Rotherham Away 1st Half Dissected

[CroJack]

First Half

29 minutes effective time played

Swansea had 21 attacking actions (one attacking action per 1,38 minute)

Quality shots:

Rotherham 3:

Ogbene - header from three yards, scores;
Washington - shot from 17 yards from inside Swansea box blocked by Naughton;
Ogbene - overhead shot from 6 yards saved by Fisher;

Swansea 4:

Sorinola - shot from inside Rotherham box blocked, won corner-kick;
Piroe - shot from 18 yards blocked, won corner-kick;
Paterson - shot from 25 yards, keeper saves;
Darling - shot from 30 yards, scores;

Total shots:

Rotherham 3 Swansea 7

Shots on target:

Rotherham 3 Swansea 3

Possession:

Rotherham 24.4 % Swansea 75,6 %

Pass success:

Rotherham 56 % Swansea 87 %

Dribbles:

Rotherham 4 Swansea 5

Aerials Won:

Rotherham 5 Swansea 8

Tackles:

Rotherham 5 Swansea 3

Corners:

Rotherham 2 Swansea 3

Dispossessed:

Rotherham 1 Swansea 5

Long balls:

Rotherham 28 Swansea 26

Long balls accuracy:

Rotherham 36% Swansea 46 %

Duels won:

Rotherham 13 Swansea 23

Crosses:

Rotherham 8 Swansea 7​

Ok, we can see that the vast majority of stats are in Swans favour. We had more quality shots, more total shots, much more possession and much better pass success, more dribbles, we won more aerial duels and ground duels, we had more corners and we had better long balls accuracy. Millers had one more cross, two more long balls, two more tackles, and were only dispossessed one time. Apart from the number of dispossessed players all other stats that are in Millers' favor are statistically insignificant. With other words, Millers were outplayed by Swans in the first half. But, as we all know, outplaying someone doesn't always mean being more effective in front of goal. The number of shots on target and quality shots proves that Millers were extremelly effective considering how little possession they had. They are pretty good at what they do, and what they do is:

• hoofing at every opportunity
• being physical
• man-marking when defending
• pressing high
• crossing
• set-pieces
• create a high number of chances relative to their possession
• through balls

They are not so poor as many people think, and I was most impressed how hard they are to break defensively.

Swansea Attacking Play In The First Half

In this video you will see what we were good at

And in this one what we were poor at

----------------------------------------------------------------
Swans created chances for 1.80 xGoals in the first half
Latibaudiere chance 0.9 xG
Wood chance 0.4 xG
Piroe chance 0.2 xG
Obafemi chance 0.30 xG
----------------------------------------------------------------

 

[CroJack]

This will give you a clearer picture about the players attacking contribution
against Millers in the first half

Build-up play
Forward (progressive) passing - clearances not included






​

No need for much analysis to see who unerperformed in the first half when it comes to forward (progressive) passing. Sorinola, Obafemi and Latibeaudiere were really poor and they are exactly the players we expect to be progressive with their passes and crosses. Most active progressive passer was Grimes, which is not a surprise, and most creative was Paterson. Darling, Naughton and Wood were excellent. Darling didn't make a single sloppy forward pass.

Paterson created our best chances in the first half, and was by far the best player when it comes to passing into Millers' box.

 

[CroJack]

Build-up play
Progressive carries (Forward runs with the ball)





​

Again, Obafemi and Sorinola contributing almost nothing. Darling, Wood, Grimes, Lati, Paterson and Piroe good. Naughton's numbers look good but his progressive ball carries are too slow, so I don't rate them.

The most alarming thing is that we attacked the Millers' box only once (Sorinola) by carring the ball forward, no other players tried to take on Millers' players in order to enter their box. Martin should have a serious talk with his attackers.

 

[ivoralljack]

Great and extremely interesting analysis, CJ. I can't imagine the amount of work that went into producing that. If all our players worked as hard on their game (some more than others) we'd be heading for the Premier League for sure!

 

[CroJack]

Swansea Defensive Play In The First Half

Here is Millers' goal in slow motion
See how the no. 6 fouls Naughton

​

My impression is that we defended pretty well against Millers' counter-attacks. In the first half they had three chances, two of them good ones. One of their chances was the one from a throw-in, which they scored from, and another one from a cross, Fisher saved. The chance they scored from was created after a foul on Naughton, imho.

Ogbene header he scored from = 0.90 xG
Washington shot from 17 yards inside Swansea box = 0.20 xG
Ogbene overhead kick that Fisher saved = 0.40 xG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Millers created chances for 1.50 xGoals in the first half.
Without the chance they scored from only 0.60 xG.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dispossessed

​

In Millers half

Paterson 1x, Piroe 1x

​

In our own half

Paterson 1x, Naughton 1x

Sloppy passes

In Millers half

Piroe 2x, Sorinola 1x, Paterson 1x, Obafemi 1x

In our own half

Fulton 1x, Piroe 1x, Wood 1x, Paterson 1x

Duels won

In Millers' half

Wood 1x, Paterson 1x, Darling 1x

In our own half

Grimes 1x, Darling 2x, Fulton 2x, Naughton 1x

Duels lost

In Millers' half

Darling 1x

In our own half

Piroe 1x, Grimes 1x

Interceptions

In Millers' half

Grimes 3x

In our own half

Grimes 1x, Naughton 2x, Wood 1x, Sorinola 1x

Free-kicks won

In Millers' half


In our own half

Fulton 1x, Darling 2x, Sorinola 1x

Free-kicks given away

In our own half

Fulton 1x

Blocked crosses

Sorinola 1x, Wood 1x

Crosses Allowed

Obafemi 1x, Sorinola 1x, Wood 1x

Clearances

Naughton 3x, Grimes 2x, Wood 2x, Paterson 1x, Darling 2x, Fulton 1x

Blocked shots

Naughton 1x, Wood 1x

 

[Yankee_Jack]

Speaking frankly, I found the game tedious to watch. Once you've seen us run the blue-print once, watching the passing sequence unfold for the umpteenth time in the umpteenth game gets very old, especially when the tempo is flat and there's seemingly no urgency. There's a chronic lack of quality around the box and we just don't stress and work the other team enough in their own box. We work the ball up the field ... then we work it back ... then we work it up the field ... then we work it back ... FFS cross the ball into certain difficult to defend areas, make the other team have to defend instead of just contain!!! There's a big difference between having to defend and containment. We don't force the opposition to defend, to make and win the tackle, to put a head on the ball in an in-swinging cross, to make their keeper come and claim a cross ... to work them and get them to risk making mistakes, concede fouls and so on.

Forest is a classic example last season of containing us, then in the small amount of possession they had they spanked us with goal after goal. Rotherham just needed to contain. If it hadn't been for Darling's hoof-n-hope we'd probably still be trying to score.

There are times in certain games when you just need to hold possession and make the other team work to recover it. But, when we're 0-1 down, and then 1-1 against a supposedly inferior team (according to commentators), then you have to do something productive with the possession. We demonstrated against L1 opposition preseason that we're lacking the chops to do that.

BTW, does anybody think that Fisher could have at least attempted to wave a hand at the header that went over his head.

 

[CroJack]

There's a chronic lack of quality around the box and we just don't stress and work the other team enough in their own box.

Some players massively underperformed and some of them don't have enough quality.

Obafemi was terrible, his first touch....afwul. It's comical how he missed those two chances, one of them was a simple tap-in.
Piroe was not himself.
Sorinola and Lati lack technique to play in wing-back positions. Especially Lati. Neither of them are goal scorers.

FFS cross the ball into certain difficult to defend areas, make the other team have to defend instead of just contain!!! There's a big difference between having to defend and containment. We don't force the opposition to defend, to make and win the tackle, to put a head on the ball in an in-swinging cross, to make their keeper come and claim a cross ... to work them and get them to risk making mistakes, concede fouls and so on.

Agreed.

Forest is a classic example last season of containing us, then in the small amount of possession they had they spanked us with goal after goal. Rotherham just needed to contain. If it hadn't been for Darling's hoof-n-hope we'd probably still be trying to score.

Yeah, but that's not because of football we play, we simply missed some good chances.

BTW, does anybody think that Fisher could have at least attempted to wave a hand at the header that went over his head.

No. Impossible to react. Fisher was excellent.

 

[CroJack]

These here are successful and unsuccessful defensive actions

Green check mark:
successful tackle, interception, clearance, duel won (both ground and aerial), save, blocked cross, blocked shot...

Red check mark:
possession lost, duel lost, cross and shot allowed, sloppy pass, dispossessed...






​

Darling, Wood, Naughton, Grimes, Fisher very good.
Sorinola and Fulton good.
Paterson poor.
Obafemi, Piroe and Lati beyond poor.

 

[CroJack]

​

 

[ivoralljack]

BTW, does anybody think that Fisher could have at least attempted to wave a hand at the header that went over his head.

Don't think he thought the header would be won. The scorer's marker (Darling?) didn't even get off the ground to challenge!!

 

[KVetch]

Some players massively underperformed and some of them don't have enough quality.

Obafemi was terrible, his first touch....afwul. It's comical how he missed those two chances, one of them was a simple tap-in.
Piroe was not himself.
Sorinola and Lati lack technique to play in wing-back positions. Especially Lati. Neither of them are goal scorers.



Agreed.



Yeah, but that's not because of football we play, we simply missed some good chances.



No. Impossible to react. Fisher was excellent.

Fisher did well enough I thought. It seemed like most shots were at him, so can't say for sure. Our first touch is poor. Ethan Laird loaned to Watford, we could have done with a loan like him again.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

Despite Martin's Master Preseason, Obafemia and Piroe in particular were both lacking fitness especially in the last third of the match.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

@CroJack ... this ties into your analysis

Martin's Madness in his own words ... Video | Mic'd Up | Russell Martin | Swansea

The fundamental strategy [0:40] ... knacker the other team out. Matches aren't long enough for that. The other teams are not chasing us, or we're not moving the ball and moving off the ball sharp enough to work them enough.

Martin sounds good but there's something missing between whatever he tells them to do and sees them doing in practice and the transfer of that into a match. Maybe it's the opposition. We didn't transfer against L1 opposition preseason. We didn't transfer much against Rotherham.

Around [1:25] he admonishes them to "look after the ball, the ball is ours" ... player's translation: if I can't see the perfect cross I'm going to preserve possession and pass back ... i.e. no risk taking around the opponents box, which is exactly where you should be taking risks as in no-risk no-reward.

At [1:30] he talks about being ready to explode and hurt them when you get around their box .... not sure they've got the explosion bit yet. Exploding and risk taking and preserving possession are contrary to each other ... they appear to favor preserving possession, hence what we are seeing.

 

[ivoralljack]

The fundamental strategy [0:40] ... knacker the other team out. Matches aren't long enough for that. The other teams are not chasing us, or we're not moving the ball and moving off the ball sharp enough to work them enough.

I've often said that in possession we are so slow, so laboured, opponents have time to organise cover by just shuffling around. We don't work them, we work ourselves!! Frequently towards the end of a game it's US hanging on and not them because of this. It's why other teams look so much fitter than we do. We must try and get far more end product ie. shots, crosses, through balls etc from our possession.

 

[CroJack]

@Yankee_Jack

Against Rotherham there was a good mix of preserving possession and attacking. Mind you, there was 29 minutes of effective playing time in the first half and we had 21 attacking actions. Similar numbers in the second half, 32 minutes of effective play and 24 attacking actions.

So, where did we fail?

First of all, for 71 minutes we played with 7 1/2 players. You can't do that even against poor Championship teams, and I don't think Rotherham are a poor team.

Obafemi - attack defence
Sorinola - attack defence
Lati - attack defence :
Piroe - first half attack first half defence second half attack second half defence

Manning didn't make any difference, but he make a great run into the Millers' box. Unfortunatelly Grimes' lobbed pass was overhit.

Rotherham scored a lucky goal. Millers' no. 6 fouled Naughton and I'm sure Naughtons flick was not intentional. Apart from that, they had some shots from 30 and 45 degrees angles and a straight shot from 24 yards. Not a big deal, after all these shots didn't require miracle saves.

On the other hand, we had 3 huge chances and a couple of chances similar to those of Rotherham. Had Obafemi and Paterson scored we would have a different discussion now. So, even with two absent wing-backs who contributed with nothing in attack, with Obafemi totally underperforming, and Piroe absent in the first half, we managed to create one 100% chance (Obafemi), one 80 % chance (Lati wrongly offside), one 40 % chance (Paterson excellent shot miraculously saved), one 25 % chance (Wood header), one 25% chance (Piroe's partly blocked shot from 18 yards), one 15% chance (Piroe's shot from 17 yards, 45 degrees angle) etc. We created approx. 3.0 xGoals, which is actually very good. Not to talk about poor ball control inside Rotherham's box by Obafemi and Manning, poor headers in good positions by Lati and Wood, numerous poor crosses and overhit passes, attempted but blocked through balls, etc.

My conclusion is that our football against Rotherham was good, but we should've moved the ball faster and our crosses and corner-kicks (Grimes!!!) should've been much better than they were. Also, some of the players were poor.