The football under McCarthy

[The Lone Gunman]

There's no doubt that City's results improved significantly in the 22 games after Mick McCarthy took control in January. His impressive record from the first eleven matches he was in charge reads as follows:

Won 7, Drew 4, Lost 0, Scored 23, Conceded 7, Points 25

Things levelled out considerably after that incredible start and the record in McCarthy's last 11 games was as follows:

Won 3, Drew 5, Lost 3, Scored 13, Conceded 14, Points 14

But what about the football itself? Was it more entertaining and better to watch under McCarthy than it had been under Harris, as some contributors have suggested? Was the style pretty much the same? Or was the football even more basic? Obviously, the answers to those questions are entirely subjective, but personally I don't believe the style of City's play became any more attractive under McCarthy. If anything, I thought it became even more attritional than it was under Harris.

Of course, Big Mick was only working with the hand he'd been dealt. Next season will be the real test as regards how his team plays. Nevertheless, I thought I'd take a look at the stats from the match reports on the BBC football site from 2020/21 and see if they provide any clues about what we can expect in 2021/22 from Mick McCarthy's Cardiff City.

In the first 24 Championship games while Neil Harris was manager, City averaged a shade under 48% possession. The side averaged 11.7 shots per game, of which an average of 4 were on target.

In the 22 Championship games overseen by Mick McCarthy, City averaged a fraction over 41% possession. The team averaged 11.3 shots per game, of which an average of 4.5 were on target.

In 24 games under Harris, City's possession stats were 50% or higher on 13 occasions. In McCarthy's 22 games, the figure was just 5.

Under Harris, City's possession stats were 35% or less on 3 occasions in 24 games. Under McCarthy, that figure was 8 in 22 games.

So, City tended to have significantly more of the ball under Harris than they did under McCarthy and the tallies for both shots at goal and shots on target were broadly similar. The team converted marginally more chances under McCarthy (an average of 1.6 goals per game compared to 1.2 goals per game under Harris), but the biggest difference was in the defensive figures - an average of 1.5 goals conceded per game under Harris, but just 0.9 goals per game conceded under McCarthy.

These stats can be interpreted in a number of ways, but my view (based not only on the stats but what I've witnessed while watching the team on TV this season) is this: I don't think the football became any better to watch after Harris was sacked and on occasions it was a good deal worse. However, as a rule, the side was much better organised under McCarthy and the defending was consistently better.

Transfer windows are always interesting to a degree, but this year's will be even more so as Big Mick shuffles his pack. I like McCarthy as an individual and I'm hopeful he'll bring in a few players who will make his team better to watch, but based on the evidence so far, those hopes aren't particularly high.

[Bobby Dandruff]

There's no doubt that City's results improved significantly in the 22 games after Mick McCarthy took control in January. His impressive record from the first eleven matches he was in charge reads as follows:

Won 7, Drew 4, Lost 0, Scored 23, Conceded 7, Points 25

Things levelled out considerably after that incredible start and the record in McCarthy's last 11 games was as follows:

Won 3, Drew 5, Lost 3, Scored 13, Conceded 14, Points 14

But what about the football itself? Was it more entertaining and better to watch under McCarthy than it had been under Harris, as some contributors have suggested? Was the style pretty much the same? Or was the football even more basic? Obviously, the answers to those questions are entirely subjective, but personally I don't believe the style of City's play became any more attractive under McCarthy. If anything, I thought it became even more attritional than it was under Harris.

Of course, Big Mick was only working with the hand he'd been dealt. Next season will be the real test as regards how his team plays. Nevertheless, I thought I'd take a look at the stats from the match reports on the BBC football site from 2020/21 and see if they provide any clues about what we can expect in 2021/22 from Mick McCarthy's Cardiff City.

In the first 24 Championship games while Neil Harris was manager, City averaged a shade under 48% possession. The side averaged 11.7 shots per game, of which an average of 4 were on target.

In the 22 Championship games overseen by Mick McCarthy, City averaged a fraction over 41% possession. The team averaged 11.3 shots per game, of which an average of 4.5 were on target.

In 24 games under Harris, City's possession stats were 50% or higher on 13 occasions. In McCarthy's 22 games, the figure was just 5.

Under Harris, City's possession stats were 35% or less on 3 occasions in 24 games. Under McCarthy, that figure was 8 in 22 games.

So, City tended to have significantly more of the ball under Harris than they did under McCarthy and the tallies for both shots at goal and shots on target were broadly similar. The team converted marginally more chances under McCarthy (an average of 1.6 goals per game compared to 1.2 goals per game under Harris), but the biggest difference was in the defensive figures - an average of 1.5 goals conceded per game under Harris, but just 0.9 goals per game conceded under McCarthy.

These stats can be interpreted in a number of ways, but my view (based not only on the stats but what I've witnessed while watching the team on TV this season) is this: I don't think the football became any better to watch after Harris was sacked and on occasions it was a good deal worse. However, as a rule, the side was much better organised under McCarthy and the defending was consistently better.

Transfer windows are always interesting to a degree, but this year's will be even more so as Big Mick shuffles his pack. I like McCarthy as an individual and I'm hopeful he'll bring in a few players who will make his team better to watch, but based on the evidence so far, those hopes aren't particularly high.

Even putting results aside, anyone who thinks that the football played under McCarthy is actually worse than the complete garbage served up by Harris’ teams must be watching a different sport.

You may not like the football played by McCarthy’s team but at least it doesn’t put you to sleep.

[Mr Soul '68]

There's no doubt that City's results improved significantly in the 22 games after Mick McCarthy took control in January. His impressive record from the first eleven matches he was in charge reads as follows:

Won 7, Drew 4, Lost 0, Scored 23, Conceded 7, Points 25

Things levelled out considerably after that incredible start and the record in McCarthy's last 11 games was as follows:

Won 3, Drew 5, Lost 3, Scored 13, Conceded 14, Points 14

But what about the football itself? Was it more entertaining and better to watch under McCarthy than it had been under Harris, as some contributors have suggested? Was the style pretty much the same? Or was the football even more basic? Obviously, the answers to those questions are entirely subjective, but personally I don't believe the style of City's play became any more attractive under McCarthy. If anything, I thought it became even more attritional than it was under Harris.

Of course, Big Mick was only working with the hand he'd been dealt. Next season will be the real test as regards how his team plays. Nevertheless, I thought I'd take a look at the stats from the match reports on the BBC football site from 2020/21 and see if they provide any clues about what we can expect in 2021/22 from Mick McCarthy's Cardiff City.

In the first 24 Championship games while Neil Harris was manager, City averaged a shade under 48% possession. The side averaged 11.7 shots per game, of which an average of 4 were on target.

In the 22 Championship games overseen by Mick McCarthy, City averaged a fraction over 41% possession. The team averaged 11.3 shots per game, of which an average of 4.5 were on target.

In 24 games under Harris, City's possession stats were 50% or higher on 13 occasions. In McCarthy's 22 games, the figure was just 5.

Under Harris, City's possession stats were 35% or less on 3 occasions in 24 games. Under McCarthy, that figure was 8 in 22 games.

So, City tended to have significantly more of the ball under Harris than they did under McCarthy and the tallies for both shots at goal and shots on target were broadly similar. The team converted marginally more chances under McCarthy (an average of 1.6 goals per game compared to 1.2 goals per game under Harris), but the biggest difference was in the defensive figures - an average of 1.5 goals conceded per game under Harris, but just 0.9 goals per game conceded under McCarthy.

These stats can be interpreted in a number of ways, but my view (based not only on the stats but what I've witnessed while watching the team on TV this season) is this: I don't think the football became any better to watch after Harris was sacked and on occasions it was a good deal worse. However, as a rule, the side was much better organised under McCarthy and the defending was consistently better.

Transfer windows are always interesting to a degree, but this year's will be even more so as Big Mick shuffles his pack. I like McCarthy as an individual and I'm hopeful he'll bring in a few players who will make his team better to watch, but based on the evidence so far, those hopes aren't particularly high.

McCarthy has the footballing intelligence, knowledge, nous and previous experience to get us out of this division and into the premier league. Under Harris we were only going one way and that was out of this division to league 1 (despite what you say in a previous thread about us picking our form up under him). However, Mick HAS to bring the right players in over the summer, or we'll have another season of repeating what he have just seen. We might, just might, scrape into the play-offs, if we maintain the squad almost as it is, but that's as good as it will be. One thing I don't like about the way we play, is our lack of wingers. Is it me. or do we usually look more threatening when we bring Murphy on? If he isn't going to play Hoilett, then I'd like to see him bring in a couple of wingers as well as a decent midfield general, as well as getting rid of the dead wood player wise at the club

[Cleve van Leef]

Since OGS, the style and mindset of managers has been very similar, dour and very unattractive football. It seems that the Club hasn’t had the confidence to change style or type of manager. Do they actually believe that this will bring lasting success?

[The Lone Gunman]

Even putting results aside, anyone who thinks that the football played under McCarthy is actually worse than the complete garbage served up by Harris’ teams must be watching a different sport.

So what is it about the football under McCarthy that you believe is better than the football under Harris?

[life on mars]

The difference under McCarthy was very visible, we removed the slow (sit back ) style players pressed opposition quicker and crisper however there were good positive aspects outside of the tactics players appeared happier and together as a unit ,and the introduction of younger players from U23 was a huge positive for me .

Hopefully I can be there next year in person for each home and I'm very optimistic about next season under Mick , and critically desperately need to get a few footy booze session under the belt .

[Grangenders]

I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.

The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.

Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.

Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.

[The Lone Gunman]

I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City.....

Perhaps that's just as well.

[AfricanBluebird]

I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.

The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.

Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.

Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.

The problem is that the kind of football we play will always result in limited success.

Low possession football, low passing success rate and even at its best, high intensity pressing... Are not ingredients for long term success. Certainly not sustainable at the highest level.

That's why Warnock has never been a success in the premier League. That's why when we do go on runs the players get knackered due to the intensity needed and we fade away and that's why the quality players will always struggle a bit in our team.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Under Harris we could have lots of the ball and not look remotely like scoring. We regularly started games slowly and often conceded daft early goals. In terms of energy and giving it a go, McCarthy's side has been better to watch. In terms of footballing standard, not that it was particularly high under Harris, you're right it is more attritional. I've been bored rigid watching us at times this season by games involving both managers.

[J R Hartley]

You may not like the football played by McCarthy’s team but at least it doesn’t put you to sleep.

Well, that’s a matter of opinion.

[J R Hartley]

Arguing over which team is more attractive to watch out of Neil Harris and Mick McCarthy is like 2 bald blokes arguing over a comb.

[The Lone Gunman]

In terms of footballing standard, not that it was particularly high under Harris, you're right it is more attritional. I've been bored rigid watching us at times this season by games involving both managers.

The worst games I've watched involving City this season were the 0-0 draw at Huddersfield at the 0-0 draw at home to Stoke. They were both utterly dreadful football matches and City's performances in both were absolutely terrible. The football was parks standard at times.

[2b2bdoo]

I think the football is much better, under Harris we just looked totally lost of ideas. The only time we looked even the slightest bit decent under Harris was after the game was lost and we were chasing it. No game plan under Harris which put him just below Slade in terms of quality of football.

That's not to say MM football is good, he's more of a Warnock in terms of he has a game plan that works often enough to stick to or slightly adjust.

Obviously MM is a far superior manager to Harris but that doesn't mean either that he is the one to take us forward.

[The Lone Gunman]

The only time we looked even the slightest bit decent under Harris was after the game was lost and we were chasing it.

Except perhaps the 2-0 victory at Forest, the 3-0 win against Barnsley, the 4-0 victory over Luton and the 3-0 win against Huddersfield?

[lennybluebird]

i think a judgment of a manager is employment, MM very rarely out of work, NH still unemplyed as a manager....says it all for me.

[J R Hartley]

i think a judgment of a manager is employment, MM very rarely out of work, NH still unemplyed as a manager....says it all for me.

Mick was sacked from his last job in Cyprus before his factor 50 had finished drying into the skin.

[Tuerto]

I think that it needs to be picked apart a little more. Both Managers have served up some dreadful stuff, that's for sure, but in their own unique way. Harris' style of play was more methodical in approach, MM's style is quicker, more urgent and more physical. What we saw under Harris was players who lacked confidence, belief and they didn't want to take responsibility, certainly towards the end of his stewardship. Mistakes crept in, basic errors and a lack of urgency. In my opinion, City fans as a unit will tolerate work rate over quality and urgency over a more methodical approach, even if it's poor. MM's style is that, which will afford him more time, even if it is dreadful at times and even less concentrated on possession than Harris was.

Look how Slade was ripped, he had hardly any personal backing from the fans, because of the style of play. Again, slow, boring, methodical etc, same with Harris. Yet MM's football is much more agriculture, it just has more urgency, players work harder, same as Warnock to a degree. For that reason, MM will be afforded more time and less criticism, certainly seems the case with our fans.

[Tuerto]

I think that it needs to be picked apart a little more. Both Managers have served up some dreadful stuff, that's for sure, but in their own unique way. Harris' style of play was more methodical in approach, MM's style is quicker, more urgent and more physical. What we saw under Harris was players who lacked confidence, belief and they didn't want to take responsibility, certainly towards the end of his stewardship. Mistakes crept in, basic errors and a lack of urgency. In my opinion, City fans as a unit will tolerate work rate over quality and urgency over a more methodical approach, even if it's poor. MM's style is that, which will afford him more time, even if it is dreadful at times and even less concentrated on possession than Harris was.

Look how Slade was ripped, he had hardly any personal backing from the fans, because of the style of play. Again, slow, boring, methodical etc, same with Harris. Yet MM's football is much more agriculture, it just has more urgency, players work harder, same as Warnock to a degree. For that reason, MM will be afforded more time and less criticism, certainly seems the case with our fans.

I have to add Personality and Character as well. Slade was like an Insurance salesman and Harris seemed like he was auditioning for a part in 'The Office' MM and Warnock are better at ingratiating themselves to football supporters like ours, they both speak our 'Language' Although in the case of Warnock, he's a self serving phoney, MM seems genuine.

[2b2bdoo]

Except perhaps the 2-0 victory at Forest, the 3-0 win against Barnsley, the 4-0 victory over Luton and the 3-0 win against Huddersfield?

I think most people are clever enough to realise there are exceptions to the rule over such a long period. I think we are talking generally.

[Tuerto]

I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.

The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.

Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.

Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.

Fair enough, but the problem is that we always come unstuck when we go up a notch. There has to be some balance. It is possible to get out of the championship by paying direct aggressive tactics, with pace and power in the correct areas, although that's not enough to sustain relative success in my opinion. People use Burnley as an example of what we could be. I'd be over the moon if we were as good as them. The perception is that they're nothing more than Long ball merchants, direct and physical, there's some truth there, but it is controlled and thought out.

[The Lone Gunman]

I think most people are clever enough to realise there are exceptions to the rule over such a long period. I think we are talking generally.

That's right. I believe that, generally, the football under McCarthy has been as poor as it was under Harris rather than much better. But that's just an opinion.

[tforturton]

The football under McCarthy..... hasn't been all that different than that played under his predecessor. McCarthy's reign has almost mirrored Harris' - they both turned around a failing side, and both had a good run that took us to the play-offs (nearly, for MM). Whether or not McCarthy can push on, and achieve more next season, remains to be seen.

[2b2bdoo]

That's right. I believe that, generally, the football under McCarthy has been as poor as it was under Harris rather than much better. But that's just an opinion.

Very true.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

I’ve never really been too concerned by the ‘quality’ of the football played by City, maybe that’s due to the years of substandard entertainment on the pitch in the lower divisions. As long as the city are winning I’m not too fussed about how we do it - the promotion season under Warnock was even more enjoyable for me than the Malky one - maybe because of the fact we were constantly criticised for the aesthetic nature of our game, with Fulham the media darlings due to their playing of football the ‘right way’.

The whole ‘I like watching good football’ attitude doesn’t always sit too comfortably with me as it’s often the excuse trotted out by all those Man Utd and Liverpool fans that have no justifiable link to support these teams.

Now don’t get me wrong I do like watching attractive football which is why I subscribe to Sky and BT to watch the best teams. But as for the City, it’ll always be the result that comes first. We tried the pleasing on the eye stuff last under Trollope and we were on a fast track to relegation until Warnock came. In the long run I’d be happy to try this under a different manager, but that would require some upheaval.

Whilst Mick is in charge this won’t happen, but I’m not bothered by that if we kept having a crack at promotion.

Got it in one