Mackay continues to impress, but, by all accounts, it’s two points dropped.

Most of the speculation prior to yesterday’s 1-1 draw at Blackpool centred on whether Darcy Blake would be able to keep his place in City’s midfield now that Aron Gunnarsson and Filip Kiss had returned from their injuries. The consensus seemed to be that Blake would lose out to Gunnarsson in the only change to the team that beat Doncaster, but what all bar one or two on the messageboards didn’t account for was that Kiss would also start his first game at Cardiff with Robert Earnshaw becoming the second of the two City players used by Wales only ten days earlier to be left out as Malky Mackay decided to counter the number of players Blackpool push forward at home with a 4-5-1 formation.

On the face of it, the change of system sounds like a defensive move and. although I wasn’t there to see it in operation, the personnel used by City suggests that, if it was the sort of 4-5-1 that can be passed off as 4-3-3 when you attack because you have players who are normally forwards playing in withdrawn positions, then City were using Don Cowie and Craig Conway as their auxiliary strikers. However, even if the reason behind the change was based more on nullifying the opposition,  it produced a performance that, by all accounts, saw City taking the game to their hosts as they won eleven corners to three and, according to the BBC’s stats, produced twenty five efforts at goal compared to eleven from Blackpool.

Although the normally pretty honest Ian Holloway didn’t acknowledge it in his rather strange post match press conference, by setting City up in a way Blackpool didn’t expect, Malky Mackay had seemingly won the tactical battle between the two managers. However, Malky’s switch did not get the reward it, or City’s overall performance, deserved. In the first half especially, it sounded like City were completely on top and, at times it appeared that a goal was imminent, but when it didn’t arrive, I think it’s fair to ask why this should be so. Perhaps the presence of someone more used to playing up front than in midfield (Joe Mason maybe?) could have made some difference, but one goal from twenty five attempts is a poor return and it appears that both of our centrebacks had chances that you would expect them to score on another day. More worrying than that though is the miss which saw Kenny Miller shoot wide when played into a one on one position with Matt Gilks – in isolation, such a miss would not attract too much comment, but when the player concerned is his club’s major pre season signing who has not scored in six league matches (as well as around forty five minutes in a cup match) then that is a matter for concern.

Kenny Miller shoots wide as City fail to cash in on their first half dominance.

Now it seems that Miller’s overall performance wasn’t bad yesterday and I’m not one of those who has been too critical of that side of his game anyway, but we really do need Miller to start scoring soon if we are to see the new system (or the one we’d been using before, for that matter) really succeed. I believe that Miller only needs a goal or two to be up and running, but it is a fact that, for a player with such a good goalscoring record, he has been through some pretty long lean spells  in front of goal (e.g. seven goals in thirty three appearances for Celtic in 06/07, four in thirty for an admittedly awful Derby team in 07/08 and five in thirty two for Wolves in 03/04).

Unfortunately, for City, Kevin Phillips is currently enjoying something of an Indian summer at Blackpool and I don’t think anyone could have been too surprised when he fired home after around an hour to equalise Don Cowie’s fine header minutes after the half time break. It was an excellent effort by Phillips that was selected as Sky Sports News’ Football League goal of the day and yet Cowie claimed after the game that Phillips told him he meant it as a cross – I must say it certainly didn’t look like that to me!

Shot or cross? Kevin Phillips is congratulated after his equaliser.

Assuming Phillips’ effort was intended as a shot. it does, maybe, re emphaise what our side is currently lacking. On the whole, I don’t think we are missing the likes of Bellamy, Boothroyd, Burke and Chopra that much this season, but I’m fairly sure that one of them would have come up with something Phillips like to make sure that we got three points from a game that we controlled so much of. It’s that “X Factor” again that Malky talked about a few months back  – we have some players capable of providing it, but, based on the evidence so far, not enough of them.

Even if Phillips’ goal was some sort of fluke, I’d say that those comments about our lack of match winners still count, but, perhaps, it would confirm that it might be best to write off yesterday as just one of those matches that, no matter what we tried, we were fated not to win? There were plenty who said we were boring in beating Doncaster last week – maybe, in this division where the certainties of one week are transformed into the no hopers of the following one and vice versa, we should accept that it is the way of things that we get three points for a routine and pretty mundane display against Doncaster and just the one for a far more dominant one against a better team seven days later.

Anyway, I had been encouraged by our start before yesterday and now, after the Blackpool match, I’m much more so. Yes, we didn’t win and although an unbeaten away record after four games looks good, it is devalued somewhat by the fact that three of them have been draws, I’d still rather focus on the fact that our manager has shown some tactical acumen and that we have, hopefully, started to prove that, unlike last season, we have the midfield personnel to play an effective 4-5-1  system on a week to week basis. With the local press telling us that there will be loan signings in a week or so, perhaps the additional x factor that we require is on it’s way – I genuinely feel we won’t be too far away come the end of the season.

Posted in Out on the pitch | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Boring, boring City?

City’s win over Doncaster on Saturday certainly wasn’t one that supporters will recall as a classic in a few year’s time and it enabled what I would guess is a minority of supporters to continue with their theme that we are a boring team who are over reliant on work rate and the long ball forward. While I’d agree that, compared to last season, we are shorter on the “X factor” that Malky Mackay said players like Craig Bellamy provide at this level, I have little sympathy with the long ball argument – I can only think of Nat Jarvis’ goal at Oxford as an example of one we have scored from that method this season and that’s not bad when you consider that we have scored seventeen times in eight matches. Eight of our goals have come from crosses (which some critics say we don’t provide because we don’t have any quick wingers) and I’d say that six have come from passing movements that could in no way be described as long ball.

Therefore, if we are a long ball team, we aren’t much good at it because only less than 10% of our goals are as a result of that approach. I’d say the long ball tag can be easily rebuffed then, but the boring accusation is much harder to confirm or deny because it’s very much in the eye of the beholder and it’s the sort of thing that needs pretty convincing proof to make someone on either side of the argument change their mind. Last night on one of the messageboards, there was an attempt to prove that we weren’t boring by comparing our goal attempts figure for the season with three teams (Brighton, Southampton and Leeds) that one of the critics argued played more “attractive” football than us. The figures showed that Brighton and Leeds were a long way behind our total of goal attempts while Southampton had matched our figure – the Saints and Leeds had more efforts on target than us though.

The critics came back by saying that efforts on goal doesn’t equal entertaining football, fair enough I suppose, but I would argue that it is a signal of intent – I’m sure those being critical of City would have used the figures to back up their point of view if they had shown us to be behind those other three clubs. Anyway, I decided to extent things beyond just four clubs to include all of those in the Championship and, to try and get some sort of equilibrium to things, I also compared the number of goal attempts sides have had against them so far. I’ll say now that I don’t think my findings can conclusively prove or disprove that we are “boring”. On top of that, I think some of the figures are very surprising indeed and so I’m sure there will be those who feel they are of no use whatsoever, but I would argue that they do offer a clue as to the footballing philosophy of teams at this level and that City’s figures show that they are a side who tries to go out and win every game.

Nat Jarvis, the scorer of our one goal this season from a result of long ball football.

Anyway, starting off with goal attempts by clubs in descending order (all teams have played six games except those marked with a * who have played five);-

Peterborough  67 efforts on target, 35 off target, total 102

Millwall 52, 40, 92

Southampton 50, 31, 81

Cardiff 41, 40, 81

Burnley* 36, 44, 80

Watford 50, 28, 78

Middlesbrough 52, 25, 77

Hull 42, 33, 75

Portsmouth 36, 39, 75

Blackpool 37, 37, 74

West Ham 38, 32 70

Leeds 43, 25, 68

Birmingham* 28, 38, 66

Palace 33, 31 64

Derby 35, 28, 63

Leicester 29, 34, 63

Bristol C 30, 32, 62

Ipswich 30,30 60

Brighton 31, 27, 58

Doncaster 27, 31, 58

Reading 26, 31, 57

Coventry 32, 24, 56

Forest 27, 23, 50

Barnsley 20, 22, 42

Liam Trotter scores for Millwall in the 2-2 draw with Peterborough at the New Den - a match which included an amazing 45 attempts on goal!

In ascending order, here’s the number of attempts on each team’s goal so far;-

Birmingham* 28, 23, 51

Doncaster 26, 30, 56

Middlesbrough 26, 30, 56

Southampton 32, 26, 58

Forest 32, 27, 59

Burnley* 34, 26, 60

Watford 27, 36, 62

Millwall 29, 34, 63

Portsmouth 33, 30, 63

Hull 32, 32, 64

Brighton 36, 28, 64

Leicester 40, 25, 65

Blackpool 32, 38, 70

Palace 44, 29, 73

Cardiff 36, 38, 74

West Ham 42, 33, 75

Coventry 43, 32, 75

Barnsley 44, 31, 75

Peterborough 47, 30, 77

Ipswich 47, 33, 80

Reading 41, 44, 85

Bristol C 39, 49, 88

Leeds 51, 39, 90

Derby 49, 50, 99

Kevin Kilbane scores for Derby against Doncaster in a game between a team with the second best shots against record and the one with the worst - you might be surprised which one is which!

Finally a comparison between attempts on opponents goal against attempts on their goal;

Millwall 92, 63, +29

Peterborough 102, 77, +25

Southampton 81, 58, +23

Middlesbrough 77, 56, +21

Burnley* 80, 60, +20

Watford 78, 62, +16

Birmingham* 66, 51, +15

Portsmouth 75, 63, +12

Hull 75, 64, +11

Cardiff 81, 74, +7

Blackpool 74, 70, +4

Doncaster 58, 56, +2

Leicester 63, 65, -2

West Ham 70, 75, -5

Brighton 58, 64, -6

Palace 64, 73,  -9

Forest 50, 59, -9

Coventry 56, 75, -19

Ipswich 60, 80, – 20

Leeds 68, 90, -22

Bristol C 62, 88, -26

Reading 57, 85, -28

Barnsley 42, 75, -33

Derby 63, 99, -36

Before anyone else says it, the most important table is the one that measures how many points each side has and having had a little experience in working with them myself, I’d agree that statistics can be made to “prove” anything. However, my interpretations of some of the figures in that final section are;-

1. Brighton are a counter attacking side who are maybe not really as good as they looked in winning at our place.

2. Doncaster are a team that could start climbing the table with the confidence injection of a win or two.

3. I’d be confident if I was a West Ham fan because, surely, there seems to be a lot more to come from them yet.

4. Millwall and Peterborough might regret not picking up that many points when they are playing so well.

5. Leicester are still flattering to deceive.

6. Southampton and Middlesbrough are there for the long haul.

7. Reading and Forest fans should not take it for granted that they will be able to recapture last season’s form.

8. Watford could well surprise a few people again.

9. Barnsley are in for a struggle.

10. Derby fans should appreciate their time up near the top of the table because its not going to last.

As for City, I’m in the we’re not boring camp, so what those figures say to me is that we need to get our shooting boots on (we’ve got the second highest number of shots off target in the division), our low position in the shots against table when compared to our league position indicates that we give our opponents a chance because we are prepared to push men forward, as evidenced by our high position in the efforts on goal rankings. Now to me, that sounds like a description of an entertaining side, but, no doubt, others will disagree. I’d like to see how anyone in the City are boring camp could come with legitimate grounds as to how they back up their argument though.

Posted in Out on the pitch, The Championship | Tagged | Comments Off on Boring, boring City?