A distant drum...V Plymouth Argyle Sat 27th Aug. 3-o'clock.

[nicholaldo]

My suspicion is that it's not simply a reaction to losing a couple of matches. I think much of the negativity can be attributed to the realisation that our Achilles heel last season - an inability to beat the very best, especially when it matters - still seems to be as big a problem this season.

I have little doubt things will improve and I think we are very capable of putting together a lengthy run of good results, just as we have the previous two seasons. To be promoted from this league, however, will very likely involve us having to demonstrate we can beat fellow contenders for promotion and thus far we haven't managed it.

The above is no disaster in the grand scheme of things, particularly considering the progress made in a short period of time, but I think a lot of our suppporters, not for the first time, got carried away and assumed we were better than we were. The sudden, early realisation that we might not be has, I imagine, hit quite hard.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

From Burton to season's end we played 15 games and had 213 efforts on goal, an average of 14.3 per game.

That was also our season average for shots per game. With 4.9 on target per match.

What does the data look like form Crewe away till the end?

Nah, my data spreadsheet has that above our seasonal average... of 13.2. From Crewe away it was 12.1.

Shots on target were also up in those last 15 games from 4.2 to 4.5. From Crewe away it was 3.8.

Interestingly the xG was 1.4 across the season, in the last 15 games and from Crewe away.

What certainly went up is goals scored. We averaged 1.6 gpg across the season, 1.8 in the last 15, 1.9 from Crewe away, and 2 goals per game from the Ipswich home game onwards (ie the "Trafford era" – we averaged 1.8 gpg with Fossey in the team). The big question is whether that goal glut predicted a new paradigm or was merely a phase prior to reversion to the mean. The fact we've averaged 0.8 goals per league game this season sadly suggests the latter.

For comparison, this season In the league only (NB last season's averages include cup games) we've had 12.1 shots per game, 3.83 on target and 1.3 xG - so very similar to the stats from Crewe onwards, but with much less reward. I see Evatt has reverted to his old "tee to green" metaphor, which is fine as far as it goes but doesn't include a golfing allusion to our self-imposed defensive frailties (smashing yourself in the face with the club?). Either way, it's time we sorted our finishing out.

[Worthy4England]

The other thing that happened is our goals conceded went down...Happy days

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The other thing that happened is our goals conceded went down...Happy days

Goals conceded average:
Last season (all games) 1.24
Last season (Trafford era) 0.91
Last season (Burton onwards) 1.07
Last season (Crewe onwards) 1
This season (league only) 1

[BWFC_Insane]

From Burton to season's end we played 15 games and had 213 efforts on goal, an average of 14.3 per game.

That was also our season average for shots per game. With 4.9 on target per match.

What does the data look like form Crewe away till the end?

Nah, my data spreadsheet has that above our seasonal average... of 13.2. From Crewe away it was 12.1.

Shots on target were also up in those last 15 games from 4.2 to 4.5. From Crewe away it was 3.8.

Interestingly the xG was 1.4 across the season, in the last 15 games and from Crewe away.

What certainly went up is goals scored. We averaged 1.6 gpg across the season, 1.8 in the last 15, 1.9 from Crewe away, and 2 goals per game from the Ipswich home game onwards (ie the "Trafford era" – we averaged 1.8 gpg with Fossey in the team). The big question is whether that goal glut predicted a new paradigm or was merely a phase prior to reversion to the mean. The fact we've averaged 0.8 goals per league game this season sadly suggests the latter.

For comparison, this season In the league only (NB last season's averages include cup games) we've had 12.1 shots per game, 3.83 on target and 1.3 xG - so very similar to the stats from Crewe onwards, but with much less reward. I see Evatt has reverted to his old "tee to green" metaphor, which is fine as far as it goes but doesn't include a golfing allusion to our self-imposed defensive frailties (smashing yourself in the face with the club?). Either way, it's time we sorted our finishing out.

Wow ok that’s a lot of information and data - thanks!

I see various aggregators with slightly different numbers but none let you select portions of the season.

What’s interesting is my anecdotal view that we were less effective in terms of chances post Fossey is reflected in that data. Our run in once he was injured had less shots than before. And seemingly our strikers converting a high proportion of chances as we had Bod and Baka in form.

I’d say it underlines my anecdotal view that our football tailed off and what kept the results coming was a combination of taking chances and defending relatively well.

As I see it to improve in terms of new players we need to find someone or some players who can restore us to our pre Crewe sort of mode where we peaked in terms of chances and expected goals. As much as at some point our strikers will start converting and Santos will one assumes stop giving ridiculous goals away Evatt can’t really do much about that but what we need is to focus on chance creation and overall punch through the side in the final third. Fossey offered a lot of this with his pace, ability to deliver some decent balls and also his stretching out of the play. Bradley might be a better all rounder but hasn’t got quite the same skill set in the final third and Iredale as I’ve said is more pedestrian than is ideal (whilst obviously also being a very good player). For me our problem is balance in the side. A lack of pace. A lack of quality delivery.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

For the record, the data is from PA via BBC (except xG which I get from Experimental 361) and lives in a spreadsheet that I keep with player appearances plus results, possession %, shots on/off target (us and them), xG (us and them). I used to get out more.

Fossey made his debut at Hartlepool but let's take his league games, from Wycombe to Plymouth (he was injured very late in that game and otherwise played all but six minutes). That's a 15-game run - again, a third of the season, give or take.

Here's our numbers from last season with Fossey (before the dot) and without him (after the dot, and this time I went to the faffy effort of only doing league games).

FOR
Shots 13.53 • 13.6
Shots OT 4.6 • 4.13
xG 2.51 • 1.4
Goals 1.93 • 1.45

...so we actually had very marginally more efforts on goal without him than with him, but we were more accurate (see On Target), made considerably better chances (according to xG) and, most importantly, scored more goals.

Interesting to note that things also picked up in defence - although obviously the without-Foz figures include that long hard descent into winter when we sometimes had, lest we forget, a midfield trio of Johnston, Thomason and Delfouneso.

AGAINST
Shots 9.7 • 12.1
Shots OT 3.73 • 4.29
xGa 1.1 • 1.3
Goals 0.93 • 1.39

[Bruce Rioja]

Can someone point me in the direction of these 'moral victories' which Evatt's claiming to be "sick of winning", please?

[Worthy4England]

The other thing that happened is our goals conceded went down...Happy days

Goals conceded average:
Last season (all games) 1.24
Last season (Trafford era) 0.91
Last season (Burton onwards) 1.07
Last season (Crewe onwards) 1
This season (league only) 1

Yeah sorta depends where "start" and "finish' are I though post Dec, we got to 0.8-0.88 (memory thing) whereas pre Jan we were 1.6 or something ridiculous..

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The other thing that happened is our goals conceded went down...Happy days

Goals conceded average:
Last season (all games) 1.24
Last season (Trafford era) 0.91
Last season (Burton onwards) 1.07
Last season (Crewe onwards) 1
This season (league only) 1

Yeah sorta depends where "start" and "finish' are I though post Dec, we got to 0.8-0.88 (memory thing) whereas pre Jan we were 1.6 or something ridiculous..

Aye. Up to Wycombe - last game before Trafford, so presumably the worst after that weird start full of 3-3s - we averaged 1.54 goals conceded per league game.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Can someone point me in the direction of these 'moral victories' which Evatt's claiming to be "sick of winning", please?

Presumably he means Plymouth, although they had more efforts on goal than us, or Wednesday, although they had a higher xG than us.

[Bruce Rioja]

Can someone point me in the direction of these 'moral victories' which Evatt's claiming to be "sick of winning", please?

Presumably he means Plymouth, although they had more efforts on goal than us, or Wednesday, although they had a higher xG than us.

So he's TOoHA again then?!

[BWFC_Insane]

For the record, the data is from PA via BBC (except xG which I get from Experimental 361) and lives in a spreadsheet that I keep with player appearances plus results, possession %, shots on/off target (us and them), xG (us and them). I used to get out more.

Fossey made his debut at Hartlepool but let's take his league games, from Wycombe to Plymouth (he was injured very late in that game and otherwise played all but six minutes). That's a 15-game run - again, a third of the season, give or take.

Here's our numbers from last season with Fossey (before the dot) and without him (after the dot, and this time I went to the faffy effort of only doing league games).

FOR
Shots 13.53 • 13.6
Shots OT 4.6 • 4.13
xG 2.51 • 1.4
Goals 1.93 • 1.45

...so we actually had very marginally more efforts on goal without him than with him, but we were more accurate (see On Target), made considerably better chances (according to xG) and, most importantly, scored more goals.

Interesting to note that things also picked up in defence - although obviously the without-Foz figures include that long hard descent into winter when we sometimes had, lest we forget, a midfield trio of Johnston, Thomason and Delfouneso.

AGAINST
Shots 9.7 • 12.1
Shots OT 3.73 • 4.29
xGa 1.1 • 1.3
Goals 0.93 • 1.39

Yeah. Thanks. I think comparison to the first half with almost a different team and very different system probably isn’t as useful as looking at the with Fossey end and without Fossey end. We obviously tailed off. I don’t think that’s all Fossey either some players dipped and we were a bit less effective and the data shows it. We are now very similar to the end of last season but just far less clinical and more defensively suspect.

You have two options. Fix the clinical and defensive side with new players or look to balance the side better to hit that 15 game run we had or the start of the season form where in both cases we were creating more chances.

That’s how I see it.

You can argue the end of the season was proof we have no need to worry I’d argue that the trend from then of fewer shots and shots on target than our previous season averages is a continuation into this season. The numbers look scarily similar. And anecdotally the end of the season felt very reliant on superb form of a couple of strikers and a difficult to break down defence. But end of season football can be a little less intense or have a different perspective and possibly we benefited from this at times. Wigan away a good example completely outplayed for most of the game but we scored with more or less our only chance. And a draw was far from disastrous for Wigan. Had that been in August they may have more forcefully gone for the win against us while they could.

[Worthy4England]

I don't think we tailed off in terms of points per game without Fossey (but I'd have to go recheck)

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

I don't think we tailed off in terms of points per game without Fossey (but I'd have to go recheck)

1.93 ppg with Fossey, 2.25 after

His average was dragged down by losses to Wycombe, McDons, Plymouth and bloody Burton (plus two draws with sodding Morecambe) – but that just means that even with our beloved Yankee we were still unable to win six-pointers and had an Achilles heel against Big Ugly Buggers

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't think we tailed off in terms of points per game without Fossey (but I'd have to go recheck)

No but looking at the effectiveness of our attacking play shows it was lower and that’s my anecdotal view from watching. PPG can be distorted by a striker being on form and taking every chance. The only difference between now and end of the season looking at the stats is we are scoring fewer and conceding more. Shots wise it’s remarkably similar. The period we had more shots was early last season and the 15 games or so with Fossey in and others bang on form.

[Worthy4England]

I don't think we tailed off in terms of points per game without Fossey (but I'd have to go recheck)

No but looking at the effectiveness of our attacking play shows it was lower and that’s my anecdotal view from watching. PPG can be distorted by a striker being on form and taking every chance. The only difference between now and end of the season looking at the stats is we are scoring fewer and conceding more. Shots wise it’s remarkably similar. The period we had more shots was early last season and the 15 games or so with Fossey in and others bang on form.

I doubt there's "rights and wrongs" and folks will pick their stats to make their point. Shots never wins games, goals do. PPG can be distorted by many things, but that's the one stat which determines whether you go up or not. Similarly, scoring fewer and conceding more is rarely a great sign

[BWFC_Insane]

I don't think we tailed off in terms of points per game without Fossey (but I'd have to go recheck)

No but looking at the effectiveness of our attacking play shows it was lower and that’s my anecdotal view from watching. PPG can be distorted by a striker being on form and taking every chance. The only difference between now and end of the season looking at the stats is we are scoring fewer and conceding more. Shots wise it’s remarkably similar. The period we had more shots was early last season and the 15 games or so with Fossey in and others bang on form.

I doubt there's "rights and wrongs" and folks will pick their stats to make their point. Shots never wins games, goals do. PPG can be distorted by many things, but that's the one stat which determines whether you go up or not. Similarly, scoring fewer and conceding more is rarely a great sign

I guess I’m looking at stats to show that the side that beat Sunderland (eventual play off winners) and beat 8th place Oxford away, two of our more notable results against better teams in the league was better at chance creation then the team that ended the season. And that team that ended the season has continued that level of chance creation over to this season yet the strikers aren’t showing the same form.

Anecdotally we felt a better side around that time than at the end to me at least and some of the stats would support that. I don’t think the way we finished was beating Sunderland by 6 and nor is the way we’ve started.

[TANGODANCER]

Anecdotally we felt a better side around that time than at the end to me at least and some of the stats would support that. I don’t think the way we finished was beating Sunderland by 6 and nor is the way we’ve started.

"Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by that same door as in I went."
Omar Khayyam. 12th century philosopher.

Sort of, shades of Ian Evatt.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

The other thing that happened is our goals conceded went down...Happy days

Goals conceded average:
Last season (all games) 1.24
Last season (Trafford era) 0.91
Last season (Burton onwards) 1.07
Last season (Crewe onwards) 1
This season (league only) 1

Correction - this season 0.83 per league game. Gremlin in the abacus.

Can someone point me in the direction of these 'moral victories' which Evatt's claiming to be "sick of winning", please?

Presumably he means Plymouth, although they had more efforts on goal than us, or Wednesday, although they had a higher xG than us.

So he's TOoHA again then?!

Another correction: we had more shots than Plymouth. So it'll be that.