70 minute games, we'd be top of league!

Just looking at this season. Our last 20 mins and particularly the last 10 is ridiculously bad with the odd exception. We are crying out for experience to help the young, hardworking, vibrant and talented young lads out. I hear the 'game management' phrase all the time.......
Well here we go.......

Charlton H D 2~2 lead twice and conceded in 89th min ~ 2 points dropped

Birmingham A L 0~2 conceded 2 in last 20 mins. A point dropped.

Brentford H L 1~3 went one up. Lost. 3 points dropped

Derby H D 2~2 rescued a point after been in front

WBA A D 2~2 went 2 up. Then an OG and conceded in 81st min, 2 points dropped.

Blackburn A L 3~2 we did equalise twice then lost to an 86th min winner. A point dropped.

Cardiff A L 3~2 in front twice then lost to a 94th min winner. A point dropped at least.

Leeds H L 0~2 level til they scored in 84 and 89. A point lost.

Forest A L 0~1 last 20 mins! Lost a point.

We have rescued 2 points v Swansea and Brizzle with late goals but the difference is evident.

Bring on January...... We'll see........

Thoughts

 

Your point is well made

 

Can anyone who went to Cardiff explain how we did in the last 10 minutes? Did we try to slow things down, stifle the game, run the ball into the corners, etc? Or did we stick to the same game plan as the previous 80 minutes?
Or were we under so much pressure that we couldn't do anything?

 

Looking at the defending for the winner I'm not sure it'd matter either way. Talked to a coach full who arrived back in pub at 930 and all said we were better side. With the exception of maybe a quarter of this seasons matches we have been. That's the frustrating bit!!!!!!!

 

I was there, Cardiff came at us a lot, but we actually defended quite well until that fateful last minute. Lots of blocks, bodies on the line sort of stuff. We actually did well on the break too and could have pinched it. But then we made the fatal mistake, and it was 3-2. A devastating blow, but we were the better side all game and if only we could sort the defence out, we'd be lower mid table standard. Lots of positives, Bähre outstanding again, Chaplin everywhere, a real handful, Mowatt magnificent.

I'll support these lads through thin and thin, it's not their fault.

 

Just sat with 3 or 4 who went. We're not getting rub of green either.... Tomlin should have been sent off for a headbutt then scored winner. But we're not helping ourselves.

Is a Darren Moore or De Zeeuw still fit?

 

I watched the game and tbh I don't think we have enough control of what happens on the pitch to dictate the pace of it. It feels like we are playing to the max of our ability at all times, which is often pretty to watch as it was Saturday but I wouldn't say it's composed at all. Maybe I am of a nervous disposition but it's hide behind the sofa stuff at times when we try to play it out from the back. Cardiff simply left their big defenders up front for the last minute or two and the keeper launched it from a free-kick. Our defence seemed slow getting into position and understand what was going on and that was that.

 

Forest scored just after half time mate.

 

I think a lot of this is also because whilst we have a good core of players we have an awful squad. We aren't able to change things during a game due to lack of options whilst the opposition can make game changing subs. It would be interesting to see what minute most subs are made in but I'd imagine 70 minutes isn't far off.

There's also the problem of tired legs. Again, if ben williams has been run ragged and he's tiring who comes on?

 

I didn't go, but I watched it. I remain convinced that if we'd brought on Thomas and Dougall rather than Schmidt and Oduor we would not have lost that game.

 

Seconded

 

It's on as 69 mins. I thought that aswell.

 

56th Minute

 

I do not want to comment on the Cardiff game because I have only seen edited highlights, and that is not enough to form a proper opinion, but I was interested to see what Andy Carroll did for Newcastle over the week-end. The big centre forward has dropped out of our game at the top level, but I am still a believer. The way that we play, you advance up the field with short passing and lots of running from just about every player bar the two centre backs. The attacking width comes from the two full backs. If the ball is lost with the full backs ahead of the ball, there is simply no way that they can get back into position, and the opposition will attack out wide because it is obvious that our weakness is there. It is nothing to do with how good, or how bad our full backs are. It is the weakness of the system that we are using. The players tire because they are all doing a lot more running because of the system. Tired players cannot get into position as quickly late in games, and that extra fraction of a second is used to time the vital final pass better. It is often not that our final defender is not good enough, it is often that he is beaten because if you give the last passer enough time, he will deliver a pass that favours the attacker. In my view, tiredness is the reason we struggle to play two games in a week as well.

If you compare that to the Andy Carroll situation at Newcastle, they can hit the ball 40 yards, saving perhaps 3 passes and a lot of running from players trying to find space in a crowded midfield for the return pass. If Carroll does not win the ball, the team is all goal side of the ball when the opposition wins it back, and there is no chance that the ball will be lost in our half unexpectedly or that we will be caught by an unexpected counter attack. The big target man is currently out of fashion. Every team wants to play like Liverpool, with a very mobile front 3, and athletic full back providing the width. As we all know, football is a game of fashions. If something proves successful, then everyone wants to do it. The problem is that not all players are athletic enough, or talented enough to play that way. There is more than one way to play the game, and it seems a shame that Barnsley has tried to do the same thing as everyone else, and has sacrificed its target man. That is why I believe that we sold Moore. I believe we wanted to play the game the new way, with a press, and tall players cannot play that way because they do not have the endurance. I do not see us changing. Since Hecky, the owners have brought in managers who want to play in that fashion. They believe that it is the way forward. I still see merit in the old ways, and that is why I said that Struber's game plan was not to my taste after the Hull game. I believe our failure to compete in the Championship is just as much to do with our game plan, as it is to do with the youth and overall quality of our players.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment, but I'm genuinely baffled. On the one hand we have the plan, which involves buying young players to develop and sell on at a profit somewhere down the line. On the other hand we have the playing system, which does not include either a target man or any wingers.

Why then did we sign Thomas and Wilks in the summer? They're both at their most effective out wide, yet we can't use them that way. I don't see any opportunity to turn a profit on these two if we persist with the current system (a system that you suggest is being driven by the owners as much as the manager). Effectively their transfer fees and wages are just money down the drain, which seems the very opposite of how our owners want to operate.

 

The system used by the new coach is subtly different from that preferred by Stendel (4-3-3 with width in the front 3). The new coach utilises his midfield 4 in a narrow diamond which does not use wide midfield players, and as you say, that means that our wide players are redundant. However, Struber is having to use players acquired for Stendel's system, which did use wide players. The question is, will we try to sell our redundant wide players in January in order to make way for players that are a better fit for Struber's plan? Personally, I would love to see us acquire a target man in January, but I do not think that we will because I do not think that Struber wants to play like that. Instead, I believe we will look for yet more pace up front and just behind at the head of midfield, and I think that means that we will also try to sell Woodrow, who does not have the pace to play there.

 

To break it down further we're awful in the 2nd half away from home conceding 16 second half goals compared to just 5 in the first half. Bizarrely there's only 7 teams in the division who have conceded less goals than us in the first 45 mins away from home.

Total



Home



Away

 

Right, get yourself into Mr Conway's office RIGHT NOW ! You'll get a damn good thrashing and "separated".
We won't put up with the likes of you saying the likes of that. "Experience", just grow up.

 

To avoid any further separations, I think we should ban all words beginning with E. Just to be on the safe side. At the very least that one needs adding to the swear filter.

 

I found that very interesting as it did not quite follow the reasoning I had offered up in my previous posts. I decided to look at the two coaches that have followed Stendel in isolation. In fairness to Stendel, the players had only just come together during his tenure, and the poor results are explicable for this reason alone. The reason that I am interested in the comparison is that I wanted to compare the different systems rather than wanting to compare the different coaches. Murray played 3-5-2 with advanced full backs, whilst Struber plays 4-4-2 with a diamond and advanced full backs. There is not much difference between the ways that the systems copes with the full backs being caught up field, but the third central defender plays higher in Struber's system, and of course Woodrow's role is different.

Adam Murray
0-15 0-1
16-30 2-2
31-45 0-1
First Half 2-4
46-60 1-1
61-75 1-5
76-90 4-1
Second Half 6-7

Match 8-11

Gerhard Struber
0-15 0-0
16-30 2-2
31-45 0-0
First Half 2-2
46-60 2-1
61-75 1-2
76-90 2-3
Second Half 5-6

Match 7-8

There is not much data there for either man (5 games for Murray and 4 games for Struber), but the significant difference is the goals for/against in the final 15 minutes. Was the 3-5-2 system less taxing and is that why? Who knows?