| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . 09:25 - Feb 1 with 2009 views | bsw72 |
I’m not convinced the idea that we “can’t break down a low block” really holds up when you look beyond the scoreline. A low block is basically teams sitting deep and compact, happy to concede territory while protecting the space in front of their box. Against that kind of setup this season, we haven’t looked short of ideas or penetration. We’re actually 4th in the Championship for touches in the opposition box (751) and average around 40 touches in the box per game. You simply don’t post those numbers if you’re stuck passing sideways with no way through.
The underlying attacking data supports that view. We’re generating around 1.7 xG per match, which is a healthy return, and we’re also second-highest scorers in the league overall. Where the frustration comes from is how some of these games feel. We dominate territory, we keep the ball in the final third, but we don’t always make it count. That points far more towards finishing and moments than a structural problem. The “big chances missed” numbers back that up, games that get labelled as “low block struggles” are often just games where we didn’t take the chances we created.
So when the narrative pops up that Ipswich can’t cope with teams sitting deep, I think it’s worth challenging it. The evidence suggests we don’t struggle to play against a low block; we struggle to be ruthless once we’ve already beaten it. That’s a very different issue, and a much less worrying one than the idea that teams can simply sit in and neutralise us.
I will add that i am not a fan of the term "low block" or the use of xG as a truly scientific measure, but felt I needed to post the relevant data in the modern wording . . . |  | | |  |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:30 - Feb 1 with 1529 views | Herbivore |
Hirst and Clarke both missed a couple of good opportunities each yesterday, we had one off the line from a corner, should have had another penalty (arguably two), and Kipre missed a sitter at the death. We (not for the first time) underperformed our xG yesterday and missed big chances. We didn't struggle to break them down, we struggled to take our chances. |  |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:34 - Feb 1 with 1501 views | Blue_Heath |
XG counts for nothing. We have a knack of having 70% possession and going in 0-0 at half time and the opposition have had the best chances in the game. We are also very reliant on Philogene bangers to break this down. |  |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:41 - Feb 1 with 1460 views | bsw72 |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:34 - Feb 1 by Blue_Heath |
XG counts for nothing. We have a knack of having 70% possession and going in 0-0 at half time and the opposition have had the best chances in the game. We are also very reliant on Philogene bangers to break this down. |
That reply kind of proves the point rather than undermining it. My post wasn’t just about xG, it was one part of the picture, alongside territory, box touches and chances missed. Saying “xG counts for nothing” and then describing games where we have 70% possession, sustained pressure and lots of final-third involvement is exactly the distinction I was making: dominance without punishment is a finishing problem, not a structural inability to break teams down.
Going in at 0–0 despite control doesn’t mean the opposition have worked us out. It usually means we haven’t taken the chances we’ve created. Touches in the box matter because they show where the game is being played. If we were genuinely clueless against low blocks, we wouldn’t be living in the opposition area, we’d be stuck crossing from 35 yards or recycling possession harmlessly. The fact that people can point to missed sitters, poor final balls or rushed finishes actually reinforces the argument: we are getting there, we’re just not converting consistently.
And the Philogene point is a bit of a red herring. Yes, he scores screamers, that’s what good players do when space is limited, but relying on moments of quality doesn’t mean the system isn’t creating openings. It means when the margins are tight, execution matters more. This isn’t “xG excuses”; it’s recognising that low blocks reduce shot quality, not chance creation. Confusing the two is how you end up blaming tactics for what are, more often than not, failures in finishing or decision-making. | | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:43 - Feb 1 with 1436 views | RetroBlue |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:30 - Feb 1 by Herbivore |
Hirst and Clarke both missed a couple of good opportunities each yesterday, we had one off the line from a corner, should have had another penalty (arguably two), and Kipre missed a sitter at the death. We (not for the first time) underperformed our xG yesterday and missed big chances. We didn't struggle to break them down, we struggled to take our chances. |
Id suggest we did both. Struggle to break them down and as usual miss gilt edged chances. All our strikers lack the quality required.
If only we'd mix up our approach a bit. We take so long to get the ball out of defence, our opponents are already in place , in depth and simply waiting for us . How about the occasional hit on the break from us, to make opponents more on their toes?
Our opponents are not having to work especially hard to defend, because we move the ball so slowly about the pitch. That's a McKenna tactic ( our/ his identity?) and approach to every game without fail, and every opposition manager knows it before they've got off their team bus. |  |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:45 - Feb 1 with 1422 views | Cafe_Newman |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:34 - Feb 1 by Blue_Heath |
XG counts for nothing. We have a knack of having 70% possession and going in 0-0 at half time and the opposition have had the best chances in the game. We are also very reliant on Philogene bangers to break this down. |
XG counts for nothing in terms of points after the match but it does explain that we're creating chances which are not being taken.
KMcK's not being "found out" by some magical counter-tactic called a "low block".
There's no mystical "plan b" missing either. We just need to get more of our players to take the chances that come their way... or find someone else who can.
This is exactly what the OP is pointing out. |  | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:47 - Feb 1 with 1410 views | Herbivore |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:43 - Feb 1 by RetroBlue |
Id suggest we did both. Struggle to break them down and as usual miss gilt edged chances. All our strikers lack the quality required.
If only we'd mix up our approach a bit. We take so long to get the ball out of defence, our opponents are already in place , in depth and simply waiting for us . How about the occasional hit on the break from us, to make opponents more on their toes?
Our opponents are not having to work especially hard to defend, because we move the ball so slowly about the pitch. That's a McKenna tactic ( our/ his identity?) and approach to every game without fail, and every opposition manager knows it before they've got off their team bus. |
If we struggled to break them down, how did we manage to create those gilt edged chances that we missed? | |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:59 - Feb 1 with 1369 views | Cafe_Newman |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:47 - Feb 1 by Herbivore |
If we struggled to break them down, how did we manage to create those gilt edged chances that we missed? |
It's not even worth asking. There's a sizable bunch of our fans that would think we're executing some sort of "plan b" when those gilt-edged chances get taken. It's almost as though they think "plan a" is "miss the target when it appears easier to hit it" and "plan b" is "score when it looks easy".
The only thing more frustrating than watching all these spurned opportunities during the match is reading half the comments about the match on here afterwards. | | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 10:38 - Feb 1 with 1222 views | bournemouthblue |
Not being less ruthless from the chances we do create, does suggest it limits us though, we clearly lack the players effective in these situations
Keiffer Moore to some extent was our answer to the low blocks teams in that promotion season, there's no doubt having a heading monster gives you a different option because if they're not winning the first contact, the second is probably causing problems as well. He was also pretty useful on the ground and a good finisher. [Post edited 1 Feb 10:38]
|  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 10:41 - Feb 1 with 1205 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:30 - Feb 1 by Herbivore |
Hirst and Clarke both missed a couple of good opportunities each yesterday, we had one off the line from a corner, should have had another penalty (arguably two), and Kipre missed a sitter at the death. We (not for the first time) underperformed our xG yesterday and missed big chances. We didn't struggle to break them down, we struggled to take our chances. |
We need a pretentious term for missing chances so it sounds like we know what we’re talking about.
What about ‘suboptimal conversion coefficient’? |  |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 10:48 - Feb 1 with 1183 views | Pinewoodblue |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:30 - Feb 1 by Herbivore |
Hirst and Clarke both missed a couple of good opportunities each yesterday, we had one off the line from a corner, should have had another penalty (arguably two), and Kipre missed a sitter at the death. We (not for the first time) underperformed our xG yesterday and missed big chances. We didn't struggle to break them down, we struggled to take our chances. |
If you want to talk xG just prior to Preston scoring our xG was half of theirs yet our xA was four times theirs. Most of our xG came in added time.
We really don’t mix it up enough, yes we are second in goals scored, and no one has a better defensive record but we are underperforming, missing too many chances.
So frustrating. |  |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 10:49 - Feb 1 with 1179 views | Garv |
It's a myth that people are running with.
We played well against a stubborn opposition (and referee) yesterday, and didn't put our chances away. That's it. |  |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 10:50 - Feb 1 with 1166 views | BloomBlue |
As I said on another post, Oxford and Blackburn played the defensive low block against us in recent home games and we beat both of those.
When we fail to beat a team that does play the low block a certain group of people roll out the old ' we NEVER beat a team who play a low block' - incorrect
Preston clearly wanted to go for a 0-0. If you look at the players they named and compare it to their official website and where Preston see their position, they started with 3 defenders, 6 midfielders and 1 forward. Any side will struggle to break that down. Their manager even said that's most defensive they've started again, because they were too open against teams like Boro
But, Yes we struggled, however Clarke had a chance when he couldn't decide to put it in the top corner or cross it. He then had a great chance but too scared to use his left. Hirst had chances. Score first and that forces Preston out |  | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 10:53 - Feb 1 with 1154 views | Herbivore |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 10:48 - Feb 1 by Pinewoodblue |
If you want to talk xG just prior to Preston scoring our xG was half of theirs yet our xA was four times theirs. Most of our xG came in added time.
We really don’t mix it up enough, yes we are second in goals scored, and no one has a better defensive record but we are underperforming, missing too many chances.
So frustrating. |
But even before they scored we had some decent chances. Hirst's miss was really poor, Clarke messing up when trying to cut back on his right foot after Mehmeti sent him clear was a very good opportunity that wouldn't even show in our xG as he didn't get a shot off. Clarke fluffed another one first half after Matusiwa played him in.
Agree that a lot of our chances came late, it was always a game where they might tire and we'd get chances late which makes it all the more frustrating that we gave them a poor goal to try and defend. But ultimately after the equaliser we had two very good penalty shouts and Kipre missed a sitter. Drawing yesterday had far more to do with not taking our chances (again) rather than us not knowing how to create against them. | |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:00 - Feb 1 with 1129 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
I've saying for a while, our biggest struggle this year is taking the big chances. We're doing most other things well.
Yesterday was another good example. SIX big chances, and we took one (the penalty). | | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:02 - Feb 1 with 1126 views | Dubtractor |
You can analyse it in different ways, but the fact remains that we struggle to beat teams that set up to stifle us. Added to which we often look really vulnerable to the counter attack from a lone front man chasing a ball into acres of space down the channels.
This season we've seen Derby, Charlton, Wrexham and now Preston come and get points from us at PR playing that way, and several others that we've toiled against. Those four are all games you'd expect to win in a promotion season.
Sometimes it's about missing good chances, and yesterday probably fell into that bracket, but in others we've simply not created enough at all.
All in all though, it adds huge weight to the argument that our striker options are simply not good enough. [Post edited 1 Feb 11:02]
|  |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:18 - Feb 1 with 1072 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:02 - Feb 1 by Dubtractor |
You can analyse it in different ways, but the fact remains that we struggle to beat teams that set up to stifle us. Added to which we often look really vulnerable to the counter attack from a lone front man chasing a ball into acres of space down the channels.
This season we've seen Derby, Charlton, Wrexham and now Preston come and get points from us at PR playing that way, and several others that we've toiled against. Those four are all games you'd expect to win in a promotion season.
Sometimes it's about missing good chances, and yesterday probably fell into that bracket, but in others we've simply not created enough at all.
All in all though, it adds huge weight to the argument that our striker options are simply not good enough. [Post edited 1 Feb 11:02]
|
Derby - 5 big chances, 2 taken
Charlton - 5 big chances, ZERO taken
Wrexham - 2 big chances, ZERO taken
Preston - 5 big chances, 1 taken
We are creating the clear chances in most games, just taking far too few. | | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:19 - Feb 1 with 1063 views | Dubtractor |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:18 - Feb 1 by SuffolkPunchFC |
Derby - 5 big chances, 2 taken
Charlton - 5 big chances, ZERO taken
Wrexham - 2 big chances, ZERO taken
Preston - 5 big chances, 1 taken
We are creating the clear chances in most games, just taking far too few. |
See my last paragraph! | |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:37 - Feb 1 with 1000 views | RichOBlue |
Best teams in the world struggle against a low block done well getting the early goal is the key |  |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:46 - Feb 1 with 941 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:19 - Feb 1 by Dubtractor |
See my last paragraph! |
Look into who have missed the big chances - it's not even mostly the CFs (OK - yesterday Hirst WAS the main culprit - but that's the exception rather than the rule)
Sure, I'd like a new striker if we could find the right fit, but it's not the silver bullet many claim it is. We play a system that doesn't rely on a 20 goal striker, but the other attackers have been missing too many big chances that have been provided to them. | | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:48 - Feb 1 with 916 views | One_Bobby_Petta |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:43 - Feb 1 by RetroBlue |
Id suggest we did both. Struggle to break them down and as usual miss gilt edged chances. All our strikers lack the quality required.
If only we'd mix up our approach a bit. We take so long to get the ball out of defence, our opponents are already in place , in depth and simply waiting for us . How about the occasional hit on the break from us, to make opponents more on their toes?
Our opponents are not having to work especially hard to defend, because we move the ball so slowly about the pitch. That's a McKenna tactic ( our/ his identity?) and approach to every game without fail, and every opposition manager knows it before they've got off their team bus. |
This exactly, I can’t understand our tactic of encouraging “the press” which I believe is to draw the opposition out of shape to then take so long getting the ball forwards that the team are back in formation before O’Shea has passed it to Furlong and back again a dozen times
We’re so predictable | | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:53 - Feb 1 with 888 views | bournemouthblue |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:02 - Feb 1 by Dubtractor |
You can analyse it in different ways, but the fact remains that we struggle to beat teams that set up to stifle us. Added to which we often look really vulnerable to the counter attack from a lone front man chasing a ball into acres of space down the channels.
This season we've seen Derby, Charlton, Wrexham and now Preston come and get points from us at PR playing that way, and several others that we've toiled against. Those four are all games you'd expect to win in a promotion season.
Sometimes it's about missing good chances, and yesterday probably fell into that bracket, but in others we've simply not created enough at all.
All in all though, it adds huge weight to the argument that our striker options are simply not good enough. [Post edited 1 Feb 11:02]
|
When attacking the low block, we leave ourselves particularly exposed when Davis is pushed up, that does need to be solution we can solve as well
Jebbison exploited that probably better than any other loan striker we have faced this season, we lack that kind of striker ourselves who can break with pace on the counter too [Post edited 1 Feb 12:53]
| |
| |
| No, Hirst is top…. on 11:56 - Feb 1 with 882 views | Bloots |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 11:46 - Feb 1 by SuffolkPunchFC |
Look into who have missed the big chances - it's not even mostly the CFs (OK - yesterday Hirst WAS the main culprit - but that's the exception rather than the rule)
Sure, I'd like a new striker if we could find the right fit, but it's not the silver bullet many claim it is. We play a system that doesn't rely on a 20 goal striker, but the other attackers have been missing too many big chances that have been provided to them. |
….of the most big chances missed in The Championship this season.
Azon is 7th.
We are the only team with 2 players in the top 10.
With respect, you are totally wrong. |  |
| "The holy trinity” - TWTD User (Jan 2026) |
| |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 12:01 - Feb 1 with 860 views | RonFearonsHair |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:34 - Feb 1 by Blue_Heath |
XG counts for nothing. We have a knack of having 70% possession and going in 0-0 at half time and the opposition have had the best chances in the game. We are also very reliant on Philogene bangers to break this down. |
We had a run of four home games where three were 0--0 at half-time (Charlton, West Brom and Wrexham, with Watford being 1-1).
Yesterday was the first time that has happened since, having led at half-time in the previous six consecutive home games. |  | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 12:04 - Feb 1 with 838 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 09:34 - Feb 1 by Blue_Heath |
XG counts for nothing. We have a knack of having 70% possession and going in 0-0 at half time and the opposition have had the best chances in the game. We are also very reliant on Philogene bangers to break this down. |
This is again blatantly inaccurate, but I'm sure you'll argue your flawed 'eye-test' tells you otherwise. In more games than not, we've had more big chances than the opposition. | | | |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 12:06 - Feb 1 with 820 views | Dubtractor |
| The "low block" struggle fallacy . . . on 12:04 - Feb 1 by SuffolkPunchFC |
This is again blatantly inaccurate, but I'm sure you'll argue your flawed 'eye-test' tells you otherwise. In more games than not, we've had more big chances than the opposition. |
It's not just an 'eye' test though. Preston had a higher Xg than us at half time yesterday - I'm a stats nerd and quite like looking at the various numbers than underpin football.
To be clear, I think we're doing OK overall this season, and with a striker signing tomorrow will be confident of top 2, but I think it's wrong to dismiss concerns about games like yesterday that we have seen play out far too many times. [Post edited 1 Feb 12:08]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
