I'm not really convinced that our out of possession work is very good. Yes in isolation our defensive numbers look good but that comes at the heavy price of possession and attacking stats.
We do seem to be well drilled. I think we know our triggers, when to press and when to sit back, but are the triggers defined correctly. If we don't get possession and don't go on to mount effective attacks then are the triggers too negative, making our off the ball defensive stats look good?
I think all these things are interwoven.
Statistics alone don't tell you the answer.
The main criticism with MK was lack of ambition in style?
If the opposition are crap, long ball is the way to go....because there is no risk at your end but you will get the ball back.(local park level)
If the opposition are better, long ball is not the way to go because you will never see the ball and you will end up defending and defending until you eventually concede.(Top club and international level).
L1 in my mind is the cusp of where these 2 extremes meet.
Most teams can keep the ball if they set out to but not many have great teeth to punish a resolute defence.
Most teams will however be able to hit an over ambitious team on the counter.
So all these different elements work to a point.
The ultimate answer is to have better players than the opposition....
So you can be - good without the ball - which we are - but also then good with the ball - which is where the jury is out.
Out possibly because we didn't try to keep the ball...but it did precluded being counter attacked or cocking up while passing around at the back.
Interesting even allowing for the sending off last Saturday we had 58% possession and played a passing game much more.....
....and we were much more vulnerable to the counter attack.
All steps forward have a nearly equal step back.
(including pressing more aggressively).