• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Stats and Analysis Thread

YoungWolf said:
I’ll say it til I’m blue in the face stop taking single game xG as what it’s all about!

It’s much better to see long term underlying performance, which isn’t pretty reading for us this season which I think most would agree with anyway!
Click to expand...
That makes it pretty useless a prediction tool, more a rough guide.
 
Del Woppio said:
He should have done more, it was obvious we needed 3 in midfield after about 15 minutes, but then even then his options were Saiss and Coady.
Click to expand...
Out of interest, what was obvious about it? Newcastle didn’t really press our midfield two, they were largely free in the middle with either an inability or reluctance to play into the front 3 (other just dreadful passes straight of play or to no one under zero pressure). Also for large parts we had a 5-4-1 in two solid lines, giving us better ability to cover the width of the pitch out of possession already. What would 3 midfielders have improved here? Reducing the already limited options to pass the ball forward?

We weren’t even outnumbered (or overun) in there when we were 3-4-3 as Shelvey was playing on the CB toes covering Hwang and Trincao (may as well not have bothered), giving us far too much respect. They didn’t progress the ball through midfield either. They pretty much vacated the Centre of the pitch, hitting balls into the channels or into Chris Wood. Joelinton basically wasn’t playing in midfield.

The issue in the first half was we basically played with 9 players, the team was too deep and even players like Moutinho were giving the ball away unnecessarily.

We actually looked the better team in the first part of the second half when we showed more intent, got higher up the pitch and the forwards were showing for the ball and actually controlling it. Unfortunately they were still the same players. We set up their goal from one of our best openings!

Just intrigued to know what people think a midfield 3 would have achieved tactically (playing a traffic cone instead of Hwang would have been better tbf), before we even consider that his only option was Saiss, which isn’t really an option.
 
PuntsWolf said:
Out of interest, what was obvious about it? Newcastle didn’t really press our midfield two, they were largely free in the middle with either an inability or reluctance to play into the front 3 (other just dreadful passes straight of play or to no one under zero pressure). Also for large parts we had a 5-4-1 in two solid lines, giving us better ability to cover the width of the pitch out of possession already. What would 3 midfielders have improved here? Reducing the already limited options to pass the ball forward?

We weren’t even outnumbered (or overun) in there when we were 3-4-3 as Shelvey was playing on the CB toes covering Hwang and Trincao (may as well not have bothered), giving us far too much respect. They didn’t progress the ball through midfield either. They pretty much vacated the Centre of the pitch, hitting balls into the channels or into Chris Wood. Joelinton basically wasn’t playing in midfield.

The issue in the first half was we basically played with 9 players, the team was too deep and even players like Moutinho were giving the ball away unnecessarily.

We actually looked the better team in the first part of the second half when we showed more intent, got higher up the pitch and the forwards were showing for the ball and actually controlling it. Unfortunately they were still the same players. We set up their goal from one of our best openings!

Just intrigued to know what people think a midfield 3 would have achieved tactically (playing a traffic cone instead of Hwang would have been better tbf), before we even consider that his only option was Saiss, which isn’t really an option.
Click to expand...
You always say when we get rolled with a midfield 2, it's not the formation, but the mentality. Yet more often than not when we approach games against a 3 it's with that negative mentality. We have to play the 3, because we don't approach it correctly with a 2 and just cede possession. Ultimately it's irrelevant because the result is the same. That's a Bruno issue. We know we can take the game to the opposition, he chooses not to.

Even with the mentality on Friday it should have been a 3, would have made Cundle more comfortable and also enabled him to operate higher up the pitch where he's more effective. He was (not deliberately) set up to fail
 
Tony Towner said:
You always say when we get rolled with a midfield 2, it's not the formation, but the mentality. Yet more often than not when we approach games against a 3 it's with that negative mentality. We have to play the 3, because we don't approach it correctly with a 2 and just cede possession. Ultimately it's irrelevant because the result is the same. That's a Bruno issue. We know we can take the game to the opposition, he chooses not to.

Even with the mentality on Friday it should have been a 3, would have made Cundle more comfortable and also enabled him to operate higher up the pitch where he's more effective
Click to expand...
You say it every game and it’s only a factor when we lose 🤷🏻‍♂️

We approach every game with a negative mentality away? We had a 3 first half against Everton and were rubbish, with better players, against a worse team.

Explain to me why with a 3 we wouldn’t have given away possession? Explain why it would have been better rather than just saying it?

Cundle most likely would have been more comfortable further forward, but on what basis would he be further forward with the defensive line so deep and no one to pass to ahead of him? It would have gone backward and been hoofed.

EDIT - and it wasnt even the mentality that was the chief issue. It was individuals as I said, playing competition winners as forwards.
 
Last edited:
PuntsWolf said:
You say it every game and it’s only a factor when we lose 🤷🏻‍♂️

We approach every game with a negative mentality away? We had a 3 first half against Everton and were rubbish, with better players, against a worse team.

Explain to me why with a 3 we wouldn’t have given away possession? Explain why it would have been better rather than just saying it?

Cundle most likely would have been more comfortable further forward, but on what basis would he be further forward with the defensive line so deep and no one to pass to ahead of him? It would have gone backward and been hoofed.
Click to expand...
It's not a factor when we lose, it's a factor when we don't take the game to the opposition, the two are often intertwined. Contrast the approach of the Villa game to Newcastle. In the first we went at the opposition, they needed to think about what we were doing, in the second we aren't interested in possession just soaking up pressure, in that situation you are increasing the likelihood of giving the ball away as you are sitting deeper. If you are going to do that the extra man helps them not cutting through you
 
PuntsWolf said:
Out of interest, what was obvious about it? Newcastle didn’t really press our midfield two, they were largely free in the middle with either an inability or reluctance to play into the front 3 (other just dreadful passes straight of play or to no one under zero pressure). Also for large parts we had a 5-4-1 in two solid lines, giving us better ability to cover the width of the pitch out of possession already. What would 3 midfielders have improved here? Reducing the already limited options to pass the ball forward?

We weren’t even outnumbered (or overun) in there when we were 3-4-3 as Shelvey was playing on the CB toes covering Hwang and Trincao (may as well not have bothered), giving us far too much respect. They didn’t progress the ball through midfield either. They pretty much vacated the Centre of the pitch, hitting balls into the channels or into Chris Wood. Joelinton basically wasn’t playing in midfield.

The issue in the first half was we basically played with 9 players, the team was too deep and even players like Moutinho were giving the ball away unnecessarily.

We actually looked the better team in the first part of the second half when we showed more intent, got higher up the pitch and the forwards were showing for the ball and actually controlling it. Unfortunately they were still the same players. We set up their goal from one of our best openings!

Just intrigued to know what people think a midfield 3 would have achieved tactically (playing a traffic cone instead of Hwang would have been better tbf), before we even consider that his only option was Saiss, which isn’t really an option.
Click to expand...

I don't have an instinctive bias between a 2 or a 3 generally, and as we say, given it was only Saiss or Coady, options were limited. But I thought it was pretty clear that we had absolutely no control over the game at all, and that the two were individually and collectively anonymous, and the obvious lack of physical presence was an issue too. Again, with the three up front being absolutely bobbins, I agree it may not have made much of a difference, but when something's really not working, there needs to be an option other than just doing the same thing with slightly different players.

In reality we could probably have played with a 353 and still been shit.
 
Watching from the comfort of an armchair it appeared that Fabio was isolated and Trincao and Hwang did not do the IF link up correctly. Add to that the shortest midfield since the times of Willy Wonka and yet half the time the ball seemed to be in the air or badly passed. So many easy turn overs of possession. Front to back it was a poor performance.
 
Del Woppio said:
I don't have an instinctive bias between a 2 or a 3 generally, and as we say, given it was only Saiss or Coady, options were limited. But I thought it was pretty clear that we had absolutely no control over the game at all, and that the two were individually and collectively anonymous, and the obvious lack of physical presence was an issue too. Again, with the three up front being absolutely bobbins, I agree it may not have made much of a difference, but when something's really not working, there needs to be an option other than just doing the same thing with slightly different players.

In reality we could probably have played with a 353 and still been shit.
Click to expand...
I think generally speaking for this Wolves squad the 352 is extremely passive, even at it's most effective under Nuno it was 8 men behind the ball trying to afford as little time space to anyone outside of the opposition backline. Then when you manage to turnover possession it was a case of getting up the other end as quickly as possible and seeing what Jota and Jimenez could rustle up between them if they could get 2v2. It was smash and grab tactics for the most part, granted it was often controlled defensively rather than throwing bodies in front of the ball but it was effectively surrendering any ambition of possession and lulling the opponent into a false sense of security.

I think it games like last Friday a 3 man midfield is just shuffling deckchairs. The midfield as a pair weren't getting overwhelmed, they still had plenty of the ball but they didn't have any real outlet for it so their passing became negative and predictable. If you had introduced an extra body in there than what does it gain you? Merely an extra safe passing option that gets you nowhere and does nothing to worry your opponent, maybe you possession stats creep up a bit but to what purpose? What damage are you going to do with a bit more of the ball along the half way line and even less men ahead of it?

The formation is rarely a major issue, particularly to the way a team plays in possession. It doesn't matter what rows of numbers teams put on a piece of paper at the start of the game, when they're on the pitch and someone's got the ball at his feet their team mates need to move to find the space where it's available, that's how you hurt your opponent. Against Newcastle, Cundle and Moutinho weren't struggling to get on the ball in the first half, Guimaraes and Joelinton weren't particularly in their faces, but Trincao nor Hwang ever dropped into the pockets you see Podence take up to receive the forward pass, they were completely anonymous. If either had dropped in then either their fullback has to follow them, that could open up space for the wingback to overlap and receive a ball in behind, or Shelvey would've had to shuffle over to shut them off, at which point the opposite inside forward has a massive space on his side to drop in and take the pass instead.

Matching up numbers in the middle of the park is only an option for me if you're getting battered by extra numbers running through the middle and you literally haven't got the bodies available in there to do the defensive work but even then it's a sticking plaster, it doesn't gain you anything offensively. Against Villa that sort of situation would've been no surprise at all, McGinn and Ramsey both willing runners through the middle, Coutinho more than likely going to be tucking in towards the #10 stop but it never really transpired. Wolves managed to maintain control in the middle and I can't remember at any point them looking stretching by Villa's extra men in the middle.
 
Tony Towner said:
It's not a factor when we lose, it's a factor when we don't take the game to the opposition, the two are often intertwined. Contrast the approach of the Villa game to Newcastle. In the first we went at the opposition, they needed to think about what we were doing, in the second we aren't interested in possession just soaking up pressure, in that situation you are increasing the likelihood of giving the ball away as you are sitting deeper. If you are going to do that the extra man helps them not cutting through you
Click to expand...
I edited my post. I never even said it was mentality in my original post. I made reference to it but We would have been fine with said mentality with someone other than those two jokers up front. It didn’t help but it wasn’t the main issue.

They didn’t cut through us though. They hit long balls. We weren’t short in Midfield. They had plenty of time to play passes forward, they just didn’t. Playing 3 wouldn’t have changed that, if anything it makes it worse.
 
Johnny75 said:
We could try with playing an actual 3 up front instead of 1.

Hwank is a disgrace of an IF.
Click to expand...
You are completely correct. But in HHC defence he is a striker not an IF. Up top in a two he is ok or I could even see him in the centre with Neto and Podence in the IF role a 3421. Lage appears to be picking the players and playing them in positions that clearly do not suit . Nuno did that with Gibbs White. Trincao is not good enough . Neither is Silva in this system as his hold up play and heading ability are not good enough . He also has zero instinct in the box so makes no runs . HHC does have a better instinct ( low bar) so while Raul is out of sorts HHC might do well in the centre. Chiqiinho needs minutes too .
 
That may be true. I dont think playing him out wide as an IF , a role he clearly has little idea how to perform, helps at all. He has 5 goals in a team that is very goal shy. Fabio has none. If he is to play , he should be in a two up top. Him and Raul with Podence in behind would be my preference ( if he plays at all)
 
Last edited:
Fabio has a far higher ceiling. I would never have bothered with Hwang who offers absolutely nothing.
 
Looked into that a bit more as thought it might be one of those misleading ones but it isn’t.

15 games where he started or played the majority (Everton) - 22 goals.

7 games he missed completely (plus 3 minutes at city) - 0 goals.

2 games on as sub for 20-30 mins - 0 goals

That’s pretty rough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top