Reply With QuoteThat’s not down to genuine creativity though. It’s mostly down to set-pieces.Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
It's maybe worth pointing out that we are the 6th highest scorers in the Championship. The reason for our struggles is that we've got the 8th worst defensive record. It should also be noted that only Wycombe have conceded more goals than us since we won 4 games on the trot, though we've still got the 10th best scoring record in the division over that time.
Surely McCarthy's priority is to stop us shipping so many goals, then build on that. If we keep conceding as we have been, avoiding relegation is not a certainty, but we have enough firepower, even without Glatzel, to keep us up.
That’s not down to genuine creativity though. It’s mostly down to set-pieces.
Doesn’t really matter, a goal is a goal is a goal. As long as a team can score that is what counts. It would be far better if goals were created from open play.
We have the highest amount of set piece goals with 15, that makes up 45% of our goals...
13 of our goals have been in open play, that puts us 16th for open play goals. 3 have been counter attacks (these stats are from Whoscored, I don't know how they define a counter attack) which implies creativity is a big problem.
To add on to that, 11% of our shots come in the 6 yard box, only Wycombe and bristol have a higher percentage than us.
None of this is a surprise to anyone I'm sure. We're a long ball side that battles for set pieces and barring a bit of individual quality, we really struggle in open play due to how limited our midfielders (in particular) are.
It doesn’t really matter if all you want is for your team to put the ball into the back of the net on a regular basis, but every City fan I talk to is bored shitless of watching such poor football. This side has been bludgeoning the ball past opposition keepers at set-pieces reasonably regularly this season but that’s not enough to earn promotion and it’s about as entertaining as watching wood warp.
I couldn't agree more, but from now until the end of the season it has to be horses for courses, as drab and shit as that is.
It's not quite that simple. A City side that was built to be 'functional' - effective at either end of the pitch - wasn't too bad to watch in our promotion season, and exceeded most people's expectations in the PL. In a way, last season the side was even more 'functional', with very little to entertain in between goalmouth action, but again it worked - to a lesser degree. This season the players have in general not bought into the belief that another season challenging at the top of the table is possible. The result is the clunking functionality/effectiveness of the football has gone and there really is nothing much when that's gone.
It does make me wonder what VT makes of it all from afar. He's obviously not steeped in the niceties of the game but even allowing for that he must be as bored as the rest of us seeing what's been dished up these last few seasons.
If by any chance he manages to catch a Brentford game say, perhaps he might see that there is another way of playing that could entice more paying customers through the turnstiles once restrictions have been lifted.
We can but live in hope.
My post ending: thereby inferring more entertaining football.
It would be far better if goals were created from open play.
It's an interesting discussion
A few obvious things strike me..
Our general lack of possession and inability to get after teams in open play, will always result in conceding more more goal and drain confidence.
Stopping us conceding so many goals isn't just about cutting out individual mistakes, but retaining possession, creating more opportunities in open play and building confidence.
While possession football means nothing if you are losing, it does mostly increase the likelihood of scoring and limiting opposition opportunities. In a percentage game that has to be true.
Only a few managers can set up their teams to concede 60 or 70% of possession and win games. Warnock was one who managed to grind out win after win with a low possession percentage and keep the players happy.
Overall though, and in the long run, that is a flawed sustainable footballing philosophy. It's difficult to play young players in that set up and does little to develop their football. I mean, who wants to play football but hardly touch the bloody ball??
Relying on set pieces as a footballing philosophy is also flawed as it limits the attractiveness of the club to potential players and also youngsters. Set pieces should be an important part of any team, but to base a footballing strategy on it is not only archaic, but really really boring.
Possession is nine tenths of the law...
Regarding your last paragraph it saddens me that we have become synonymous with set piece goals. On the EFL highlights show, Colin Murray frequently states how dangerous we are from set pieces. He's not being derogatory, he's just stating a fact.
Yes it's served us well in recent years but it's not a sustainable footballing philosophy. And you are right, our reputation does nothing to attract a certain type of footballer. However, whilst there is no guarantee that a change in style will see us challenging for promotion, what is certain is that we cannot continue playing as we are and expect even a modicum of success.
Our possession in the last 5 games has been:
57% v Millwall
51% v Barnsley
50% v QPR
46% v Norwich
61% v Forest
I think that (and what went before this season) represents a genuine change in style of play, not a blip. It may not have done us much good, with a squad trained for low possession, direct, counter attacking football - so far.
Hopefully with time, good coaching and squad evolution it will lead to more creative and attractive football - and be effective too.
(That is my Positive Thought For The Day).
Jon, very intersting.Our possession in the last 5 games has been:
57% v Millwall
51% v Barnsley
50% v QPR
46% v Norwich
61% v Forest
I think that (and what went before this season) represents a genuine change in style of play, not a blip. It may not have done us much good, with a squad trained for low possession, direct, counter attacking football - so far.
Hopefully with time, good coaching and squad evolution it will lead to more creative and attractive football - and be effective too.
(That is my Positive Thought For The Day).
I was also looking at these stats and nearly didn't post my response because those stats would indicate a change in footballing philosophy. But I don't think it does, because our passing success is very low. We make fewer passes than most other teams and when we do our accuracy is poor. So while NH tried as he did to change us, he forgot the simple footballing truth that possession without decent passing is insanity.
I think those stats represent keeping the ball a bit more but looking for set pieces to be dangerous rather than open play. Funny enough, a bit more possession under Harris has made us less dangerous.
But I'll be positive also and point to the U23s who, in the last three months, have become far more attractive to watch, creative and and keep and use the ball well.
We were behind in under five minutes against Norwich and Forest, in less than ten against Millwall and around twenty against Barnsley. If a team of mine went a goal up early against us, I’d be happy to let City have the ball as long as my team were not giving away a lot of throw ins, free kicks and corners because we were facing a team with a limited threat from open play.Our possession in the last 5 games has been:
57% v Millwall
51% v Barnsley
50% v QPR
46% v Norwich
61% v Forest
I think that (and what went before this season) represents a genuine change in style of play, not a blip. It may not have done us much good, with a squad trained for low possession, direct, counter attacking football - so far.
Hopefully with time, good coaching and squad evolution it will lead to more creative and attractive football - and be effective too.
(That is my Positive Thought For The Day).
I had a conversation on my blog this morning about three at the back/sweeper systems. Playing an extra defender need not be a defensive move if you have at least one of them who is pretty comfortable on the ball and able to pass the ball well enough to start attacks- does anyone have an idea who was supposed to be our footballing member of the back three on Saturday? I said Nelson was the closest we had to being one, but with very little confidence. As if that wasn’t bad enough, can anyone tell me who was supposed to be the playmaker/passer in our midfield three?
If possession of the ball became more important to my team, a moderate press would probably ensure we would get what we needed - indeed, there are times when a press isn’t really needed, City’ll turn the ball over to you soon enough.
We started Saturdays match with just two natural attackers - Millwall must have been disappointed to leave with just a point after having got the early goal that is usually enough to consign us to defeat.
Posting Permissions
