‘Defend That’ – Analysis in The Aftermath Of Rotherham United Defeat

‘Defend that’ is one of the aggressive challenges I face when we’re on a bad run.

It’s usually one of the same few faces on the internet, but I get it at games as well. ‘How are you going to write that up’ was one challenge I got on the way out last night. The answer? ‘Probably won’t’.

I was upset after the defeat. You give up a day, spend money and come away with nothing, 90 minutes of watching another fan base celebrate (quietly), 90 minutes of another team putting the ball in the net. Those first few hours after the game are raw, and they’re the best time to stay away from social media.

What was my gut instinct before watching key moments back?  I thought we were poor, that we hadn’t created enough, that the referee had played little part in that. I was frustrated at everything except Rotherham, because they did what they needed to do and did it cleanly. They were much better than the side we faced a few months ago, although the truth is they weren’t much better than we were.

Team selection wasn’t what a lot of people wanted. James Collins scores goals, but not from the bench. Justin Obikwu started up top with Street and Ring out wide. I was delighted to see Ring, but I’m not convinced about Street out wide. With no Tendayi, Tom Hamer played on the right and combined with Street, it felt like we lacked any real natural width.

Having said that, we started the better of the two sides. A couple of corners hinted at us getting a foothold in the game, before the first of three major talking points – Justin Obikwu’s disallowed goal. At the time, nobody bothered about it. The flag went up, it was one of those moments you just don’t remember. Now I’ve seen it back, I’m not so sure we haven’t been done. When the ball is played, he looks level, and it’s incredibly difficult for a linesman to judge both the pass and the run in the same instant.

Without being able to spin the angle, how tight is that? I think the defender closest to the touchline is playing him on, looking at the pitch lines. Given the ball is played here, in the turn of a head, Obikwu is three yards further forward, but in my opinion, onside. If that goal stands, the game has a completely different shape: we’re 1-0 up, away from home, after six minutes. Sadly, it’s a fallacy of the human eye. VAR allows that goal to stand, but I still don’t want it in our division.

That sparked them into life, but they didn’t pour forward as you’d expect a side who won 3-0 to have done. They did score a few minutes later, and there isn’t a lot of argument. George Wickens will be disappointed: it’s not a screamer, not one that flies into the top corner, just a speculative hit from distance that bounces awkwardly before finding the net. Still, you could tell by his reaction that he felt he should have done better. I’m not putting the blame on him alone because, if Ben House is on the field, James is closed down quicker, and the shot never comes in.

From that point, Rotherham had exactly what they wanted: the early goal. They could sit off, let us have the ball, and wait for moments on the break. They didn’t, by the way. My perception in the stands was that they broke regularly and tested us, but there wasn’t a single counter-attack that resulted in a goal. They didn’t have to be good; we did, and in terms of our attacking play, we weren’t.

The second goal came from a corner routine that I thought was quality, live. My instinct at the time was to blame Wickens again, but watching it back, it should be called as offside, pure and simple. Two Rotherham players are standing right in front of the keeper in the six-yard box, blocking his view as the shot comes in. Whether they touch it or not is irrelevant; they’re interfering with play.

Look at the image. Draw a line from the shot to Nombe. How is he not interfering with play? I’m told that the commentary team on BBC Radio Lincolnshire said that the linesman called it, but because nobody appealed, the referee didn’t give it. I don’t know how true that is, but the clip makes it look like a clear case of offside. If we had VAR in League One, it’s one-one at that point, not two-nil. I wouldn’t want VAR, even with that in mind, but it shows how fine the margins are.

For the record, the young lad has done superbly to get the shot in, a lovely little touch and finish.

I did find it disappointing to see 50 or so of our lads streaming into the bar immediately after the second goal, and remaining there until it shut just after half time. I guess people can support the side any way they wish, from terraces or from the bar, but to then see at least one of those supporters going wild at Skubala at the end, gesturing and swearing, made me laugh. Chap didn’t even see half the first half.

Beyond those key moments, the first half wasn’t good for us. We started brightly but didn’t maintain any control. The best chance we had was right before the break when Street forced a strong save from Dawson, but we didn’t create much else. That was part of the problem, just four shots in the first half, two on target, and three after 37 minutes. It was a tough watch, stodgy at times, against a side that had scored two goals from less xG than our shots produced. You can’t even say ‘they made theirs count’ because it’s two pot shots from outside the area, that 95/100 don’t result in a goal. 2-0 probably flattered them at the interval, though 1-0 might have been fair.

I thought we started the second half better, but when you’re 2-0 down, particularly when you’re there, you want more than just being ‘bright’. Game state plays a part there because they could afford to sit deeper, but we did get on the ball more and created a couple of half-chances. I thought we looked more effective when Thorn came on and gave us some width. When James Collins came on, we had more presence in the box, which made sense with the way the game had gone. By that point, Rotherham were sitting deep, so a striker sniffing for scraps was more useful than one trying to run in behind.

We had a couple of half chances that might have changed the story. Jackson went close from a header, and there was a spell where it felt like we were edging our way back into the game. I thought Erik Ring did okay for a player we’ve not seen much from, and that direct running does get fans more involved, even at 2-0 down. Perception is that a player getting out wide and crossing is actually doing something. Well, believe it or not, we put in 11 crosses, five accurate, and got out wide more than they did. That wasn’t my perception, but that is actual fact.

Then came the third goal, and with it, the end of any real contest. I’ve rewatched it a few times because there’s confusion around the referee’s handling of the incident, and while I wasn’t happy at the time, I’m even less so on review. Their goalkeeper went down after a collision, which at the time I thought was with his own player, but it’s with Bradley. The referee sees it, but doesn’t seem to make a clear decision. He raises a hand to acknowledge something, doesn’t wave play on, and then lets it continue. Only when we win the ball back does he stop the game with the keeper down. If he stopped it for an injury, why restart with a free kick? If it was a foul, why not call a foul? If he waved play-on, why not actually signal that, as he should?

Michael Skubala was incensed and booked, Chris Cohen having been booked earlier. Of course, they get the restart, sweep up field and score a goal that looked legit to me. Tom Bayliss gives the ball away after we win it, and they score. Fair enough, it’s a decent goal and tough to argue with, aside from the fact they shouldn’t have been awarded possession at that point.

We made changes, and while 3-0 finished the game, we were better after that. James Collins came on and looked lively, Oscar Thorn had some decent input, and Street had a good second half after being moved into the middle.  Rotherham’s crowd woke up briefly for the goal, but only because their manager started to gee them up. There were around 7,500 home fans there, which for a club of their size is surprising for a game against a local side on a Saturday.

The scoreline looks emphatic, but it doesn’t tell the full story. In truth, Rotherham’s goals came from long range, two of them contentious, and the game itself was far more even than the numbers suggest. Our xG was higher, we created more positional attacks, had more shots, and won more duels in every category. Those stats don’t win points, of course, but they do show that this wasn’t a hammering. The eye test told me we lost 3-0, but the actual numbers suggest there was only a little difference between the sides. Maybe if a few more of our shots in recent weeks had been hard and drilled rather than skied, we’d have taken advantage of all the top six teams losing yesterday.

Some Rotherham fans are calling it one of their best performances of the season because they scored three, but they weren’t cutting us open at will. They took a couple of chances, and we didn’t take the few we created. While we topped the xG (1.18 to their 0.62) ours came from 12 chances, so they were all half chances or hopeful efforts. That said, theirs came from 11 shots. You can read that either way you like, for me the disappointment is in conceding from such low xG against. For the record, Peterborough created better chances than Rotherham did, and we won that game with half the xG. Perception, right?

It’s easy to be emotional straight after a game. I was. Everyone is. But this morning, looking back at the footage, the numbers, and the incidents, it feels like one of those days where the fine margins went against us, and we weren’t quite on it. Horrendous? Shambles? Abysmal? No, I don’t think so. The disallowed goal, the offside block, the third goal confusion they all add up. The pragmatic pessimists will say it’s no excuse, etc. The optimists will cling onto it like a life raft in the social media waves of doom.

Me? Well, the facts and analysis balance out my initial ‘appalling’ reaction’ but I acknowledge we need to create better chances. We need a killer final ball, we need a striker who can be in the right place for loose balls. Some of our attacking play looked like strangers passing in the night, which is at odds with the excellent stuff we played against Luton and Stevenage. We missed House and Darikwa, but we have a deep enough squad to cover that, don’t we?

Maybe. The key is probably the ten role. Freddie was decent there earlier in the season, and House is a workhorse there, but we don’t have a Moylan or Hackett available to pull a few strings in front of the opposition defence. We tried a lot to get down the sides, and looked better when we had the natural wide players there, but there is something disjointed about some of our attacking football at present. Were we 3-0 bad? No. If we’d drawn 0-0, few could have complained.

The fact is, Rotherham did what they needed to do; we didn’t. No, we didn’t play well, and yes, we probably deserved to lose. But 3-0 wasn’t a fair scoreline, and it wasn’t a reflection of a side in crisis. It was a game that swung on moments, on decisions, and on a little bit of luck.