Out fought, out thought, out managed.

[Chris Black come back]

That’s the important point. Our run in to the end of the season is against a load of sides who all have something to play for and most of which are sides in the top end of the table and are a cohort we have struggled to land a punch on all season.

To get a consistent return of points in the remaining games we are going to have to beat sides around us. That hasn’t happened with any regularity this season.

Now a positive viewpoint would be that Vale aside, everyone around the top end has shit their pants the last month or two and we could somehow sneak a result against disintegrating sides, but that would rely us also not soiling ourselves in the final straight.

If you were being even more optimistic you would say that Grant has managed to get us to a place where we are grinding out points and we’ve got some special sauce in the 80min plus part of games. It’s not great to watch but has thrown off a few points that we would not have had earlier in the season.

[dickos1]

It’s totally irrelevant who we’ve picked the points up against, we’ve got 5 games left and win our game on Tuesday and we go 2nd, yet people like you keep going on about how ordinary we are etc etc, it’s great that someone from the outside has come in taken a look and told you all how pathetic you’re all being

It isn't irrelevant though is it?

Because four of our final 5 games are against sides currently in the top 10. And we are still showing no sign of improvement against those sides.

We MIGHT still step up, but you are being wilfully blind and trusting to luck if you ignore that record.

It’s not irrelevant if we are in the playoffs also.

People keep going on about how bad we are this season against the best sides so I’ve had a look into it and against the top 7 sides this season we have got 12 points from 10 games, looking then at the other 6 sides in the top 7 and how they’ve faired against the top 7!
Walsall 23 from 12 *
Notts county 13 from 10 *
Bradford 10 from 10 *
Grimsby 14 from 10 *
Wimbledon 12 from 10 *
Port vale 18 from 10*

So other than port vale and Walsall everyone else has faired very similar against the top 7 so it’s a bit of a fallacy that we’re doing so much worse than the other top sides in this respect

[Reg of the Rovers]

If you were being even more optimistic you would say that Grant has managed to get us to a place where we are grinding out points and we’ve got some special sauce in the 80min plus part of games. It’s not great to watch but has thrown off a few points that we would not have had earlier in the season.

I thought we looked shattered late in the game yesterday, we couldn’t muster a chance in injury time as they were all too tired to get up the pitch once TSL got possession, which doesn’t bode well with Tuesday / Friday / Monday to come, plus the fact we had pretty fresh legs on and had played 10 men for 75 mins. Was crying out for Kyle Hurst. Not sure what Grant has got to freshen up anywhere, despite our big squad.

[Filo]

Should have gone 3 at the back at half time, left it too late and when we did do that it was a waste because of the sending off

[Herman Hessian]

People keep going on about how bad we are this season against the best sides so I’ve had a look into it and against the top 7 sides this season we have got 12 points from 10 games, looking then at the other 6 sides in the top 7 and how they’ve faired against the top 7!
Walsall 23 from 12 *
Notts county 13 from 10 *
Bradford 10 from 10 *
Grimsby 14 from 10 *
Wimbledon 12 from 10 *
Port vale 18 from 10*

So other than port vale and Walsall everyone else has faired very similar against the top 7 so it’s a bit of a fallacy that we’re doing so much worse than the other top sides in this respect

if you want to properly quantify this metric, you have to base it on results against who was in the top seven when the game was played, not now, or the opponents may not have been what is considered to be another 'top side' at the time

we fare worse if this is done, and you also have to look at the percentage of points gained to take in to account an uneven number of games played:

port vale  -  22/30  -  73.33%
walsall  -  21/36  -  58.33%
bradford   -   20/36   -   55.56%
grimsby   -   21/39   -   53.85%
rovers   -   13/27   -   48.15%
wimbledon    -   16/39   -   41.03%
notts county   -   7/27   -   25.93%

along with notts you can also make the point that we've had an easier set of fixtures, only having to play nine games to date against teams who were top seven at the time of the fixture

so there...

[NickDRFC]

People keep going on about how bad we are this season against the best sides so I’ve had a look into it and against the top 7 sides this season we have got 12 points from 10 games, looking then at the other 6 sides in the top 7 and how they’ve faired against the top 7!
Walsall 23 from 12 *
Notts county 13 from 10 *
Bradford 10 from 10 *
Grimsby 14 from 10 *
Wimbledon 12 from 10 *
Port vale 18 from 10*

So other than port vale and Walsall everyone else has faired very similar against the top 7 so it’s a bit of a fallacy that we’re doing so much worse than the other top sides in this respect

if you want to properly quantify this metric, you have to base it on results against who was in the top seven when the game was played, not now, or the opponents may not have been what is considered to be another 'top side' at the time

we fare worse if this is done, and you also have to look at the percentage of points gained to take in to account an uneven number of games played:

port vale  -  22/30  -  73.33%
walsall  -  21/36  -  58.33%
bradford   -   20/36   -   55.56%
grimsby   -   21/39   -   53.85%
rovers   -   13/27   -   48.15%
wimbledon    -   16/39   -   41.03%
notts county   -   7/27   -   25.93%

along with notts you can also make the point that we've had an easier set of fixtures, only having to play nine games to date against teams who were top seven at the time of the fixture

so there...

It's a tricky one, this. We played Gillingham at home early on and won when they were top of the table (I think), and Barrow early on when they were in a play-off spot. We won both, but since then neither side have proved to be one of the better sides in the division so the results don't look as good in hindsight. Particularly with those early fixtures, teams can be in a false position at the time of playing (fleeting early season form, one or two lucky results etc). The teams who are in the top 7/top half now are those that have been consistently amongst the best teams in the division over the course of the season, which is probably a better indicator of their ability.

Of course there are a number of other variables that are nigh on impossible to quantify (form at the time/injuries & suspensions/long trips on a Tuesday night after a tricky Saturday game) but for me looking at where the teams are now is the best reflection of how we get on against the better teams.

[drfchound]

People keep going on about how bad we are this season against the best sides so I’ve had a look into it and against the top 7 sides this season we have got 12 points from 10 games, looking then at the other 6 sides in the top 7 and how they’ve faired against the top 7!
Walsall 23 from 12 *
Notts county 13 from 10 *
Bradford 10 from 10 *
Grimsby 14 from 10 *
Wimbledon 12 from 10 *
Port vale 18 from 10*

So other than port vale and Walsall everyone else has faired very similar against the top 7 so it’s a bit of a fallacy that we’re doing so much worse than the other top sides in this respect

if you want to properly quantify this metric, you have to base it on results against who was in the top seven when the game was played, not now, or the opponents may not have been what is considered to be another 'top side' at the time

we fare worse if this is done, and you also have to look at the percentage of points gained to take in to account an uneven number of games played:

port vale  -  22/30  -  73.33%
walsall  -  21/36  -  58.33%
bradford   -   20/36   -   55.56%
grimsby   -   21/39   -   53.85%
rovers   -   13/27   -   48.15%
wimbledon    -   16/39   -   41.03%
notts county   -   7/27   -   25.93%

along with notts you can also make the point that we've had an easier set of fixtures, only having to play nine games to date against teams who were top seven at the time of the fixture

so there...

That is another interesting take on things Herman.
As Nick says above there are lots of variables so it is difficult to say for sure where points against “better teams” come from.
As you probably know, BST has been banging on about this for quite a while and began by showing figures against teams who were in the top half when we played them but recently started to talk about teams in the top ten right now.
Moving the goalposts as he did probably suited his argument better but who knows.
Those percentages that you have shown probably put things more into perspective when comparing our points won against top seven teams to other clubs in the promotion race and we aren’t too different from most of them.

[dickos1]

I think at this stage of the season the better teams are the ones in the top 7.
Regardless of where they were earlier in the season, as has been mentioned we’ve played teams in a false position as would everyone
There aren’t any false positions now

[BigH]

The current form table belies league positions.

Over the last 10 games, Walsall are bottom of the whole of L2.

Salford's home form is distinctly average; one win in six. Ditto Notts County.

Bradford's recent form makes them look beatable. The same could be said of Wimbledon so yesterday was, unfortunately, a missed opportunity.

Tranmere are now a form side as are Colchester despite having had a mini-dip. I really don't fancy playing those two right now.

We're not getting turned over and we're hard to beat. However, that won't get us an auto spot. Right now we're play-off material but lacking the momentum that you usually need to succeed. Teams will play us and think 'draw' minimum.

Have to admit that I'm puzzled as to why Westbrooke isn't featuring as he seems to be the only card we haven't played in terms of trying to inject a bit of creativity.

Whatever, it's a time for leadership, belief, positivity, bravery. Come on GM.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No doubt about it, we’re impotent against teams who ‘sit’. Not an attribute to take into the play-off’s!

Been saying it all season.

If you can play  a disciplined low block against us, we are truly clueless. It's happened week after week after week. Today was just that on steroids.

Week after week after week. Yet we can go 2nd if we win our next game. Interesting take.

What happened in all the games we won then against teams with a low block?

Which games are you talking about? Where we have beaten teams playing a low block?

Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport

Err...

Do I need to explain?

[dickos1]

No doubt about it, we’re impotent against teams who ‘sit’. Not an attribute to take into the play-off’s!

Been saying it all season.

If you can play  a disciplined low block against us, we are truly clueless. It's happened week after week after week. Today was just that on steroids.

Week after week after week. Yet we can go 2nd if we win our next game. Interesting take.

What happened in all the games we won then against teams with a low block?

Which games are you talking about? Where we have beaten teams playing a low block?

Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport

Err...

Do I need to explain?

You can’t have it both ways I’m afraid, either we struggle against better sides or we struggle against sides that play a low block.
If this was correct then we wouldn’t be where we are in the table,

[BillyStubbsTears]

By the way. If you really think Tranmere played a low block against us, I'm really seeing why we have so many differences of opinion. Tranmere played an insanely wide open high press and we simply played through them and took them apart.

[BillyStubbsTears]

No doubt about it, we’re impotent against teams who ‘sit’. Not an attribute to take into the play-off’s!

Been saying it all season.

If you can play  a disciplined low block against us, we are truly clueless. It's happened week after week after week. Today was just that on steroids.

Week after week after week. Yet we can go 2nd if we win our next game. Interesting take.

What happened in all the games we won then against teams with a low block?

Which games are you talking about? Where we have beaten teams playing a low block?

Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport

Err...

Do I need to explain?

You can’t have it both ways I’m afraid, either we struggle against better sides or we struggle against sides that play a low block.
If this was correct then we wouldn’t be where we are in the table,

Sit down and have a think. Then get back to me when you've got it.

[dickos1]

No doubt about it, we’re impotent against teams who ‘sit’. Not an attribute to take into the play-off’s!

Been saying it all season.

If you can play  a disciplined low block against us, we are truly clueless. It's happened week after week after week. Today was just that on steroids.

Week after week after week. Yet we can go 2nd if we win our next game. Interesting take.

What happened in all the games we won then against teams with a low block?

Which games are you talking about? Where we have beaten teams playing a low block?

Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport

Err...

Do I need to explain?

You can’t have it both ways I’m afraid, either we struggle against better sides or we struggle against sides that play a low block.
If this was correct then we wouldn’t be where we are in the table,

Sit down and have a think. Then get back to me when you've got it.

I think you need to sit down champ
All this constant negativity is messing with your head, searching for anything you can find to twist negatively, changing your argument to match your negativity
It’s constant

We could be 2nd in the table come Tuesday night but if anyone bothered listening to your drivel they’d think we were in the bottom 2

[BillyStubbsTears]

So you didn't sit down and think then?

The point is, that ALL the matches you mentioned (including one that suggests you're making this up on the hoof) were against decidedly poor sides. Sides who we had the individual quality to break down (usually from a moment of brilliance by Molyneux).

My point all along is that when we play against a side with a DISCIPLINED low block, we are hopeless. Tell me who out of the current top half we've beaten this season when they were organised and set out to frustrated us.

Yesterday was the perfect example. We played 45 mins against ten men. We didn't once get behind them to get in a cross. We once got in almost behind them from a move through the middle (Gibson's ball to Street) but that was nothing more than a half chance. We persisted in an approach that went down the flanks, ran into dead ends and then recycled the ball to rinse and repeat.

Yes of course we go 2nd if we win on Tuesday. But the "if" is the thing. It's now been nearly 6 months since we beat a team in the top 10. It's going to take something far, far better than the ponderous pedestrian approach we showed yesterday to change that.

[BillyStubbsTears]

PS

In that 45 mins against ten men, we forced their keeper into precisely TWO saves.

One was from a scramble from a set piece.

The other was a routine 22 yarder, straight down his throat. And THERE is the problem, very starkly set out.

On Tuesday, we are either going to need Molyneux to bring his A game, or we need to find a way to open up the spaces in the middle when they double up on him.

[dickos1]

The term low block in reality means sitting deep, just a horrible modern made up word
Teams usually sit deep because they find themselves under pressure.
I’ve no idea which teams we’ve beat who had to sit deep because we were on top, the fact of the matter is we have won more games than everyone in this league other than the top 3 and we have played a game less than everyone. So the point you’re making is just nonsense. And again you’re going on like we’re a truly awful team but we’ve beaten more teams than anyone other than the top 3
It’s a baffling take but not surprising

[GazLaz]

The term low block in reality means sitting deep, just a horrible modern made up word
Teams usually sit deep because they find themselves under pressure.
I’ve no idea which teams we’ve beat who had to sit deep because we were on top, the fact of the matter is we have won more games than everyone in this league other than the top 3 and we have played a game less than everyone. So the point you’re making is just nonsense. And again you’re going on like we’re a truly awful team but we’ve beaten more teams than anyone other than the top 3
It’s a baffling take but not surprising

In very simple terms… There are teams in the league that want the ball and there are teams that want to play without it. We do a lot better against the teams that generally want it. As soon as we start playing against teams that force us to have 55~60% possession there is a correlation with the amount we struggle to create. Got all the numbers to align with this and it clear.

As ever with these things, you are entitled to disagree and that’s fine.

The thing with the vast majority of people that watch football is that they see what they want to see. That’s human nature in all areas of life. I try and dispel all that bias by relying on numbers to guide me!

[dickos1]

But at the end of the day we have won more games than almost everyone in the division. So there’s no way we should be criticising the number of games we’ve won or we can’t beat teams who do this or that. We’re as good as anyone at winning games that’s just a fact

[GazLaz]

But at the end of the day we have won more games than almost everyone in the division. So there’s no way we should be criticising the number of games we’ve won or we can’t beat teams who do this or that. We’re as good as anyone at winning games that’s just a fact

If we don’t go up will you think it’s been a bad season? Or happy that we have been challenging at the right end?

[ncRover]

No doubt about it, we’re impotent against teams who ‘sit’. Not an attribute to take into the play-off’s!

Been saying it all season.

If you can play  a disciplined low block against us, we are truly clueless. It's happened week after week after week. Today was just that on steroids.

Week after week after week. Yet we can go 2nd if we win our next game. Interesting take.

What happened in all the games we won then against teams with a low block?

Which games are you talking about? Where we have beaten teams playing a low block?

Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport

Dickos, what possession statistic from an opposition team indicates they played with a low block to you?

45%? 40%? 30%?

[BillyStubbsTears]

The term low block in reality means sitting deep, just a horrible modern made up word
Teams usually sit deep because they find themselves under pressure.
I’ve no idea which teams we’ve beat who had to sit deep because we were on top, the fact of the matter is we have won more games than everyone in this league other than the top 3 and we have played a game less than everyone. So the point you’re making is just nonsense. And again you’re going on like we’re a truly awful team but we’ve beaten more teams than anyone other than the top 3
It’s a baffling take but not surprising

In very simple terms… There are teams in the league that want the ball and there are teams that want to play without it. We do a lot better against the teams that generally want it. As soon as we start playing against teams that force us to have 55~60% possession there is a correlation with the amount we struggle to create. Got all the numbers to align with this and it clear.

As ever with these things, you are entitled to disagree and that’s fine.

The thing with the vast majority of people that watch football is that they see what they want to see. That’s human nature in all areas of life. I try and dispel all that bias by relying on numbers to guide me!

This. In spades.

The "Low Block" thing isn't anything to do with a side being under pressure. It's a tactic, deliberately chosen by some teams.

"You have as much of the ball as you want. We will snuff you out then hit you hard and fast on the break when you lose the ball having over committed.

Walsall, back in December, when they were head and shoulders the best side in the division did exactly that to us at the Bescot. We had 57% of possession and managed a single shot on target and only 18 touches in their box. They hit us hard and fast and often. Had 34 touches in our box and beat us comfortably.

They are nowhere near as good now, but did a similar-ish job on us last week. We had 65% possession to their 35%. Yet they had more shots on target and more touches in our box. Only 35% of our passes were forward ones. They had less than half as many total passes but of those, 58% were forward passes.

That "Sit back, stay disciplined then break at pace" is a tactic which, when done well by decent sides, frustrates us over and over again.

Conversely, our best performances this season against good sides are when we've done that to them. In particular, Bradford stands out, where we had 40% possession but more shots, more shots on target, more touches in the box and a very high percentage of our passes going forward.

[dickos1]

But at the end of the day we have won more games than almost everyone in the division. So there’s no way we should be criticising the number of games we’ve won or we can’t beat teams who do this or that. We’re as good as anyone at winning games that’s just a fact

If we don’t go up will you think it’s been a bad season? Or happy that we have been challenging at the right end?

Obviously the aim before the season started was promotion and with 5 games to go we’re odds on to gain promotion.
I just think the negativity is astounding when looking at all the facts laid out.
 

[dickos1]

No doubt about it, we’re impotent against teams who ‘sit’. Not an attribute to take into the play-off’s!

Been saying it all season.

If you can play  a disciplined low block against us, we are truly clueless. It's happened week after week after week. Today was just that on steroids.

Week after week after week. Yet we can go 2nd if we win our next game. Interesting take.

What happened in all the games we won then against teams with a low block?

Which games are you talking about? Where we have beaten teams playing a low block?

Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport

Dickos, what possession statistic from an opposition team indicates they played with a low block to you?

45%? 40%? 30%?

Read my post I’ve no idea which teams have sat deep, but usually teams sit deep because they’re struggling to get a foothold on the game
The fact we’ve won as many games as anyone else in the division almost tells you we win games against a whole range of tactics

[ncRover]

Dickos, you were asked which teams with a low block we have beaten.

You answered Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport.

So you must have had an idea of how to define it in those games?

[normal rules]

Thank god we don’t have to play PV again. Looking at the highlights of their game yesterday i reckon they would batter us the way they are currently playing . They will be on my coupon for a win next week.

[dickos1]

Dickos, you were asked which teams with a low block we have beaten.

You answered Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport.

So you must have had an idea of how to define it in those games?

Billy has just explained low block as a team surrendering possession, in all the games mentioned we had more possession.
So again he can’t have it both ways. We’ve won these games having most possession hence beating a team in a low block!

[dickos1]

By the way. If you really think Tranmere played a low block against us, I'm really seeing why we have so many differences of opinion. Tranmere played an insanely wide open high press and we simply played through them and took them apart.

You’ve just explained low block as a team not wanting to have possession, we beat Tranmere with almost 60% possession so yes I would suggest by your definition they played a low block

[ncRover]

Dickos, you were asked which teams with a low block we have beaten.

You answered Carlisle, Tranmere, harrogate, Gillingham, Accrington, Morecambe, Newport.

So you must have had an idea of how to define it in those games?

Billy has just explained low block as a team surrendering possession, in all the games mentioned we had more possession.
So again he can’t have it both ways. We’ve won these games having most possession hence beating a team in a low block!

In those games here are the possession stats from opposition teams:

Accrington 59%
Morecambe 58%
Gillingham 56%
Carlisle 52%
Newport 51%
Tranmere 44%
Harrogate 41%

[dickos1]

Accrington had 40% and we won 4-1.

Billy has picked out the Tranmere game as a team definitely not playing in a low block, yet they had only 44% possession. So by his own definition they were in a low block

I think he’s confusing himself, my only
Point is we beat teams who adopt a number of differing tactics and were as good as anyone in the league at beating teams.
The league table shows this.