The 'mistakes' he refers to in my opinion is due to not having the correct tactical approach, players under pressure with no outball or anybody in space to pass to either try and dribble there way into an outball or take more of a risk
It is nonsense to attribute all mistakes purely down to individual errors, some of them are forced due to a poor tactical approach, we saw that a few times with howson having nobody in space to pass into and trying to dribble past too many
3-5-1-1 we all know leaves Muniz too isolated and forces the team to focus all attacks down the wings, if the wingbacks are shut down it falls flat on its ****, as it has done now
for the vast majority of the season, we all know that Wilder is stubborn and dogmatic to his tactical approach, definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again
expecting a different result
Nice excuse though, just blame individual errors - he's the one forcing the team into playing a certain way in a certain style that forces errors, don't be fooled by his confirmation bias with xG and
all that nonsense
I know what you mean, certain types of play can result in more errors, but on most occasions, they've been self-inflicted problems from absolute basics, which we believe the players to be better than, this is no matter what formation or style is being played. Positioning, closing down, being dispossessed in silly areas (rather than kicking it out) etc. That's not just the player on the ball, it's the others around them being half asleep or being in the wrong position (which any of them should understand, we've been doing it for a year). It's clear as day, Fry and McNair on Tuesday are good examples, for the first two goals.
Muniz wouldn't be isolated if we played up to him, via the midfield, rather than launching it up to him, 3-5-2 or 3-5-1-1 are not suited to long ball, as the long ball goes straight over the top of your numerical/ wide advantage. We should want the ball in midfield and out on the wings, to get it up top, not be cutting out the midfield etc. Every good half we've had, or good game we've done exactly this.
The definition of insanity (wrongly attributed to Einstien) would only apply when the probability is against you.
When the probability has been for you (proven by a combination of possession, shots for, shots against, crosses for, crosses against, xG, xGA), and you expect that to continue, then there is no reason to change what you're doing, unless you think you can increase the probability. You would need to trust the stats though, as you would be looking to improve on shots, crosses and all the various xG stats, and lessen those against. Ultimately the aim of the game is to create the best chances and give the least away, and from that you need to put them away and assume the opposition won't score more than they expect to.
Stats, when based on factual data (or even relatively accurate, averaged data) are ultimately worth more than opinion and feel, and every professional team is relying on this sort of data, in most professional sports, they know what they're doing more than any of us.
It's not confirmation bias mentioning xG in all games, as in mention it when you've been on top and not got what it suggested (Stoke, Sheff Utd, Reading etc), and also mention it when you've not been on top and got more than suggested (Swansea etc).
