Why Do We Concede So Many Late Goals?

Todds_right_hook said:

A flat back 6, 2 holding midfielders, 30 yard space between our midfield and attack to allow the opposition to pick up clearances and pump it into the box again.

Well we didnt do that yesterday as Maatsen went into Midfield

He did the job at one stage of a covering Midfielder when he tracked back a runner when Matthews (?) didnt

Agree with FA that Purrington went LB and Maatsen played further forward, but giving Swindon the invitation to attack our second string CB's was bizarre in the extreme when a bit more pressure and a repeat of the Dons 2nd half was called for.

MIA, there was no need for the Alamo approach yesterday or against Shrewsbury. 

As most games are over 97 minutes long now, concentration is paramount.   

We could easily have gone 442. With Maatsen at LM and Matthews RB, it seems defensive but tell Matthews to play a bit further forward and Maatsen does that anywhere. That way we would have had an outlet and I think we could have broken forward to get a third. I think Williams should have come on for Gilbey although in fairness I can forgive Bowyer for not making that change. Going 5 at the back though was a very poor decision (especially as it was Gunter and not Deji that went CB).

golfaddick said:

Because we stop going forward. Its difficult to concede when the ball is in the opposition half. 

Exactly this.

Spurs did it at Palace last week. Sat back, invited pressure and what happened, eventually Palace scored. Lo and behold when they then had to force the game and go looking for a winner, Spurs dominated possession and Palace didn't get another chance. Why not play like that in the first place?

We have a much better team and players than Swindon (and Shrewsbury), so we should be dictating the game. Not sitting back and just inviting a team to attack. It's happened so many times now though, i literally can't fathom out why Bowyer still adopts this tactic.

This 'tactic' of sitting back probably cost us survival last season as we dropped so many points late on. The Birmingham one still annoys me as they were shit and on a terrible run and we just sat back almost inviting them to score.

I'm not saying we should be going all out attack late on, but don't change a 433 or 442 to a 541, just keep your existing shape and formation that got you the lead in the first place. Same as i never understand why a team with a 1 goal lead often bring all 11 men back to defend a set piece/corner. Therefore meaning the opposition side can pile more men forward. If you leave 2 or 3 men up, they need to leave 3 or 4 men back.

We become too defensive too early! Bringing defenders on in the 70th minute is so negative, we need be more offensive and keep the ball instead of inviting pressure for 15/20 minutes which we did, not only against Swindon but also against Shrewsbury. 

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

golfaddick said:

Because we stop going forward. Its difficult to concede when the ball is in the opposition half. 

Exactly this.

Spurs did it at Palace last week. Sat back, invited pressure and what happened, eventually Palace scored. Lo and behold when they then had to force the game and go looking for a winner, Spurs dominated possession and Palace didn't get another chance. Why not play like that in the first place?

We have a much better team and players than Swindon (and Shrewsbury), so we should be dictating the game. Not sitting back and just inviting a team to attack. It's happened so many times now though, i literally can't fathom out why Bowyer still adopts this tactic.

This 'tactic' of sitting back probably cost us survival last season as we dropped so many points late on. The Birmingham one still annoys me as they were shit and on a terrible run and we just sat back almost inviting them to score.

I'm not saying we should be going all out attack late on, but don't change a 433 or 442 to a 541, just keep your existing shape and formation that got you the lead in the first place. Same as i never understand why a team with a 1 goal lead often bring all 11 men back to defend a set piece/corner. Therefore meaning the opposition side can pile more men forward. If you leave 2 or 3 men up, they need to leave 3 or 4 men back.

If it happens once or twice, fair enough. But it happens too often with us and it is making Bowyer look like a stubborn idiot. I am sure he is stubborn, but I am also sure he is not an idiot so he needs to swallow his pride and bin these tactics.

Because our plays lack the ability to concentrate for the whole game.
Even during the bulk of the game you can see them switch off.

msomerton said:

Because our plays lack the ability to concentrate for the whole game.
Even during the bulk of the game you can see them switch off.

I think that is a more general failing. The thing is, it is to be expected in League One from time to time. The issue for me can be explained by looking at yesterday. We start cagey, more cagey than I think we need to but you can't complain about this because generally we grow enough into a game to take a lead.

The problem is when we take the lead and don't get another - Bowyer will with some time to go - be it 25 minutes or 20 minutes decide to close out the game. We simply can't do this. It really doesn't need a reason why, that is Bowyer's problem. What we have to do is just see it for what it is. Statistics show us that 14 points were lost last season, 4 recently this season. In goals conceded in 90 minutes plus extra time.

I believe that when you take defenders off for midfielders, it sends a message to opponents and a message to our players. Opponents have to look  for a goal anyway, but this is an invitation to do it earlier and with more risk. Our players feel they have to sit deep so the ball keeps going back to us.

It is one thing doing it with a couple of minutes to go and riding your luck. But it is a lot harder to ride your luck for 20, 25 minutes even. Opponents don't even have to play well as because we are so deep the cleared ball keeps returning. It becomes increasingly more intense and without the ability to reset, our players become more panicky and by consequence more likely to concede. This culminates in desperation in the closing minutes. 

I think it's because Bowyer does not trust our midfield to dominate the centre of the pitch. Because of that he brings in more defenders to try to shore up the defense. What should happen is to bring on more midfielders late on in the game to prevent the pressure on the back 4, and to play on the counter attack.

If Swindon were really knocking on the door before the subs, it might be understandable. But I was watching a team that looked devoid of confidence and struggled to put any significant moves together until we sat back. 

MuttleyCAFC said:

If Swindon were really knocking on the door before the subs, it might be understandable. But I was watching a team that looked devoid of confidence and struggled to put any significant moves together until we sat back. 

And to add to that they looked poor in defence. Just look at our first goal. Comical defending that you wouldn't even see from a pub team. Then there was the acres of space that Bogle was in when he missed a chance shortly afterwards. They aren't in the bottom 4 for no reason. 

Sometimes I do wonder about Bowyer. If I was a stranger to football I wouldn't have guessed that he played at the top level for a number of years. Just knowing that a team who have lost their last 4 will be short on confidence so when they let 1 in you all know their heads will drop and their thinking is then  "oh no....here we go again". So you attack them & create chances.....shoot when you can. Get on top & don't let them get out of their half. But in the 2nd half Bowyer does the opposite. We finally get ahead in the game & instead of going for the 3rd we try and protect the 2-1lead.