33 minutes ago, JCWamma said:

Our goals-to-xG was awful before the recent run. This recent run of games has helped it a lot - 4 goals from 2.9 xG against Sunderland, 3 goals from 0.7 xG against Watford (source), but we are still underscoring our xG overall, and did again this weekend (source).

As a team we were awful before the recent run, I’m not sure we can judge the scoring potential of the team on those games when there was clearly some fundamental problem with the system that seems to have been fixed now. It’s like driving a Ferrari with 4 flat tyres and saying it’s a bad car.

3 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

As a team we were awful before the recent run, I’m not sure we can judge the scoring potential of the team on those games when there was clearly some fundamental problem with the system that seems to have been fixed now. It’s like driving a Ferrari with 4 flat tyres and saying it’s a bad car.

I don't disagree we were awful, but we can absolutely still judge xG underperformance there too. That's not about how bad we were defensively or how bad we were at retaining possession or anything else, it's literally just "how often did we convert chances when we created them". The only argument against judging that would be that the strikers were in hoodoos because of the team as a whole being bad, which I can see as an argument to an extent but still doesn't explain the sheer volume of sitters missed in the first few weeks.

18 minutes ago, JCWamma said:

I don't disagree we were awful, but we can absolutely still judge xG underperformance there too. That's not about how bad we were defensively or how bad we were at retaining possession or anything else, it's literally just "how often did we convert chances when we created them". The only argument against judging that would be that the strikers were in hoodoos because of the team as a whole being bad, which I can see as an argument to an extent but still doesn't explain the sheer volume of sitters missed in the first few weeks.

confidence explains it for me,

you still see it in the team now - its just we are far more composed now we have a system that is workign.

look at them play when the score is level at the start compared to when we are winning, soon as we are winning its like everyone thinks they can score and feels like we suddenly can get a few

19 minutes ago, JCWamma said:

I don't disagree we were awful, but we can absolutely still judge xG underperformance there too. That's not about how bad we were defensively or how bad we were at retaining possession or anything else, it's literally just "how often did we convert chances when we created them". The only argument against judging that would be that the strikers were in hoodoos because of the team as a whole being bad, which I can see as an argument to an extent but still doesn't explain the sheer volume of sitters missed in the first few weeks.

I wasn’t trying to argue that we haven’t been terrible at finishing, more questioning if our scoring has really been that much worse than last season? It is hard to judge I guess as our form has been so skewed, we’ve gone from shocking to brilliant and haven’t really seen anything in the middle to get an average from.

But if you compare a winning run from last season to this winning run I don’t think the goal tally will be that much different.

42 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

I wasn’t trying to argue that we haven’t been terrible at finishing, more questioning if our scoring has really been that much worse than last season? It is hard to judge I guess as our form has been so skewed, we’ve gone from shocking to brilliant and haven’t really seen anything in the middle to get an average from.

But if you compare a winning run from last season to this winning run I don’t think the goal tally will be that much different.

But aren't those wins just wins because we've scored goals so they'd always be similar?

In terms of goals per game overall we've gone from 1.8 to 1.4. I think the main issue is that we're lacking a reliable goalscorer to hang our hat on, in fact if you take out Crooks' goal contribution from the number 10 role of 0.2 a game and slot in Chuba's 0.6 per game we'd be scoring at the same level as last season. So I think the rest of the team are performing to a similar goal scoring level there's just a Chuba shaped hole.

1 minute ago, Foogle said:

But aren't those wins just wins because we've scored goals so they'd always be similar?

In terms of goals per game overall we've gone from 1.8 to 1.4. I think the main issue is that we're lacking a reliable goalscorer to hang our hat on, in fact if you take out Crooks' goal contribution from the number 10 role of 0.2 a game and slot in Chuba's 0.6 per game we'd be scoring at the same level as last season. So I think the rest of the team are performing to a similar goal scoring level there's just a Chuba shaped hole.

I’m literally not denying that we lack the goal scorer lol. Yes we get wins because of goals but we’ve got 12 in 5, we could have just as easily got 5 in 5 with a different manager.

All I’m saying is people are making out as if we’ll never score like we did last season, but in the past 5 games we are in or around that area so maybe the difference is more in peoples heads than reality.

I was really impressed with how well we played. It's the closest I've seen us back to playing in our style in a very long while, albeit without the cutting edge just yet. In terms of individual performances the vast majority performed well. Engel looked the most comfortable he has defensively so far. Birmingham were regularly testing him with early, direct distribution towards his area, to little avail. Dieng was incredible yet again. Barlaser put in the best performance here. When our two CM's perform so well, it makes possession-based football look really simple. 

Coburn obviously was very poor with his finishing, but that inconsistency was always to be expected from such a young striker playing his first Championship season with regular first-team expectations. The combination of him starting and Lath coming off the bench against tired legs is working really well at the moment so nothing drastic needs to change after one poor game from him. We've got some very different skill sets in forward areas, albeit raw talents that are going to need patience while they develop, which gives Carrick different options to use. 

After the substitutes we really lost our rhythm so it was ironic that Rogers stepped up with the vital goal. At the moment I much prefer him moving in from LW than #10 at the moment as he's such a powerful runner when he has central space to move into at speed. I must have said this so many times since we signed him, and while he's struggled, there's so much potential within him. The things that Akpom could do so well in the #10 role of finding the right spaces between the lines, using his body to protect the ball and arriving into the box at the right time when the ball is wide can all be coached. He's technically very good already, mobile and powerful, it's just he's inconsistent and his lack of nuance of Akpom's role isn't quite there yet, but once it comes he's going to be fantastic. He seems a really nice lad and he's in a great environment for a young player to develop so I'll be surprised if he goes in any direction anywhere but upwards. In two years time I think he'll have outgrown the Championship.