Passing success rate

[Eric the Half a Bee]

This season's stats

Under Neil Harris: 73.5%
Under Mick McCarthy: 57.3%

[Dave Blue]

Re: Passing success rate

This season's stats

Under Neil Harris: 73.5%
Under Mick McCarthy: 57.3%

I don't think these stats mean a lot. Harris' stats probably boosted by the endless passing around the back four and goalkeeper. Passing under both managers would humiliate most League 2 sides.

[Llandaff Blue]

Re: Passing success rate

Doesn't really mean anything unless you break down the types of passes

[Bobby Dandruff]

Re: Passing success rate

This season's stats

Under Neil Harris: 73.5%
Under Mick McCarthy: 57.3%

Harris just had the team pass the ball around aimlessly and with utterly no direction hoping that the opposition would fall asleep before the everyone watching.

Absolutely appalling.

[2b2bdoo]

Re: Passing success rate

Neither team have tried to play any kind of decent football. Difference is MM tends to have a game plan although very stubborn to change it. Harris had no plan.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Passing success rate

Can I ask those who, seemingly, think those dreadful figures Eric quotes are not a problem how low they need to drop before they do become one?

[AfricanBluebird]

Re: Passing success rate

Can I ask those who, seemingly, think those dreadful figures Eric quotes are not a problem how low they need to drop before they do become one?

Under Harris city were the most toothless I've seen us for a long time. Under Mick we have been, up until the last few games, creating more chances than under Harris, but the passing has been woeful.

Anyone who thinks that a pass success rate of 57% is meaningless need to give their head a wobble.

Having a good pass success rate and using the ball effectively are not mutually exclusive.

We will never have success until we improve our ball retention and passing success rate.

[19bluebirds27]

Re: Passing success rate

Warnocks 17/18 team proved you don’t you don’t need high passing stats or possession.
When broken down in the final 3rd we were deadly effective where it mattered and got success.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Passing success rate

Warnocks 17/18 team proved you don’t you don’t need high passing stats or possession.
When broken down in the final 3rd we were deadly effective where it mattered and got success.

That doesn't answer my question though, how low do our passing stats need to go before you think they become an issue because the logical conclusion to what people who are trying to defend them is to say we'd be best served deliberatively passing to our opponents when we can't force an attacking set piece and let them have the ball all of the time until they make a mistake we may capitalise on.

[Rjk]

Re: Passing success rate

I don't think these stats mean a lot. Harris' stats probably boosted by the endless passing around the back four and goalkeeper. Passing under both managers would humiliate most League 2 sides.

When were we endlesly passing it around at the back under Harris? like which games?

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: Passing success rate

That doesn't answer my question though, how low do our passing stats need to go before you think they become an issue because the logical conclusion to what people who are trying to defend them is to say we'd be best served deliberatively passing to our opponents when we can't force an attacking set piece and let them have the ball all of the time until they make a mistake we may capitalise on.

At Middlesbrough we managed a pass success rate of 41%. It was 42% at Barnsley. It was 53% at Swansea. Some might say that it doesn't matter as long as what we do is effective, but those sorts of figures are shocking, even at this level.

Yet, yesterday we managed a success rate of 66%. Much of that would be down to Wednesday being happy with us keeping the ball in the second half and picking us off on the break.

One thing I notice about the way we have been playing more recently is the number of totally aimless balls lobbed forward seems to be increasing. The number of times I found myself asking "what the feck was that?" yesterday after yet another passing blunder seems to increase game on game. Surely it's better to keep the ball than give it away as cheaply as we do?

One of my main criticisms of the Harris era was that we looked lethergic around the pitch and motivation was a problem. McCarthy addressed this and we started games on the front foot again. We are a big, physical side and we have been playing to those strengths. The problem with that is when we're not on our game, as we haven't been due to what appears to be fatigue setting in, the rest of our game is so abject that we haven't got a plan B. If anything, we look worse at the moment than we did during the last days of Warnock.