Match Day Thread Coventry versus Norwich

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Who shall win ?

  • Total voters
    10
RiverEndRick said:
I'll have another look at the highlights, Rob, but I'm surprised at those xG ratings for Rowe's goal and Idah's two chances. Obviously creating chances is not the same as scoring goals. I thought Coventry's build up play was good but their finishing was weak. Simms was in a good position for a header in front of goal, but Gibson prevented him from threatening the goal. According to the BBC, they had 3 shots on target from 21 attempts - that hardly seems a big threat to me. The same for us, but we did score a good goal whereas Coventry only got the OG. Had Idah converted either of his chances though, I think we could have won fairly comfortably.
Click to expand...

I think we are saying the same thing - poor finishing from Coventry after creating more good chances, whereas we created a small number but Rowe was clinical.

I agree, on another day it could have been comfortable. But my view was that Coventry were the better side and created better opportunities. We look very weak in midfield and toothless up top, apart from Rowe
 
  • Like
Reactions: RiverEndRick
Is our problem really, as DW said in giving his reaction yesterday, that we aren't clinical enough? Only Ipswich and Leicester have scored more goals than us (25 and 23 to our 21), and just a week ago we actually led the table for goals scored. That doesn't look like a side with a finishing problem. Was DW saying anything more than we'd have won the game if we'd scored more than our one goal?
As I've said before, IMO the most useful way to define "clinical" in this context is in terms of xG. Strikers can meaningfully be said to be clinical who consistently score in line with the quality of their chances. Likewise teams. We've scored 21 goals from chances with a cumulative xG of 17.8; we are more than clinical (only Ipswich and Leicester exceed their xG by more).
Constantly focussing on "being more clinical" diverts attention from the real problem, which is letting in too many goals. Only four teams have conceded more goals than us, and we have the third worst cumulative xGa in the Championship (outdone only by Rotherham and Plymouth). This is the issue that needs to be addressed over the international break.
 
The problem with that approach is that we scored 13 of our 21 goals in our first 4 games when we had Sargent and Barnes and the only injuries were Hanley, Sainz and Sørensen. We're now alternating our 3rd and 4th choice strikers, neither of whom seem suited to the second striker role. Idah and Ui-Jo may become more clinical over time, but meanwhile we're losing ground.

We're no longer seen as a dominating attacking force and other teams change their tactics accordingly. The return of Barnes could make a difference, but he'll have to get back to match fitness, as will Sainz after his latest setback. The silver lining is Rowe with 6 goals from 11 games and another in the cup. He's 4th overall, just 1 goal behind the top 3 scorers who have 7 each but his first 4 goals also came in our first 4 games, so he's dropped off a bit as well. That's what Wagner needs to find an answer to.
 
Last edited:
RiverEndRick said:
The problem with that approach is that we scored 13 of our 21 goals in our first 4 games when we had Sargent and Barnes and the only injuries were Hanley, Sainz and Sørensen.
Click to expand...
Even if you remove the Saints and Huddersfield games from consideration, over the remaining 9 games we have still scored in line with our cumulative xG. Those two high scoring games only account for our exceeding xG, rather than just matching it. You might argue that we need to create more and better chances, but as I mentioned above, as things stand after 11 games, only Ipswich and Leicester have bettered us in that respect too.

By focussing on scoring goals and being "more clinical", you simply ignore the real problem, which is our porous defence.
 
Until they make xG and xGa the criteria for deciding league positions, actual goals scored and goals conceded will determine our wins, losses and draws. You refer to our 'porous defence' like it's down to the four defenders when it's actually down to the way the whole team defends. The Plymouth game, when 'heads were lost', was an aberration which greatly skews our goals against tally. We've had 5 clean sheets in 14 games (including the cup) which doesn't indicate chronic 'porous defence'. Even against Southampton, the two penalties were individual mistakes rather than due to a 'porous defence'. We doubtless need to improve in both goalscoring and reducing goals conceded but it's both, not just one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanaryChris
I agree Rick - for me, it’s not so much our defence (though naturally that could be improved and Hanley’s return, as Warner says, may well be a big boost in that). The bigger issue is our inability consistently to dominate in midfield. That creates pressure on our defence (because teams know they can harry us with the high press) and limits opportunities for our low in confidence reserve strikers. Partly, though, that’s borne from a lack of dynamism up front.

It’s going to be a long few months if we cannot find a solution until Sargent returns from injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RiverEndRick
I would be tempted to drop Gibson & try Batth he was player of the year for Sunderland, Gibson has been pretty crap for a while .
Any ball into the box he usually opts for putting it out for a corner & when he tries to pass out from the keeper he often plays a bad pass or gets caught in possession.

This season is already turning into a mid table average season just rotating the wingers striker & left back hoping to find a winning formula seems like Wagner has ran out of ideas .
 
Canary Rob said:
I agree Rick - for me, it’s not so much our defence (though naturally that could be improved and Hanley’s return, as Warner says, may well be a big boost in that). The bigger issue is our inability consistently to dominate in midfield. That creates pressure on our defence (because teams know they can harry us with the high press) and limits opportunities for our low in confidence reserve strikers. Partly, though, that’s borne from a lack of dynamism up front.

It’s going to be a long few months if we cannot find a solution until Sargent returns from injury.
Click to expand...
Agree Rob. Sara had his lowest rating of the season at 5.9 and when he underperforms the whole team performance drops. Placheta(6.3) Gibbs(6.5) and Idah(6.5) were all average at best but Rowe, McLean, Duffy and Stacey were all well above 7. Even Gibson was rated 6.8 in spite of the own goal.
You must log in or register to see images
 
RiverEndRick said:
You refer to our 'porous defence' like it's down to the four defenders when it's actually down to the way the whole team defends.
Click to expand...
Where have I said anything of the kind, about it being down to "the four defenders"? That's not my opinion at all. Quite the contrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back