Stats
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14055
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: Stats
@BWFCI I bet if you drill down on player stats, we'll see that Keiron Lee is probably one of the best at winning the ball in this division
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
PPDA is "possession-winning duels, tackles, interceptions, fouls" so we are literally winning the ball back quicker than any other team in the division.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:31 amThis is why I feel we need that ball winner who can be mobile round the pitch. We are good at pressing but don’t win the ball back enough.
And on a side note when we do we don’t make enough of it.
Your second point stands, though. We aren't doing enough with it (yet?). Although the 40m mark may be a little high (close to the oppo goal) for where our triggers are.
I would also expect more high-turnover moves to happen when we get Bod and/or Dapo back in the team. If Kacha wins the ball he dribbles sideways. If Charles wins the ball he shoots. If Baka wins the ball he falls over....
Evatt evangelises Lee and Kacha as our best two pressers. I don't know if that's an unsubtly coded message to Dapo, but wasn't he one of our hardest workers last season?boltonboris wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:47 am@BWFCI I bet if you drill down on player stats, we'll see that Keiron Lee is probably one of the best at winning the ball in this division
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36184
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Stats
Yes but I mean we don’t effect enough high turnovers and I feel that a more mobile version of Williams or a stronger Dempsey type would improve that.Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:53 amPPDA is "possession-winning duels, tackles, interceptions, fouls" so we are literally winning the ball back quicker than any other team in the division.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:31 amThis is why I feel we need that ball winner who can be mobile round the pitch. We are good at pressing but don’t win the ball back enough.
And on a side note when we do we don’t make enough of it.
Your second point stands, though. We aren't doing enough with it (yet?). Although the 40m mark may be a little high (close to the oppo goal) for where our triggers are.
I would also expect more high-turnover moves to happen when we get Bod and/or Dapo back in the team. If Kacha wins the ball he dribbles sideways. If Charles wins the ball he shoots. If Baka wins the ball he falls over....
Evatt evangelises Lee and Kacha as our best two pressers. I don't know if that's an unsubtly coded message to Dapo, but wasn't he one of our hardest workers last season?boltonboris wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 11:47 am@BWFCI I bet if you drill down on player stats, we'll see that Keiron Lee is probably one of the best at winning the ball in this division
We have Lee who I agree is a master at it but he won’t play week in week out.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
Fair. I admit I've been surprised by how much Lee *has* played. He's played the seventh-most minutes, which might not sound that impressive but he's only behind Traf, the usual back three plus Bradley and Iredale, ie the standard wingbacks. He's played more than Sadlier and Lee combined. He's started the last four non-Pizza games.
We might see Morley and Dempsey return Saturday but it wouldn't surprise me if Lee starts and is asked to give us an hour. Assuming he won't play in the Pizza next Tuesday, he's got a game-free fortnight to recover thanks to the Pompey call-off. And we have five subs now, so no one switch is as much of a 'card played' for the manager.
We might see Morley and Dempsey return Saturday but it wouldn't surprise me if Lee starts and is asked to give us an hour. Assuming he won't play in the Pizza next Tuesday, he's got a game-free fortnight to recover thanks to the Pompey call-off. And we have five subs now, so no one switch is as much of a 'card played' for the manager.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
I don't think that's right (but am interested who you meant... Dempsey?)Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:41 pmFair. I admit I've been surprised by how much Lee *has* played. He's played the seventh-most minutes, which might not sound that impressive but he's only behind Traf, the usual back three plus Bradley and Iredale, ie the standard wingbacks. He's played more than Sadlier and Lee combined. He's started the last four non-Pizza games.
We might see Morley and Dempsey return Saturday but it wouldn't surprise me if Lee starts and is asked to give us an hour. Assuming he won't play in the Pizza next Tuesday, he's got a game-free fortnight to recover thanks to the Pompey call-off. And we have five subs now, so no one switch is as much of a 'card played' for the manager.
The man is a Rolls Royce.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2449
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm
Re: Stats
Maybe Sadlier's played so little his contribution actually counts as negative minutes.
Nero fiddles while Gordon Burns.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
Set pieces, then...
Given recent convos (and indeed games) I thought I'd have the threatened dig into set-piece outcomes - at both ends. Usual stats caveats apply, but source for all data is WhoScored so we have to assume it's standardised and consistent.
GOALS
In the League Two season we scored 7 goals off set-pieces - technically joint-22nd, but nobody scored fewer. We conceded 17 (5th-worst).
Last season we scored 9 (joint 20th-best, only two teams scored fewer). We conceded 16 (joint 8th-worst).
This season we’ve scored 3 (joint 14th-best). We’ve conceded 3 (joint 14th-worst).
We’ve played 15 games of the 46 so 3 x 46/15 = 9.2 (scored and conceded)
- meaning we’re on track for scoring around the same but conceding far fewer - almost half.
. .
SHOTS
It’s not just about goals - you can play for set pieces and pepper the oppo with attempts without scoring. WhoScored also records each team’s attempts on goal (obviously could be headers, but let’s call it shots). Sadly it doesn’t record “shots against” over the season, as far as I can see – happy to be pointed that way if someone can find it.
In the League Two season we had 118 attempts on goal - 23rd-best (only Southend had fewer).
Last season we had 147 shots from set pieces - joint 14th-best.
This season we’ve had 45 shots from set-pieces - 19th in the division. (Ipswich are top on 83 - they’re also 20 clear of the rest on shots from open play.) 45 x 46/15 = 138 so we’re tracking slightly below last season’s attempts on goal.
. .
Obviously this is disappointing and we need to keep seeking ways to improve it - the recent emergence of the Love Train / Bus Queue suggests thoughts are being had and plans hatched (is that where the motor cars race?); and considering we're tracking for slightly more goals, from apparently slightly fewer shots, we might be getting slightly better at conversion...
That's all arguable but we can at least be happy that despite very recent appearances, we are conceding far fewer from set pieces than in Evatt’s two previous seasons. Long may that improvement continue.
Given recent convos (and indeed games) I thought I'd have the threatened dig into set-piece outcomes - at both ends. Usual stats caveats apply, but source for all data is WhoScored so we have to assume it's standardised and consistent.
GOALS
In the League Two season we scored 7 goals off set-pieces - technically joint-22nd, but nobody scored fewer. We conceded 17 (5th-worst).
Last season we scored 9 (joint 20th-best, only two teams scored fewer). We conceded 16 (joint 8th-worst).
This season we’ve scored 3 (joint 14th-best). We’ve conceded 3 (joint 14th-worst).
We’ve played 15 games of the 46 so 3 x 46/15 = 9.2 (scored and conceded)
- meaning we’re on track for scoring around the same but conceding far fewer - almost half.
. .
SHOTS
It’s not just about goals - you can play for set pieces and pepper the oppo with attempts without scoring. WhoScored also records each team’s attempts on goal (obviously could be headers, but let’s call it shots). Sadly it doesn’t record “shots against” over the season, as far as I can see – happy to be pointed that way if someone can find it.
In the League Two season we had 118 attempts on goal - 23rd-best (only Southend had fewer).
Last season we had 147 shots from set pieces - joint 14th-best.
This season we’ve had 45 shots from set-pieces - 19th in the division. (Ipswich are top on 83 - they’re also 20 clear of the rest on shots from open play.) 45 x 46/15 = 138 so we’re tracking slightly below last season’s attempts on goal.
. .
Obviously this is disappointing and we need to keep seeking ways to improve it - the recent emergence of the Love Train / Bus Queue suggests thoughts are being had and plans hatched (is that where the motor cars race?); and considering we're tracking for slightly more goals, from apparently slightly fewer shots, we might be getting slightly better at conversion...
That's all arguable but we can at least be happy that despite very recent appearances, we are conceding far fewer from set pieces than in Evatt’s two previous seasons. Long may that improvement continue.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Stats
Quick question, is attempt on goal and shots on target the same thing? Or are we still analysing the things like Big Ric's shot that knocked the North Stand into Scan Computer's car park as an attempt on goal?
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
LOL. Shots/attempts include those off target unless specifically designated "on target," which is naturally a subset. I hadn't really thought about it before but "shots on goal" does mean "efforts of any accuracy, including minimal"Worthy4England wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 11:41 amQuick question, is attempt on goal and shots on target the same thing? Or are we still analysing the things like Big Ric's shot that knocked the North Stand into Scan Computer's car park as an attempt on goal?
That is the case in the post above - "Shots" means all attempts including floodlight-threatening swingers and tame headers wide. Plus ones requiring saves, and even goals - still a shot, innit. (Unless it's an own goal. Don't go there.)
Apologies for the confusion - I'll try to be clearer in future.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Stats
Cheers mate. I've never understood the rationale for counting things that are never troubling the score board (unless they happen to hit it )
Chances is (to me) an awful metric, put forwards as some sort of mitigation to generally not creating opportunities that you score from. "Look at how good we were" whilst their keeper doesn't need to put his kit in the wash. People make careers from measuring shit that has no outcome...
Chances is (to me) an awful metric, put forwards as some sort of mitigation to generally not creating opportunities that you score from. "Look at how good we were" whilst their keeper doesn't need to put his kit in the wash. People make careers from measuring shit that has no outcome...
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
heh. I hear you, but it has some worth.
If you have 100 shots per game without scoring, you need shooting practice. If you have zero shots per month, the problem lies elsewhere.
It's a metric with flaws - aren't they all? - but it can reveal some things, I think. You're allowed to think differently, of course... but the thread title suggests it might be deliberately curmudgeonly
If you have 100 shots per game without scoring, you need shooting practice. If you have zero shots per month, the problem lies elsewhere.
It's a metric with flaws - aren't they all? - but it can reveal some things, I think. You're allowed to think differently, of course... but the thread title suggests it might be deliberately curmudgeonly
Re: Stats
Quite possibly me being thick, but how does that work?Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:58 amSet pieces, then...
Given recent convos (and indeed games) I thought I'd have the threatened dig into set-piece outcomes - at both ends. Usual stats caveats apply, but source for all data is WhoScored so we have to assume it's standardised and consistent.
GOALS
In the League Two season we scored 7 goals off set-pieces - technically joint-22nd, but nobody scored fewer. We conceded 17 (5th-worst).
Is a fair summary on set pieces: better than we were but still shit?
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
Three teams scored 7 goals, so we're all joint 22nd-best - or 1st-worst, if you prefer.Prufrock wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:05 pmQuite possibly me being thick, but how does that work?Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:58 amGOALS
In the League Two season we scored 7 goals off set-pieces - technically joint-22nd, but nobody scored fewer. We conceded 17 (5th-worst).
Ha. It's funnier than it is fair. Let me put it a different way.
If the league table were suddenly, retrospectively decided on "goals scored from set pieces" rather than "points", then we'd have been joint-bottom in Evatt's first season, just above relegation (joint 20th) last season, lower mid-table (joint 14th) this season. So "better but still not very good", unless your shit-gradation has lower levels like Very Shit and Exceedingly Shit.
If the league table were suddenly, retrospectively decided on "goals conceded from set pieces" rather than "points", then we'd have been just above relegation (5th-worst) in Evatt's first season, lower mid-table (joint 8th-worst) last season and just below the playoffs (joint 14th-worst) this. So yeah, still plenty improvement to make...
Re: Stats
So yes I was being thick, and need to learn what 14th worst meansDave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:21 pmThree teams scored 7 goals, so we're all joint 22nd-best - or 1st-worst, if you prefer.Prufrock wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:05 pmQuite possibly me being thick, but how does that work?Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:58 amGOALS
In the League Two season we scored 7 goals off set-pieces - technically joint-22nd, but nobody scored fewer. We conceded 17 (5th-worst).
Ha. It's funnier than it is fair. Let me put it a different way.
If the league table were suddenly, retrospectively decided on "goals scored from set pieces" rather than "points", then we'd have been joint-bottom in Evatt's first season, just above relegation (joint 20th) last season, lower mid-table (joint 14th) this season. So "better but still not very good", unless your shit-gradation has lower levels like Very Shit and Exceedingly Shit.
If the league table were suddenly, retrospectively decided on "goals conceded from set pieces" rather than "points", then we'd have been just above relegation (5th-worst) in Evatt's first season, lower mid-table (joint 8th-worst) last season and just below the playoffs (joint 14th-worst) this. So yeah, still plenty improvement to make...
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Stats
Oh quite. There are plenty of stats that have some value, somewhere (so yeah to your 100 shots per game without scoring stat.) Where I don't like it is when Managers play the "look at all the chances we created" blx, when the only time the GK had to bend down, was to tie his boots before kick-off. Like we should be pleased that the main purposes of the sport - score more goals than the opposition - is somehow secondary to the artform of creating chances...Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 1:03 pmheh. I hear you, but it has some worth.
If you have 100 shots per game without scoring, you need shooting practice. If you have zero shots per month, the problem lies elsewhere.
It's a metric with flaws - aren't they all? - but it can reveal some things, I think. You're allowed to think differently, of course... but the thread title suggests it might be deliberately curmudgeonly
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
Yeah. If any manager tells you chance creation is more important than goalscoring he's clearly talking out of his hoop or he has an agenda.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Wed Oct 26, 2022 2:08 pmOh quite. There are plenty of stats that have some value, somewhere (so yeah to your 100 shots per game without scoring stat.) Where I don't like it is when Managers play the "look at all the chances we created" blx, when the only time the GK had to bend down, was to tie his boots before kick-off. Like we should be pleased that the main purposes of the sport - score more goals than the opposition - is somehow secondary to the artform of creating chances...
Except that...
If you have one shot per game and win three successive games 1-0, it's highly unlikely to continue. Whereas if you're having 100 shots per game and keep losing 1-0, it's definitely fixable.
Obviously reductio ad absurdum but there's some sort of truth there.
It's a bit like the old winning/sexy football matrix: losing long-ball < losing nice-ball < winning long-ball < winning nice-ball.
In this case, no shots and no goals < many shots and few goals < many shots and many goals.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: brommers95, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 209 guests