Nod.E

Clearly lacking in confidence and snatched at his chance. Good work to make the chance.

In fact I'm talking crap there. xG is literally a measure of the quality of chances in games. In other words, how good were the chances allowed to the opposition? A low number means either poor attacking play or good defending. Or both. The number of actual goals scored depends on how the keeper performed and how well the chances were taken. Both chances were just taken very well. We've actually defended very well, as reflected in the statistics, and Vestergaard is a big part of that. He's been brilliant this season. Shows great anticipation, strong in the tackle, a man mountain in the air. And I think he organises really well back there as well. That's something I noticed against Millwall as I was sat closer to the action than I usually am, and could hear him barking instructions to those around him.

Birmingham had their lowest xG of the season tonight. You can interpret that a number of ways. You'll say it highlights our poor defending that we still conceded 2. I think it was just two very good finishes, though. That's the second time all season we've conceded more than 1 goal in the league. I've seen plenty of very good defending from Vestergaard this season.

Projected total after each game. Games played is on the X axis, and as there is no data for protections after 23 games (since we haven't played them), it flatlines. Guessing it uses PPG season to date and protects the total based on the number of remaining games. Probably not the best illustration of that particular metric, but that's what happens when you try to include a lot of information on the same graph. Not discrediting @Drift btw, I really like it and find it an interesting view of our progress from different angles in a glance. In saying that, maybe using bars for that series would avoid some confusion.

There's a real undercurrent of a loser's attitude that runs through our fanbase. There's a massive thread called 'the ever obliging Leicester City', ffs. I know it's only supposed to be a bit of fun, but it's based on the very real belief amongst our fans that common footballing events 'could only happen to Leicester'. Confirmation bias deluxe. Every time we come up against someone poor they'll say 'it'd just be Leicester for us to lose/draw this one'. Of course, nothing is said when we beat them 9 times out of 10, but that one game that we don't it's all 'HA, look at that. Bloody Leicester, eh?' Absolute weirdos. Determined to feel slighted. Funnily enough the only 'obliging' thing about our club was the fans' attitude in putting up with Rodgers' crap. Can you imagine the fans of Everton or Leeds putting up with the performances and what he was coming out with in interviews for 18 months?

All of this is a round about way of simply saying we could close games out better, which I'd agree with. Even then, it's a recent trend. We panicked against Sheff Weds. In that game I think Choudhury came on too late and seemed nervous, and that seemed to spread. Since then I think we've just had the jitters late in games when we don't have it sealed, almost as a reaction to that experience. I don't think it's any one player's shortcomings. It's just something that can happen after an unfortunate game. As a group they need to have the composure to keep making runs, finding the channels and not slashing at the ball in panic. We're splitting hairs, though. Ultimately we concede by far the fewest goals in the division and we score plenty as well. If a bit of end of game nerves is our biggest issue then we're doing alright.

No, but it does require the capacity for simple critical thought...

You need to chill

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and I'm not claiming to have had the foresight to predict this season's rise. However, with the benefit of hindsight, we now see an entirely different player to the one who played for us in the Prem under Rodgers. He even looks like more of an athlete. He looked an absolute lump the majority of the time for us in the Prem, and that's before he attempted to win a header. He looks to have dropped a few pounds, and don't underestimate the miraculous powers of confidence. And as others have already alluded to, there's the Brendan Rodgers effect. I don't want to dwell on that rodent any longer than I need to, but it's evident from multiple player interviews spanning multiple clubs that ultimately he's an utterly untrustworthy, slimy, cockroach of a man. When your manager is telling you one thing and doing another, it isn't conducive to passion, it isn't conducive to confidence, and it certainly doesn't provide the ideal environment for players on the fringes especially to thrive. Will he be a good player for us in the prem? I don't know, could be. Might never find out. It's far too simplistic to say he's found his level, though. It isn't just the quality of the opposition that has changed. He can actually jump this season, for starters. About time more of us factor these things in when we talk about his performances for us in the prem.

The same teams with the poor finishing have played the other teams, yet all but 8 teams in the division have conceded literally more than double the amount we have. The next best defence in the league has conceded 50% more than we have. But yeah, you've said every game we need to score at least 3 to win, so it must be true. Our fans man.

When are these Leedsphobics going to learn to fact check before posting? We have 2 more points than them in the last 10 and 3 more in the last 5.

Not that Sherwood being a moron is the most important thing here, but how has he got that wrong? I've seen the clip and it couldn't be more off the ball. Bloke beggars belief. Imagine being a friend/family of Lockyer and getting incorrect information from that idiot.

Watching him against their full backs last night was what it would be like if you put a professional winger in an amateur kids match. I'm not exaggerating by saying I've never seen a player take it past people so easily.

It doesn't last as long as it should, you go down and everyone involved is left with an overwhelming sense of what could have been.

Not just a tap in goal though is it? I love Vardy as much as the next man, but he's not making those runs at the moment.

The moaners aren't going to be happy. - 7 goals in two games - Evident Plan B - Strikers scoring - Best form in the league (last 5 games) - Increasing distance to 3rd I'm not naïve enough to expect humble pie on here, so I'll just have to make do with silence. Until the first sign of frailty, that is. THE TIME TO MOAN CAME AND WENT! ENJOY THE GOOD TIMES!!!

I'm at the game tonight. Might have to leave early to catch up on sleep 👀

I agree that perhaps at times we could do a better job of finding a quality pass forwards. I've said as much before, but ultimately that will depend on recruiting the type of player to take the ball on the half turn and have the vision and weight of pass to split teams open. But that just means we'll be more effective. It doesn't mean we won't come up against low blocks. Because teams have seen what happens when they don't defend deep against us. We rip them apart. Please explain how us improving our forward passing and increasing the pace at which we do this will influence teams to not sit deep against us? The solution isn't coming and trying to play is at our own game or pressing us high, because the better we get the more we can just pick teams off. This is the genius of playing this way. Teams are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So, ultimately, the conversation comes back around to the question 'what is the problem?' I can't find one other than the idea that you might be a little bored. I hope for your sake (and others in your camp), that with a little added talent to the system we have in place, you will find some enjoyment in the success we have with this style of play.

Completely missing my point. It absolutely is about respect BECAUSE of the goals we've managed to score relative to Leeds/Southampton DESPITE the low block. Argument being, if teams didn't sit deep against us we'd score more (as per Plymouth) therefore we'd score EVEN more than we already do vs. Southampton and Leeds. You can't have it both ways by saying we're crap going forwards because we play in such a way that 'invites a low block', yet on the other hand point to supposed 'better offensive teams', who, by your logic, therefore do not come up against a low block. Both things simply cannot be true without goalscoring numbers backing that up. Let me explain, Low block = harder to break down Yes? Not low block = easier to score against Yes? Better attacking team + no low block = a sh!t tonne of goals, but that's not what is happening, is it? Jesus wept.

We've scored 2 more despite teams sitting in with a low block' all the time. We must be pretty good then, eh? Take it as a compliment, the low block is and always has been the go-to when a team recognises they are miles off being at a level to compete with the opposition. Plymouth are the only team recently not to deploy this tactic and look what happened. This is why teams sit deep. Because we are too good for them. Can't exactly play counter attacking football when this is the case, can we? And if Leeds played such good attacking football AND didn't suffer the indignity of the low block, shouldn't they have scored loads more than us by now? Your argument is self evidently wrong, so forgive me if I tap into an arrogant tone.

The famous Leeds attack has scored 4 goals in its last 5 away games. Bleat, bleat, bleat. David Bleat.

Leeds are going to catch us. Bleat. They're nipping at our heels! Bleat bleat. There'll be pressure on Enzo when Leeds overtake us! Bleat bleat bleat. Are the bed-wetters on side yet?

We have scored more goals than Leeds. What's with the obsession? Perhaps teams give us more respect and sit in because they think we're the best team they'll face. Or that we'd have too much for them if they opened up. We have very fast wingers and quality strikers. Point stands, if teams want to sit in, regardless of their ability or that of their opponents, they can do to their heart's content. It requires no manoeuvring from the defensive side to persistently sit in. I don't know how I can make it any more obvious to you than to say 'sitting in' could be successfully achieved by standing still for 90 minutes. That could be achieved whether we choose to play slow, fast, wide, narrow etc etc. it is literally a case of setting two banks of four close to your box. I could get a team of 10 year olds to do that to any team. Whether the tactic would be successful is another matter, but that's not what we're debating. 'Inviting the low block' is the most of nonsensical thing I've read on here from a tactical POV.

How far will the expansion (if/when that happens) go to overcome this issue? Do we know what the ST allocation would be and are is there any data which indicates what the demand level for STs is for us generally in the PL?

If a team wants to sit back, all it has to do is stand still in a deep position. Choosing to counter or passing quickly doesn't change that. You mentioned before that it's a chicken and egg situation but to honest I think it's pretty clear the chicken came first, and you have egg on your face. Sorry chap.