .

The Good - Brooks , Bamford , Seriki , Hamer
The Bad - Burrows , Arblaster , Peck , O’Hare
The Ugly - That fkg stupid challenge by Rothwell

That’s the slim chances of a place gone , but I dare say we’ll play a part in makes it in there & hopefully giving the pigs a drubbing with Bixibg Day plus margin while waving them goodbye into the pub league

 

[Chilttheblade]

Seriki 6, Bindon 6.5, Tanganga 6, Brooks 7.5, Hamer 7.5, Campbell 5.5, Phillips 6, Peck 4, Bamford 7.5. The rest same as you.
However, I think you are missing the point of my original post, which wasn't necessarily that your marks were wrong, but that they bore little relationship to your comments.
Your comments were (broadly) that we played pretty well and were beaten by a very good team. But then you gave 7 players (literally half of them) 4 or below and only 3 players more than 5.5. Those are not the marks of a team that played pretty well for much of the game.

I didn’t think we played that well and DB’s player marks are not far off . Middlesbrough were miles better and how they can assemble a team within a budget whereas we have the parachute payments says a lot.
Can someone explain why we are spending all this money on the squad when we will finish mid table.?
We seem to have so many players, all pretty average. Why do we need Rothwell or Phillips? We seem to have so many midfielders, why ?
Why don’t we have fewer and better ?
Shouldn’t we conserve resources for next year when the parachute payments end?
I don’t think the club is being managed efficiently and Wilder seems to be in charge of recruitment, and we know how good he is at that.

 

[I should coco]

Sorry typing on my phone. There lies the problem.

Surely it should say "Therein lies the problem"?

One would hope that Mr Deadbat, is not a teacher of our English language.