Oh for some composure!

[the other bob wilson]

http://mauveandyellowarmy.net/

[Lawnmower]

Good write up Bob, however Inwould say that with our best (only ) midfield passers being unavailable and playing against a side who press high and hard and are a FAR better 'footballing' side than us there should have been no surprise that we played the way we did.

In fact I think it was intentional.

We played to nullify them and nick something from a set piece- and it almost worked.

I'm also with the rest who say it was overall an even game.
They started strongly, but we soon pinned them back and had the best chance of the half when Bennett couldn't decide whether to shoot or cross.

Between the 2nd minute and the 70th they didn't get behind us at all.

Their goal, which I believe was at a time when they were starting to get on top( I had just said to my mate 'if we can hold on for the next 5 I think we will finish stronger and could nick this' ... sorry 😂 ), was the result of what looked to me like a slip, but just underlined their class.

Ironic then considering we had been relying on set pieces that they should score their goal that way.

After they scored we had to push out and they hit us a few times on the break.

Only a combination of some excellent goalkeeping from the leagues top keeper and superb desperate defending kept us out until that fateful last few minutes.

Personally I'm expecting another big performance at Villa, especially if we can get our (my) first choice midfield of Ralls, Patterson and Grujic out. None of which were on the pitch for the last what, 30 minutes last night.

Plenty of reasons to still be positive 👍

One other thing, you mention about us possibly scoring twice in injury time, but I'm sure this was tongue in cheek as if the first one had gone in we wouldn't have had a chance to get the 2nd and the game would have ended as the draw I reckon both sides would have taken beforehand

It's a pity there aren't territorial stats to go with the possession Ines as I think that would tell a much different story

[The Lone Gunman]

Between the 2nd minute and the 70th they didn't get behind us at all.

Apart from when they hit the post.

[J R Hartley]

Besides the penalties our delivery from dead ball was poor last night. Wildschut free kick was decent but we bloody wasted some good positions with poor delivery last night.

I think we gave Wolves too much respect. Far too much in fact.

I hope we don’t go into Tuesday with the same mindset.

[kendoddsdadsdogsdead]

Apart from when they hit the post.

..and when Costa was one on one

[Lawnmower]

Apart from when they hit the post.

I didn't forget about that, just thought it happened after the goal.

Might have been the angle I was at, but it looked like he was never going to get that in and should have squared it

[Lawnmower]

..and when Costa was one on one

Wasn't that the 86th minute ?

[lennybluebird]

Good write up Bob, however Inwould say that with our best (only ) midfield passers being unavailable and playing against a side who press high and hard and are a FAR better 'footballing' side than us there should have been no surprise that we played the way we did.

In fact I think it was intentional.

We played to nullify them and nick something from a set piece- and it almost worked.

I'm also with the rest who say it was overall an even game.
They started strongly, but we soon pinned them back and had the best chance of the half when Bennett couldn't decide whether to shoot or cross.

Between the 2nd minute and the 70th they didn't get behind us at all.

Their goal, which I believe was at a time when they were starting to get on top( I had just said to my mate 'if we can hold on for the next 5 I think we will finish stronger and could nick this' ... sorry 😂 ), was the result of what looked to me like a slip, but just underlined their class.

Ironic then considering we had been relying on set pieces that they should score their goal that way.

After they scored we had to push out and they hit us a few times on the break.

Only a combination of some excellent goalkeeping from the leagues top keeper and superb desperate defending kept us out until that fateful last few minutes.

Personally I'm expecting another big performance at Villa, especially if we can get our (my) first choice midfield of Ralls, Patterson and Grujic out. None of which were on the pitch for the last what, 30 minutes last night.

Plenty of reasons to still be positive 👍

One other thing, you mention about us possibly scoring twice in injury time, but I'm sure this was tongue in cheek as if the first one had gone in we wouldn't have had a chance to get the 2nd and the game would have ended as the draw I reckon both sides would have taken beforehand

It's a pity there aren't territorial stats to go with the possession Ines as I think that would tell a much different story

Well said sir👍👍👍

[Lawnmower]

..and when Costa was one on one

Wasn't that the 86th minute ?

[ccfc_is_my_life]

Wasn't that the 86th minute ?

Indeed. No doubt we should have just defended at that point and hoped for a lucky own goal...

[the other bob wilson]

Good write up Bob, however Inwould say that with our best (only ) midfield passers being unavailable and playing against a side who press high and hard and are a FAR better 'footballing' side than us there should have been no surprise that we played the way we did.

In fact I think it was intentional.

We played to nullify them and nick something from a set piece- and it almost worked.

I'm also with the rest who say it was overall an even game.
They started strongly, but we soon pinned them back and had the best chance of the half when Bennett couldn't decide whether to shoot or cross.

Between the 2nd minute and the 70th they didn't get behind us at all.

Their goal, which I believe was at a time when they were starting to get on top( I had just said to my mate 'if we can hold on for the next 5 I think we will finish stronger and could nick this' ... sorry �� ), was the result of what looked to me like a slip, but just underlined their class.

Ironic then considering we had been relying on set pieces that they should score their goal that way.

After they scored we had to push out and they hit us a few times on the break.

Only a combination of some excellent goalkeeping from the leagues top keeper and superb desperate defending kept us out until that fateful last few minutes.

Personally I'm expecting another big performance at Villa, especially if we can get our (my) first choice midfield of Ralls, Patterson and Grujic out. None of which were on the pitch for the last what, 30 minutes last night.

Plenty of reasons to still be positive ��

One other thing, you mention about us possibly scoring twice in injury time, but I'm sure this was tongue in cheek as if the first one had gone in we wouldn't have had a chance to get the 2nd and the game would have ended as the draw I reckon both sides would have taken beforehand

It's a pity there aren't territorial stats to go with the possession Ines as I think that would tell a much different story

I seem to remember posting something similar to you a few weeks back, so sorry if I'm repeating myself here.

I totally understand that when you set out to play a high energy, direct, power based game, you are not going to place as big a premium on retaining possession as many of your rivals do and it's inevitable that your passing stats will suffer as a consequence, but what I don't get is why, when making allowances for the sort of team we are, we still pass the ball as poorly as we do - often when Ralls and/or Grujic is in the team.

It follows therefore that Neil Warnock is not the type of manager to get too worried about poor passing stats, but I've even heard him being critical of our passing at times this season.

For the life of me, I cannot believe that it was some sort of deliberate policy for the team to pass the ball as badly as they did last night.

One last thing, I agree with you that we would have settled for 1-1 and not got the second penalty if Madine had scored.

[Tuerto]

I seem to remember posting something similar to you a few weeks back, so sorry if I'm repeating myself here.

I totally understand that when you set out to play a high energy, direct, power based game, you are not going to place as big a premium on retaining possession as many of your rivals do and it's inevitable that your passing stats will suffer as a consequence, but what I don't get is why, when making allowances for the sort of team we are, we still pass the ball as poorly as we do - often when Ralls and/or Grujic is in the team.

It follows therefore that Neil Warnock is not the type of manager to get too worried about poor passing stats, but I've even heard him being critical of our passing at times this season.

For the life of me, I cannot believe that it was some sort of deliberate policy for the team to pass the ball as badly as they did last night.

One last thing, I agree with you that we would have settled for 1-1 and not got the second penalty if Madine had scored.

We pass the ball poorly because of our limitations, i'd say that a large proportion of the shorter passes completed are to a player that is either facing his own goal, or in very tight positions with defenders around them. Our movement is poor, therefore no options or players moving into space that can drag the opposition out of position, which creates more space, it's a risk Warnock wont take. Another problem is that players run away from the man with the ball, which leaves no option rather than to knock it 30 yards-I mentioned Grujic when he first started, looking for the easy ball or an out, it wasn't there for him. In short, if there is little movement and no space being created, then the player receiving the ball is up against it, defenders want the opposition to play in front of them and not peel off or make runs and that's what we do-or don't do. In defence of Warnock, it's worked, we've been too powerful and strong for the majority in this division and we've been brilliant in defence, it's been a problem against Fulham and Wolves, two teams that can deal with the physical side of things and who can play.

[Lawnmower]

We pass the ball poorly because of our limitations, i'd say that a large proportion of the shorter passes completed are to a player that is either facing his own goal, or in very tight positions with defenders around them. Our movement is poor, therefore no options or players moving into space that can drag the opposition out of position, which creates more space, it's a risk Warnock wont take. Another problem is that players run away from the man with the ball, which leaves no option rather than to knock it 30 yards-I mentioned Grujic when he first started, looking for the easy ball or an out, it wasn't there for him. In short, if there is little movement and no space being created, then the player receiving the ball is up against it, defenders want the opposition to play in front of them and not peel off or make runs and that's what we do-or don't do. In defence of Warnock, it's worked, we've been too powerful and strong for the majority in this division and we've been brilliant in defence, it's been a problem against Fulham and Wolves, two teams that can deal with the physical side of things and who can play.

I agree, when we have the ball so many players just turn and run forward, looking for the ball over the top.

It works a lot as we have players who are excellent at winning the 2nd ball , I'd say all of our midfielders have this as a strength, so it suits us to play this way.

Grujic and to a lesser extent Ralls try to play more of a passing game, but even then , apart from linking with each other they don't have a lot of options and often end up going long.

I'm fine with this. It works.

We don't really have the players to play like Wolves and Fulham

[Tuerto]

I agree, when we have the ball so many players just turn and run forward, looking for the ball over the top.

It works a lot as we have players who are excellent at winning the 2nd ball , I'd say all of our midfielders have this as a strength, so it suits us to play this way.

Grujic and to a lesser extent Ralls try to play more of a passing game, but even then , apart from linking with each other they don't have a lot of options and often end up going long.

I'm fine with this. It works.

We don't really have the players to play like Wolves and Fulham

Agree, we've got this far, no point in changing something that has worked on the majority of occasions-got to give Villa a trouncing!

[the other bob wilson]

I take on board all that the pair of you say and, as I've mentioned before, I don't think you are ever going to get great passing stats from a team that plays like us. However, with Paterson deployed almost as a wing back at times on Friday, we weren't committed to bombing forward as much as we have been in the past - there were more options for passes which carried less of a risk of turning over possession than normal. However, it never really got to the stage where there was any argument about whether we looking to knock the ball long, because, most of the time, we never had the ball under control well enough to play considered passes be they long or short range - put that with our lack of general composure and I'm afraid I can't agree with those who say we didn't play badly against Wolves.

[life on mars]

Great review only one in town worth reading .

I have wondered as with the Man City loss the Wolves loss may step up our performance once again.

The away games will be very tough as they have all found form .

Villa however we be smarting again after defeat ,bit like us I suppose .

That word composure is critical ,however we must appreciate we don't have that type of playing in the same vain that Fulham, Villa and Wolves have , we must play to our strengths of pressing, power ,height in the box quick on the break , pace up front , if that means by passing the midfield at times, hey, ho.

[Lawnmower]

I take on board all that the pair of you say and, as I've mentioned before, I don't think you are ever going to get great passing stats from a team that plays like us. However, with Paterson deployed almost as a wing back at times on Friday, we weren't committed to bombing forward as much as we have been in the past - there were more options for passes which carried less of a risk of turning over possession than normal. However, it never really got to the stage where there was any argument about whether we looking to knock the ball long, because, most of the time, we never had the ball under control well enough to play considered passes be they long or short range - put that with our lack of general composure and I'm afraid I can't agree with those who say we didn't play badly against Wolves.

I'd rank whether we played well or badly by how many chances we created compared to the opposition.

In which case we did OK.

If it's down to passing then I can see where you are coming from, but to me that measure has little relevance due to the way we play.

[ccfc_is_my_life]

I take on board all that the pair of you say and, as I've mentioned before, I don't think you are ever going to get great passing stats from a team that plays like us. However, with Paterson deployed almost as a wing back at times on Friday, we weren't committed to bombing forward as much as we have been in the past - there were more options for passes which carried less of a risk of turning over possession than normal. However, it never really got to the stage where there was any argument about whether we looking to knock the ball long, because, most of the time, we never had the ball under control well enough to play considered passes be they long or short range - put that with our lack of general composure and I'm afraid I can't agree with those who say we didn't play badly against Wolves.

There weren't more option for lower risk passes. We played at times 6 at the back to negate Wolves wing backs from bombing forward. That meant it was Gunnarsson and Bryson in midfield being outnumbered so there weren't any low risk passes available.
When we did have the ball, we turned it over far too easily and the biggest culprit was Gunnarsson.

We were trying to stop Wolves which pretty much worked whilst also winning the ball back in their half, which Bryson did well a number of times.

We didn't play badly against Wolves. We played the way to negate Wolves strengths, if we'd gone out there gung ho without Ralls and Grujic we'd have been ripped to pieces. The tactics worked, a draw would have been a fair result - aside from the penalty misses, Bamba also put a free header wide in the 4th minute. Also factor in we ended the game without our first choice midfield and it's silly to claim we didn't play well considering everything.

[jamieccfc]

Warnock went in to the game not to lose and to be fair I thought it worked we was just undone by a great free kick and a freak bit of luck for wolves, Neil would've studied villa and I have every confidence he'll pick the right tactics and team for us to pick up a win

[Penarth Blues]

Great write up even if I don't quite agree with the thrust of the piece. I think our composure was generally no worse than I've seen all season, and in some areas much better. Without the one piece of magic from Neves and our agreed lack of composure in the two pens then we'd have got at least the draw we set out to get it seems.

A final pedantic point, as I like the expression, it is 'Je ne sais quoi' (I don't know what) not 'croie'

[jeepster]

Great write up even if I don't quite agree with the thrust of the piece. I think our composure was generally no worse than I've seen all season, and in some areas much better. Without the one piece of magic from Neves and our agreed lack of composure in the two pens then we'd have got at least the draw we set out to get it seems.

A final pedantic point, as I like the expression, it is 'Je ne sais quoi' (I don't know what) not 'croie'

So so true

[Spooky Tree]

All I saw from Wolves was a lot of sideways movement and passing (their big fella up front especially, never ever seemed to want to go forward, only sideways), hollywood balls to nobody, and a lot of overpriced players.

They reminded me of how Swansea were a few years ago. Lots of tiki taka style sideways passing with not a lot of end product. They didn't hurt us until the goal (and it was never a free kick, or a booking. He'd escaped the challenge and then went over himself like bambi on ice), and they didn't hurt us after the goal but they certainly could have, as all their play was on the counter attack, they just couldn't finish any of the chances they had.

Very dirty side too. Giving away 2 penalties and the very first challenge of the match was shocking aswell.

That game could, and should have been a draw and it would have been a fair result. Barcelona they are not. Will go straight back down if promoted.