Leicester V Boro 1-2 (Azaz, Silvera)

[Changing Times 15,603 22.7k]

1 minute ago, LinoJo3 said:

Agree, so could there not be an argument that while we have our current team for the rest of this season we could change to a slightly less open style. 
 

While over commiting might not be an issue, we could still commit slightly less forward to make up for our lack of quality in the attack. Maybe play a midfield 3 and keep Barlaser and O’Brien a bit deeper letting Azaz push forward to support a front 3.

It’s small tweaks but if we can’t keep the ball in the final 3rd when we flood it with players then surely it would make sense to enable us to plug the gaps quicker. 

I dunno mate because fundamentally we aren't struggling (at home) because of defensive issues, and I don't believe that becoming less attacking will make us better finishers all of a sudden.  We do keep the ball in the final third, we create chances, but we stuff them up.  I'd have no issue with making the changes you mention there but unless we actually put the ball in the back of the net then I don't know what will make that much of a difference.  Here's some examples: we have the 8th most shots on goal at home this season but the joint third fewest number of goals.  We're only 17 shots behind Leicester, and they've played one home game more than us.  We have the 5th most shots from inside the 6 yard box, and we're just one behind Leeds and Leicester in that.  We have the 6th most shots inside the penalty area as well.  Like, to me, this is telling me that we are getting the ball where it needs to go but then not taking advantage of it, rather than not getting the ball into those areas and then being counter attacked.  Other than players finishing better I don't really see what you can do about that as frustrating as it is.

[LinoJo3 5,505 13.2k]

2 minutes ago, Changing Times said:

I dunno mate because fundamentally we aren't struggling (at home) because of defensive issues, and I don't believe that becoming less attacking will make us better finishers all of a sudden.  We do keep the ball in the final third, we create chances, but we stuff them up.  I'd have no issue with making the changes you mention there but unless we actually put the ball in the back of the net then I don't know what will make that much of a difference.  Here's some examples: we have the 8th most shots on goal at home this season but the joint third fewest number of goals.  We're only 17 shots behind Leicester, and they've played one home game more than us.  We have the 5th most shots from inside the 6 yard box, and we're just one behind Leeds and Leicester in that.  We have the 6th most shots inside the penalty area as well.  Like, to me, this is telling me that we are getting the ball where it needs to go but then not taking advantage of it, rather than not getting the ball into those areas and then being counter attacked.  Other than players finishing better I don't really see what you can do about that as frustrating as it is.

I think it could make a difference in that under Carrick a lot of our play seems quite rushed and rash, we never seem to be in control of games even against teams lower than us in the league. 
 

I get why we do it, Carrick wants us to be risky and get the ball forward and I’ll never be against that, but because we mess it up quite a lot our games all seem a bit ‘kick and rush’. 
 

I feel if we reigned it in a bit and slowed things down wed have more control of the ball, if we were deeper wed pull the opposition up the pitch a bit and maybe fashion some better quality chances rather than trying to beat a box full of 7 or 8 players.

In the Preston game we dominated possession and had 20 shots, but actually watching the game it never really felt like that kind of performance, where as the Rotherham away game did.
 

I guess the best way to describe my point is we seem to get good stats in the game without actually looking good on the pitch. There’s always that ‘fragile’ feel that I feel a slightly more compact and conservative approach could improve on. 

[smogsterking the Inspirati 3,269 8.5k]

2 hours ago, HolgateHero said:

I tried a few times to start a 'Scott MacDonald lives in Yarm E-I-E-I-OOO....' chant to the tune of Old MacDonald's farm. But I never worked any of the other lines out and it didn't catch on.

 

I wanted us to use Kajagoogoos too shy for Tuncay

[Redcar Rioja 8,855 8.7k]

We don't have a prolific strike force, hell we don't have a strike force full stop. One of our problems this season is scoring goals but we are very good at giving away soft goals and always have been under Carrick, it's a flaw with his style of play and it arguably cost us last season albeit not as much as the start under Wilder. 

We are unlikely to unearth a Chuba or an Archer out of contract right now, if there was one I'm sure there would be more than ourselves interested. Keeping it tighter at the back doesn't mean looking to play on the counter against every single opponent, it is possible to actually change tactics from game to game and even heaven forbid mid game.

If we stick to 5 at the back it means picking three CB's that we are reasonably well stocked in, Fry, RVB, Clarke, McNair and possibly Engel if needed. At this level that's as good as any I'd say in the Championship. Leicester are a Premiership team in all but name and yes they tested us and they missed a few but they generally severely test (and conquer) every Championship side, this season the Foxes are THE toughest defensive test for any side facing them and the League Table doesn't lie in case anybody want's to quote the xG of Paddy McNair's jockstrap.

Going with 5 at the back allows Carrick to have the three solid CB's, against a strong opponent Ayling and Engel but against a weaker side or one that we want to up the ante against we can have Jones or Forss as the RWB and preferably Bangura but say Thomas as the LWB, even go daft and play McGree as a LWB or O'Brien if he is seen as a better option. Personally injuries aside I'd prefer Jones right and Bangura left with the three CB's but Ayling and Engel are fine at this level as Saturday proved.

It would tighten us up defensively and most other sides aren't going to have near the ability of Leicester. Yes they had chances but we also had two opportunities that we wasted just as bad as Leicester's profligacy. Silvera's lob when McGree was free, then McGree himself when he tried to round the Keeper and I'd even chuck Azaz in when instead of releasing the ball he tried to dance around the entire Leicester back line.  

Having 3 CB's and in total 5 at the back seems to make us tighter when it's been employed. It doesn't mean we still can't pass out from the back or have to resort to hoofing it. It means we should concede less whilst still creating enough opportunity to score as Saturday proved. We don't have any Striker so the additional body at the back doesn't rob or detract from elsewhere, it's just pragmatic reallocation of funds unless Greenwood up top floats everyone's boat.

Keep clean sheets and we have a chance or worst case we get a point instead of a defeat. There have been far too many soft goals conceded this season, reducing them has to be a priority for Carrick if for no other reason than he has zero options at the other end of the pitch to consider. He can't do much without a recognised Striker but he can do something about a defence that leaks like a sieve.

[LinoJo3 5,505 13.2k]

Honestly we’ve tried so many systems this season I wouldn’t see the harm in just going with the same team for Saturday. They functioned well as a unit, Silvera, azaz and O’Brien all had their best games in a Boro shirt and it’s not like we left out a bunch of regulars to play that way, other than Forrs and Dieng we played every fit senior player I think. We’re at a point in the season where why not just go with what’s worked, we can probably tweak it to be more attacking.

[TheJew 3,651 6.1k]

7 hours ago, LinoJo3 said:

Honestly we’ve tried so many systems this season I wouldn’t see the harm in just going with the same team for Saturday. They functioned well as a unit, Silvera, azaz and O’Brien all had their best games in a Boro shirt and it’s not like we left out a bunch of regulars to play that way, other than Forrs and Dieng we played every fit senior player I think. We’re at a point in the season where why not just go with what’s worked, we can probably tweak it to be more attacking.

Hackney and Howson out for 5+ weeks too

[Bruce 2,974 2.3k]

10 hours ago, Changing Times said:

I dunno mate because fundamentally we aren't struggling (at home) because of defensive issues, and I don't believe that becoming less attacking will make us better finishers all of a sudden.  We do keep the ball in the final third, we create chances, but we stuff them up.  I'd have no issue with making the changes you mention there but unless we actually put the ball in the back of the net then I don't know what will make that much of a difference.  Here's some examples: we have the 8th most shots on goal at home this season but the joint third fewest number of goals.  We're only 17 shots behind Leicester, and they've played one home game more than us.  We have the 5th most shots from inside the 6 yard box, and we're just one behind Leeds and Leicester in that.  We have the 6th most shots inside the penalty area as well.  Like, to me, this is telling me that we are getting the ball where it needs to go but then not taking advantage of it, rather than not getting the ball into those areas and then being counter attacked.  Other than players finishing better I don't really see what you can do about that as frustrating as it is.

Seems to me this points to a fundamental issue: we really don't know what our problems at home are. System? Players? Poor coaching? Poor team selection?

We have conceded 18 goals at home which at first glance seems reasonable; makes us the equal 6th best home defence along with Southampton, Norwich, and Birmingham. Then again we have lost 7 games at home: only 5 other teams have lost more home games - Stoke, Swansea, Rotherham, Hull, and Millwall. 

If you look at the home games we have won they have been, largely, against better clubs. Number in brackets shows the position the other team were in when we played them.

Southampton (13),  Cardiff (6), Birmingham (6), Leicester (1), Preston (6), WBA (5)

Lost to

Millwall, QPR, Stoke, Ipswich, Hull, Coventry, Bristol City

There's a really clear pattern there of winning against teams who are coming to us for a win or draw but losing or drawing against teams who set up to defend. As we showed against Leicester, any team can miss multiple decent attempts at goal then lose. For us, though, that is the norm rather than the exception. 

Maybe it really is as simple as not having a good enough striker. All season we have had between 0-1 fit strikers. The teams who play in a similar manner to us (Ipswich and Southampton) have conceded as many goals as us but scored twice as many. 

After all that, I don't know what the solution is. I can see why Carrick might think the solution is to keep on doing the same until it clicks but I can also see that even though we concede a relatively average number of goals at home for a top 10 team, we're getting killed by poor teams who only need to score one against us to win or draw. We can't magic up a striker, it seems, but we do have plenty of options for ways to tighten up the defence.

 

[SouthernSmoggie 5,244 6.9k]

13 minutes ago, Bruce said:

Seems to me this points to a fundamental issue: we really don't know what our problems at home are. System? Players? Poor coaching? Poor team selection?

We have conceded 18 goals at home which at first glance seems reasonable; makes us the equal 6th best home defence along with Southampton, Norwich, and Birmingham. Then again we have lost 7 games at home: only 5 other teams have lost more home games - Stoke, Swansea, Rotherham, Hull, and Millwall. 

If you look at the home games we have won they have been, largely, against better clubs. Number in brackets shows the position the other team were in when we played them.

Southampton (13),  Cardiff (6), Birmingham (6), Leicester (1), Preston (6), WBA (5)

Lost to

Millwall, QPR, Stoke, Ipswich, Hull, Coventry, Bristol City

There's a really clear pattern there of winning against teams who are coming to us for a win or draw but losing or drawing against teams who set up to defend. As we showed against Leicester, any team can miss multiple decent attempts at goal then lose. For us, though, that is the norm rather than the exception. 

Maybe it really is as simple as not having a good enough striker. All season we have had between 0-1 fit strikers. The teams who play in a similar manner to us (Ipswich and Southampton) have conceded as many goals as us but scored twice as many. 

After all that, I don't know what the solution is. I can see why Carrick might think the solution is to keep on doing the same until it clicks but I can also see that even though we concede a relatively average number of goals at home for a top 10 team, we're getting killed by poor teams who only need to score one against us to win or draw. We can't magic up a striker, it seems, but we do have plenty of options for ways to tighten up the defence.

 

We struggle against teams with a disciplined shape and organised press.  I'd guess the away side's team talk at the Riverside is pretty simple: "Keep the shape we practiced in the week tight, survive their pressure, and they'll give us chances." You could argue that even goes back to last season and our repeated frustrations v Coventry.

We'll continue to be brave on the ball, no matter how times our attacks come to nothing, so if a team can ride their luck when we do create chances, they're bound to get a few high quality openings of their own by nicking the ball back high or capitalising on a mistake. Sometimes, when we play a Leicester or Chelsea, the tables are turned and we're the ones with this tactic. 

Unless you're up against prime Mourinho's Chelsea, you're still going to get several chances against a team that sits off (like Leicester and Chelsea did v us). The way to beat a side with that attitude is to be more clinical with your chances or make fewer mistakes in posession.

[Snowblind 2,282 7.1k]

9 hours ago, LinoJo3 said:

Honestly we’ve tried so many systems this season I wouldn’t see the harm in just going with the same team for Saturday. They functioned well as a unit, Silvera, azaz and O’Brien all had their best games in a Boro shirt and it’s not like we left out a bunch of regulars to play that way, other than Forrs and Dieng we played every fit senior player I think. We’re at a point in the season where why not just go with what’s worked, we can probably tweak it to be more attacking.

I think it's the best system we have with the players available. McNair at the back was a much needed leader on Saturday - which we've lacked with Lenihan and Howson out in the centre of the park. Loading the midfield also meant Leicester weren't able to utilise Ricardo as well in his cutting inside, and we were able to stifle their creativity whilst also nullifying Mavididi and Fatawu by enabling ourselves to double up on them in wide areas when needed.

Plymouth are a very different side, obviously, but I think it could prove effective. Particularly in trying to nullify Whittaker. 

[Bruce 2,974 2.3k]

1 hour ago, SouthernSmoggie said:

We'll continue to be brave on the ball, no matter how times our attacks come to nothing, so if a team can ride their luck when we do create chances, they're bound to get a few high quality openings of their own by nicking the ball back high or capitalising on a mistake.

That's the thing; is the problem too many of our attacks coming to nothing or conceding too many goals. At the risk of agreeing with CT (which is always a bad sign) it looks like the first. Although it feels like we concede endless soft goals at home, looking at the figures, we're pretty reasonable defensively. In fact we concede less than Southampton and Ipswich who both play in a way similar to us. 

If CT is right, we create plenty of chances but we're not putting them away. It could be that we create lots of low quality chances but the thing is we can all think back and see an endless parade of missed chances. Not just that but endless attacks that just seem to peter out when we make a bad decision.

On Saturday, Leicester must have had 5 decent chances and scored from one of them. It was like watching us play. Ironically, we had two decent chances with two clinical finishes. 

The issue seems to be poor finishing but that is something that is really hard to coach. You can coach teams to create chances and can coach them to defend in an organised manner but you can't do a lot about poor finishing. If you don't have the strikers who can put away your chances then you're going to need to lock up your goal because you can't afford to concede.

[Barnaby 1,129 2.2k]

14 hours ago, Changing Times said:

We were more composed in defence because we were hardly attacking.  It's easy to get back into position when you aren't leaving it to go very far.  They had more good chances than we did but didn't take them.  I really don't see why calling it lucky is an issue to be honest, it's not meant as a slight against us.  We should have beaten teams this season but buggered those games up, and Leicester should have beaten us but buggered it up.  I think iyf the roles were reversed yesterday, I doubt this forum would be full of people saying well done to whoever we played.  I can't remember many people praising Preston in midweek for example, and Leicester played better against us than we did against Preston.  If they'd have taken their chances they'd have won comfortably, I don't see what's wrong with saying that?

 

You make your own luck is how I see it...we looked more solid with McNair in the back 3

[LinoJo3 5,505 13.2k]

5 hours ago, Bruce said:

That's the thing; is the problem too many of our attacks coming to nothing or conceding too many goals. At the risk of agreeing with CT (which is always a bad sign) it looks like the first. Although it feels like we concede endless soft goals at home, looking at the figures, we're pretty reasonable defensively. In fact we concede less than Southampton and Ipswich who both play in a way similar to us. 

If CT is right, we create plenty of chances but we're not putting them away. It could be that we create lots of low quality chances but the thing is we can all think back and see an endless parade of missed chances. Not just that but endless attacks that just seem to peter out when we make a bad decision.

On Saturday, Leicester must have had 5 decent chances and scored from one of them. It was like watching us play. Ironically, we had two decent chances with two clinical finishes. 

The issue seems to be poor finishing but that is something that is really hard to coach. You can coach teams to create chances and can coach them to defend in an organised manner but you can't do a lot about poor finishing. If you don't have the strikers who can put away your chances then you're going to need to lock up your goal because you can't afford to concede.

I was thinking similar, do we miss the same kind of chances Leicester missed on a regular basis? I know we’ve had a few during the whole season but it’s not like we regularly miss chances from around the 6 yard box which is where Leicester had theirs. 
 

For example against Preston there is only the Forrs chance that I can recall us not scoring from. I may have forgotten but I don’t recall us missing sitter after sitter.

A lot of the time I see the ‘how’s he missed that’ comments, when you watch it back you can see exactly how he’s missed it because it’s not as easy as fans made out. The Azaz effort vs Sunderland for example, “he’s missed an open goal”! Yea from 25 yards out and 2 defenders on the line.

[wilsoncgp 10,039 19.9k]

If it matters at all, our stats are pretty similar in terms of shot percentages:

[Bruce 2,974 2.3k]

12 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

I was thinking similar, do we miss the same kind of chances Leicester missed on a regular basis? I know we’ve had a few during the whole season but it’s not like we regularly miss chances from around the 6 yard box which is where Leicester had theirs. 
 

For example against Preston there is only the Forrs chance that I can recall us not scoring from. I may have forgotten but I don’t recall us missing sitter after sitter.

A lot of the time I see the ‘how’s he missed that’ comments, when you watch it back you can see exactly how he’s missed it because it’s not as easy as fans made out. The Azaz effort vs Sunderland for example, “he’s missed an open goal”! Yea from 25 yards out and 2 defenders on the line.

I think we make and miss a lot of decent but not easy chances. I recall Greenwood missing chances similar to Silvera's goal. As Vardy showed, even the best at this level will miss some of those. We seem to miss all of them. Silvera's goal stands out because the quality of the finish us something I don't expect from anyone except Forss or a fully fit Coburn.

[LinoJo3 5,505 13.2k]

18 minutes ago, Bruce said:

I think we make and miss a lot of decent but not easy chances. I recall Greenwood missing chances similar to Silvera's goal. As Vardy showed, even the best at this level will miss some of those. We seem to miss all of them. Silvera's goal stands out because the quality of the finish us something I don't expect from anyone except Forss or a fully fit Coburn.

I’m happy for Silvera to get another go up front after that performance, he’s came back a different player.