This game still on ?

Leaving it late to call it off. 

17 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Talking of corners, did you notice we had all players forward for corners? Our deepest player was on the edge of their D! Seemed pretty attacking and I’m not sure I’ve seen it before.

There were some excellent set piece deliveries from Morley yesterday (yes a couple not so good too). You wouldn’t have anyone in the team just because of this, fortunately the rest of his game was excellent too yesterday, but it’s great when he’s in the team knowing you’ll have some quality here.

Another post game/week reflection.

I think we all know the EFL trophy results bear little resemblance to what happens in the league.

But I think the Rotherham game can be looked upon very positively this week.

Winning any game breeds confidence.

Lots of the squad players getting needed game time

Giving Forino a run-out prior to Saturday was valuable.

Getting Simons and Morley together again, it will have helped them linking up prior to Saturday considering they haven’t paired up together to start since Stockport.

I can see them starting again at Orient. 

We had a good blend yesterday of rested players and those who benefitted from/needed game time.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2025Sep 7 by desperado

30 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Talking of corners, did you notice we had all players forward for corners? Our deepest player was on the edge of their D! Seemed pretty attacking and I’m not sure I’ve seen it before.

Wasn't that only when they went down to 10 though? I can't remember noticing it the first half if not.

But further emphasises that noone leaves a player upfield anymore so we didn't worry about the break 

9 minutes ago, desperado said:

Another post game/week reflection.

I think we all know the EFL trophy results bear little resemblance to what happens in the league.

But I think the Rotherham game can be looked upon very positively this week.

Winning any game breeds confidence.

Lots of the squad players getting needed game time

Giving Forino a run-out prior to Saturday was valuable.

Getting Simons and Morley together again, it will have helped them linking up prior to Saturday considering they haven’t paired up together to start since Stockport.

I can see them starting again at Orient. 

We had a good blend yesterday of rested players and those who benefitted from/needed game time.

 

 

Wouldn't mind seeing midfield/defensive partnerships being given a fee consecutive games. 

Of course, sometimes it may be a horses for courses job, but equally, guys playing together a fair bit may well get stronger.

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Talking of corners, did you notice we had all players forward for corners? Our deepest player was on the edge of their D! Seemed pretty attacking and I’m not sure I’ve seen it before.

I also recall in injury time, Wimbledon had a corner and we had all 11 players in our own penalty area. They were down to 9 men, had left 2 men back, and we were 3-0 up!!!

That was the sort of tactical inflexibility that I thought we’d left behind.

1 hour ago, Stig said:

It's a strange one for sure. Especially as the modern mantra at corners is to get everyone back and pack the box as much as possible, whereas the high line we hold on free kicks leaves the box empty.

I imagine the stats all show most goals are scored in the penalty box, so don't let them in there is the first thought, hence the high line on free kicks. Whereas you can't stop the ball going into the penalty box on a corner, so let's pack it with blockers.

Either way, both look wrong to my untrained eye. I would always leave a player or 2 forward from corners to avoid the second phase stuff, and I'd drop the defence back at free kicks to allow the defenders to head the ball away, rather than allowing attackers to sneak through. 

Agreed. If every manager from Champions league to NW Counties brings 11 back for the next 20 years I'll argue it's wrong. Inviting the opposition to attack in greater numbers, and then to win most of the 2nd balls unopposed beggars belief to my (also) untrained eye.  And why wouldn't you take the opportunity for a quick break by leaving ACD and Gale on the halfway line?

7 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

Agreed. If every manager from Champions league to NW Counties brings 11 back for the next 20 years I'll argue it's wrong. Inviting the opposition to attack in greater numbers, and then to win most of the 2nd balls unopposed beggars belief to my (also) untrained eye.  And why wouldn't you take the opportunity for a quick break by leaving ACD and Gale on the halfway line?

certainly wrong for us.....when we concede a corner we need Gale on the left of the halfway line and ACD on the right

No team are leaving them two unmarked and you can bet they would throw at least three defenders back to mark them

 

8 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

Agreed. If every manager from Champions league to NW Counties brings 11 back for the next 20 years I'll argue it's wrong. Inviting the opposition to attack in greater numbers, and then to win most of the 2nd balls unopposed beggars belief to my (also) untrained eye.  And why wouldn't you take the opportunity for a quick break by leaving ACD and Gale on the halfway line?

I'm agreeing with each of you on this & have said it for years.

The current (for some years) orthodoxy has been 'everyone back' but it means any clearance comes straight back in. It's not about the player(s) left up scoring but preventing the immediate return.

Gale & Dubbery aren't defenders but will certainly be matched +1 if left up, taking 3 out of the opposition attack. Obviously,  again, am unqualified comment but seems so obvious. 

34 minutes ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

I'm agreeing with each of you on this & have said it for years.

The current (for some years) orthodoxy has been 'everyone back' but it means any clearance comes straight back in. It's not about the player(s) left up scoring but preventing the immediate return.

Gale & Dubbery aren't defenders but will certainly be matched +1 if left up, taking 3 out of the opposition attack. Obviously,  again, am unqualified comment but seems so obvious. 

Well for the corner in question both ACD and Gale had been substituted so that does not work 😜😜

The flip side of the argument is that it is good to see the team so keen to ensure we kept a clean sheet.

The idea of everyone back is to deny the attacking team any space so less room for runners. 

Personally I would leave a fast lad up front especially with the keepers kicking ability. If he can play a long ball that turns the defenders not much to lose. Not sure it works with a big man as you just see the ball being lost and you want the big man defending.

Was interesting in first half from a goal kick Burstow was stood about 10 yards in a seemingly off side position and nearly caught them out, again using the. Keepers kicking ability and the fact everyone forgets you can not be offside from a goal kick.  

I understand the corners more than the free-kicks!

Whether I agree with it or not, I’m not sure.

But when defending, flooding the box, marking players on the edge of your box, and generally preventing goal-scoring opportunities makes sense to me when sides are striving for clean sheets and emphasising the importance of nullifying your opponents.

I’m yet to be convinced that this set up on a free kick makes you better defensively! 

Edited September 8, 2025Sep 8 by desperado

9 hours ago, Rival Son said:

I also recall in injury time, Wimbledon had a corner and we had all 11 players in our own penalty area. They were down to 9 men, had left 2 men back, and we were 3-0 up!!!

That was the sort of tactical inflexibility that I thought we’d left behind.

You'd hope the captain would be assessing the situation and making having a word with one of the attackers at least.

Even if he glanced over at the bench for instruction/approval.

Maybe the bench gesticulating to that effect.

Enjoyed that. Some lovely stuff played and decent performances all over the pitch. That goal-kick by TSL was obscene. Must have punted that about 75 yards!

We played with decent energy and I'm not actually sure the red card helped us that much. I think 11v11 being a goal up, we'd pick them off with ease if they came at us, but they had to just sit-in and stay in the game as long as possible

Shit about McAtee getting dogs abuse from people in the crowd while the game's going on, but to be expected with some of our fans

On the topic of corners, and something that worries me for Wigan at home in a week or two.

Watch the first goal Mullin scored on Saturday. Gives credit to the idea of leaving someone on the halfway line when defending corners (especially with TSL’s distribution). But also, we’ve been caught out a few times this season with balls in behind/over the top. Slightly concerned that it’ll be something they’ll exploit.

But anyway, fuck Wigan. 

2 hours ago, desperado said:

I understand the corners more than the free-kicks!

Whether I agree with it or not, I’m not sure.

But when defending, flooding the box, marking players on the edge of your box, and generally preventing goal-scoring opportunities makes sense to me when sides are striving for clean sheets and emphasising the importance of nullifying your opponents.

I’m yet to be convinced that this set up on a free kick makes you better defensively! 

Agree on the free kick thing.

We really should've been behind early on again, was an absolute sitter. 

That high line just invites that kind of situation and you rarely see keepers coming out too far these days.

Guess the answer is don't give away frre kicks in threatening positions 😁

One of Schumacher’s big priorities this season was to stop conceding shit goals and he’s achieved that to some extent if the stats are to be believed, but the way he’s gone about it IMO is to get the lads to play closer together as a group - which kind of makes sense if you have players who are good enough on the ball in tight spaces. And apart from playing / punting out from the back when everyone spreads the pitch to receive, we have closed the lines and spaces a lot compared to last season so everyone is back to defend the box for corners, everyone holds a high line for FKs further out, and everyone pushes up when we’re attacking - we’re mob-handed in most things we do.

However there’s a side to side as well as up and down element to it, so when we’re out of possession, the team tends to move towards the ball as a group and I noticed e.g. if they have possession on our left, JDC is practically in the middle of the park and is quite prepared to leave their wideman unmarked - same applies if the ball is on the other side with Conway shuffling across. I’m guessing this is because it’s the least potential danger and by the time a long cross field ball arrives at the unmarked guy out wide, they’ll have had enough time to shuffle back across to face him up. I like it, but there’s still work to be done because if we don’t get it right we can leave folk unattended at the back post as we did in the first minute of the last game.

Slight concern is over packing our box on corners - according to traditional thinking, surely by leaving someone pacy at the half way line means that’s at least one player they can’t send forward? - and when we have an extra man it makes even more sense to do it - but I guess they’ve been drilled to death with their positions and roles for corners so they just went where they’d been told to.

 

Edited September 8, 2025Sep 8 by Wanderlust

3 hours ago, Greg_BWFC said:

Agree on the free kick thing.

We really should've been behind early on again, was an absolute sitter. 

That high line just invites that kind of situation and you rarely see keepers coming out too far these days.

Guess the answer is don't give away frre kicks in threatening positions 😁

Re not giving away free kicks in a dangerous position....1. Sold Tomo, tick 2. McAtee doesn't play much, tick. 3. Please arrange for refs to just give free kicks when it's a foul!

Better drop Sheehan and Johnston then.

8 cards apiece last season.

7 hours ago, desperado said:

I understand the corners more than the free-kicks!

Whether I agree with it or not, I’m not sure.

But when defending, flooding the box, marking players on the edge of your box, and generally preventing goal-scoring opportunities makes sense to me when sides are striving for clean sheets and emphasising the importance of nullifying your opponents

Yes, the 11 back but then not even marking players on the edge of the box takes this tactic to the next level! This isn't a comment on SS or Bolton generally, just the modern way.  As it happens we've hardly ever been punished by this (when not playing Shrewsbury). But watching MOTD or EFL highlights, it's several goals every single week as a direct consequence of inviting the free shot, they either fly in unopposed or take a deflection off 1 of the 10 defenders to wrong foot the unsighted keeper.

3 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

Yes, the 11 back but then not even marking players on the edge of the box takes this tactic to the next level! This isn't a comment on SS or Bolton generally, just the modern way.  As it happens we've hardly ever been punished by this (when not playing Shrewsbury). But watching MOTD or EFL highlights, it's several goals every single week as a direct consequence of inviting the free shot, they either fly in unopposed or take a deflection off 1 of the 10 defenders to wrong foot the unsighted keeper.

It is difficult to get a shot through a mass of bodies and difficult to find space and time to get the shot off unless some distance from goal and even then there would be someone charging it down, so I guess Schumacher thinks that’s a better option than allowing opponents space inside the box. Of course a bad deflection can occur and occasionally a worldy into the top corner but when that happens, fair enough - it would have happened regardless of the bodies in the box. Obviously football is a game of fine margins and so any tactic that the manager what he feels will help the odds, even by a tiny margin, will be adopted - no matter how counterintuitive it may seem to us. I’m not keen on it and we’ll just have see how it pans out, but on balance, so far so good.

2 minutes ago, Wanderlust said:

It is difficult to get a shot through a mass of bodies and difficult to find space and time to get the shot off unless some distance from goal and even then there would be someone charging it down, so I guess Schumacher thinks that’s a better option than allowing opponents space inside the box. Of course a bad deflection can occur and occasionally a worldy into the top corner but when that happens, fair enough - it would have happened regardless of the bodies in the box. Obviously football is a game of fine margins and so any tactic that the manager what he feels will help the odds, even by a tiny margin, will be adopted - no matter how counterintuitive it may seem to us. I’m not keen on it and we’ll just have see how it pans out, but on balance, so far so good.

Only my viewpoint, others are just as valid, but I'm not talking about worldies.  I just mean there's a man on the edge of the box, who gets a chance to have a free pot shot at a fairly large target 18 yards away. He doesn't have to be Ronaldo to get it on target, then it's largely luck if it hits one of the 10 defenders. Alternatively just employ 1 of the 10 to mark him, then there's probably no shot to defend in the first place. So I wouldn't be saying fair enough, that was unavoidable, I'd be saying how the hell did we allow him time to shoot? In open play we'd be fuming at the lack of marking, we wouldn't be just crowding the box like a load of school kids just hoping to get in the way! 

Yawn.

Highest domestic attendance last weekend. One for the crowd nonces

5 hours ago, Johnnyrotten said:

Only my viewpoint, others are just as valid, but I'm not talking about worldies.  I just mean there's a man on the edge of the box, who gets a chance to have a free pot shot at a fairly large target 18 yards away. He doesn't have to be Ronaldo to get it on target, then it's largely luck if it hits one of the 10 defenders. Alternatively just employ 1 of the 10 to mark him, then there's probably no shot to defend in the first place. So I wouldn't be saying fair enough, that was unavoidable, I'd be saying how the hell did we allow him time to shoot? In open play we'd be fuming at the lack of marking, we wouldn't be just crowding the box like a load of school kids just hoping to get in the way! 

I totally agree. Just saying Schumacher clearly doesn’t. Like the school kids analogy though because the way we’re playing out of possession is very much like school kids drawn to the ball, although the journos would probably call it “hunting in packs” .

It is amazing given how badly we defend and are organised we have only conceded more than one goal in one league game this season and are averaging less than one goal conceded in the league

20 minutes ago, Ani said:

It is amazing given how badly we defend and are organised we have only conceded more than one goal in one league game this season and are averaging less than one goal conceded in the league

SS would argue that it’s all good defensively though - and as long as this tactic continues to produce good statistics he’ll be right regardless of whether or not it seems risky to us. By leaving some people unmarked and concentrating defence into key danger areas is making damn sure the opposition have to work hard and produce real quality for their goals which is exactly what was needed TBF and the goals against column could have been even better if e.g. TSL hadn’t muffed a routine near post save from McGoldrick. If the players get even better at it and it doesn’t get worked out we could well end the season with the meanest defence in the league.