We've only had three games!

[STFU 0]

[quote user="Clint"]Indy, so actually watching a match is irrelevant when forming an opinion on said match now is it? Oh dear.[/quote]

I imagine there were probably a lot of different opinions among people who watched the game. Some probably thought we struggled, some probably didn''t. So who is right?

[Clint 221]

Indy, I side we ‘struggled’ to beat a league 2 team, which we did. Despite having all of the possession and despite Stevenage not offering much of a threat, we were less than 10 mins away from penalties. That’s a fact.

For the first 70 mins, we were dire. We had most of the ball but did absolutely nothing with it until we got a very lucky goal from a corner. By which time, Stevenage were knackered, denosoralised and having to chase the game.

The point is that the performance was indicative of many under Farke and against better opposition, we probably wouldn’t have won, despite as usual, dominating the possession.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

Despite all the possession, shots etc that Farke refers to week after week, in those 3 games, which accumulate to near on 290 minutes playing time, we have only been in front for a mere 9 minutes.

That is what Farke''s seems more worried about stats and possession

but the stats about points he has won since he has been here tells us everything we need to know

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

The three games turn into four, five, six etc.....As always i will wait to see where we are after ten games, but at the moment the signs are not good.......

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Clint"]Indy, I side we ‘struggled’ to beat a league 2 team, which we did.[/quote]That''s opinion again, and I still disagree.

[quote]Despite having all of the possession and despite Stevenage not offering much of a threat, we were less than 10 mins away from penalties. That’s a fact.[/quote]Have we started playing 80 minute games suddenly? As already said, it matters not WHEN you score the goals, but that you DO score the goals.

[quote]For the first 70 mins, we were dire. We had most of the ball but did absolutely nothing with it until we got a very lucky goal from a corner. By which time, Stevenage were knackered, demoralised and having to chase the game.[/quote]So we didn''t score in the 27th minute from open play to take the lead then? We didn''t have more shots than them during that period either?

What''s more, it''s clear that Farke has very much focused on high level fitness and playing in a way that keeps possession and forces the opposition to chase the ball, this then causes fatigue and will lead to us potentially scoring more late goals due to the toll it''s taken on the opponents just trying to get the ball again. This is precisely part of Farke''s approach, so simply ignoring this factor because you want all the action early doors is naive to say the least.

[quote]The point is that the performance was indicative of many under Farke and against better opposition, we probably wouldn’t have won, despite as usual, dominating the possession.[/quote]Except we did, we controlled the game, we outscored them by 2 despite putting half our young players out and the stats back this up as well.

Funny how I didn''t attend the match yet appear to see things more clearly than someone who did...

[Clint 221]

Indy, you didn’t ‘see’ anything though did you?

[Badger 2,404]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]Despite all the possession, shots etc that Farke refers to week after week, in those 3 games, which accumulate to near on 290 minutes playing time, we have only been in front for a mere 9 minutes.

That is what Farke''s seems more worried about stats and possession

but the stats about points he has won since he has been here tells us everything we need to know[/quote]I am a big believer in "stats" norfolkngood, and we can take some comfort in readings that show improvement on last year. However, to state the obvious, the most important "stat" is "points for," followed by "goals for/ against" - these show if we are doing the most important things correctly. The evidence of admittedly only three games, as the OP points out, is that we are not.So yes, on the positive side we should look at our improvement in shots on target etc., but of even more importance, I would suggest is our stats for defending corners and deep crosses to the right back position - I haven''t seen them, but can''t believe that they are anything other than poor. The whole point about stats is that they are objective - but this breaks down if we/ Farke make a biased selection of stats, thus eliminating the objectivity. I hope (and probably believe) that Farke/ Webber are aware of the negative ones - I''m sure our opponents are.It is only three games in - and like many/ most I said that I''d give it a dozen games before forming strong opinions. However, it is pretty clear already that future success depends upon maintaining the areas where we have improved whilst eliminating the blindingly obvious defensive weaknesses in our game.