Stats
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36184
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Stats
Of course…but the highlights on YouTube reflect the differences. I’m not claiming we camped our box. It’s like anything a balanced change. Dropping off slightly to reduce our liability in behind.GhostoftheBok wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:13 pmHang on. You watched the actual game, right? Not just the highlights? Just making sure.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:08 pmVisibly deeper. If you compare the highlights to Wycombe it’s clear we left less space in behind. Without camping out on the edge of our box. But we were as a result able to get greater numbers back. You can watch the highlights in the official YouTube and you can see the difference.
Re: Stats
I mean the highlights tend to show a) when teams are defending deep (not many highlights happen in the centre-circle) and b) when the defending hasn't worked very well.
I just don't think it's right to say we set up to defend deeper. Of course we got pushed back sometimes. And with a back 5, taking fewer risks, and against a team that looked to keep the ball and didn't have wingers we got turned around less. But we still pushed up and tried to press as the starting point.
And those graphics from DSB seem to support that.
I just don't think it's right to say we set up to defend deeper. Of course we got pushed back sometimes. And with a back 5, taking fewer risks, and against a team that looked to keep the ball and didn't have wingers we got turned around less. But we still pushed up and tried to press as the starting point.
And those graphics from DSB seem to support that.
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:
- brommers95
- Reliable
- Posts: 864
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:10 pm
Re: Stats
Right, without cheating - I’ll say that the bottom tackle and bottom touch map are from the Ipswich gameDave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:07 pmI haven't said which way round they are... nobody guessed
- GhostoftheBok
- Legend
- Posts: 6826
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:51 pm
Re: Stats
I think the main mistake here is imagining that the low passing percentage, low possession numbers, etc were desirable parts of the plan - rather than a side effect of being more careful with a new system with some young players thrown in.
Going direct into runners and a target man is nothing new for an Evatt side. Evatt hasn't changed what he wants to do. This is the guy who had Scott Quigley leading his line. The "passing it about at the back slowly" was, as me, Brommers, DSB and others have repeatedly said, a result of Evatt's system not working, rather than something he actively wanted.
The idea for Evatt's system isn't that you just hold the ball for no reason. The possession stats come from moving it around to create openings but also from pressing the opposition to cause turnovers - meaning their possession never gets going. Hopefully both those aspects improve as we get used to the shape. The latter should, because the work rate and pace available in forward areas is excellent now if people stay fit. If Dempsey is intended for '10' eventually I feel sorry for any defence that has to face being pressed by him, Charles and Baka/Bod.
Going direct into runners and a target man is nothing new for an Evatt side. Evatt hasn't changed what he wants to do. This is the guy who had Scott Quigley leading his line. The "passing it about at the back slowly" was, as me, Brommers, DSB and others have repeatedly said, a result of Evatt's system not working, rather than something he actively wanted.
The idea for Evatt's system isn't that you just hold the ball for no reason. The possession stats come from moving it around to create openings but also from pressing the opposition to cause turnovers - meaning their possession never gets going. Hopefully both those aspects improve as we get used to the shape. The latter should, because the work rate and pace available in forward areas is excellent now if people stay fit. If Dempsey is intended for '10' eventually I feel sorry for any defence that has to face being pressed by him, Charles and Baka/Bod.
-
- Immortal
- Posts: 14055
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:27 pm
Re: Stats
I don't think having less possession was a plan - But it did show, the less ball we had, the less mistakes we made, the less chances we conceded as a resultGhostoftheBok wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:14 pmI think the main mistake here is imagining that the low passing percentage, low possession numbers, etc were desirable parts of the plan
Opposite to that, Ipswich had more ball, made many more mistakes and both our goals were scored directly from their defenders misplacing a pass in a dangerous area.
It can be evaluated to death with the how's, why's and why not's, but ultimately that's what happened
"I've got the ball now. It's a bit worn, but I've got it"
- GhostoftheBok
- Legend
- Posts: 6826
- Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:51 pm
Re: Stats
The majority of chances we created were from passing moves. Ipswich nearly caught us out several times due to us losing possession by making blind, "direct" passes and knocking the ball out of play where we'd usually retain it.boltonboris wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:22 amIt can be evaluated to death with the how's, why's and why not's, but ultimately that's what happened
Evatt will have noticed that.
We just took different kinds of risks. The shape suits us better, though. Well, most of us.
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43267
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: Stats
Just a quick word on throw-ins: Since Fossey arrived and took over throw ins on the right we look more positive and less hesitant as he doesn't mess about in the usual "Dad's army" speed of taking them. Maybe the left should take a pointer. Mistakes on our behalf often come from losing possession due to poor throw-ins or Row 6 goal kicks.GhostoftheBok wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:29 am"direct" passes and knocking the ball out of play where we'd usually retain it.
Evatt will have noticed that.
Thank you.(goes back to dreaming of Campo and Djorkaeff exchanging crossfield passes for fun)..
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36184
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Stats
Both these scenarios happened with us losing the ball in roughly the same area of the pitch around the halfway line and I think were both two passes on from there….
- truewhite15
- Passionate
- Posts: 2765
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:25 pm
Re: Stats
Two isolated incidents do not prove your point the way you think it does. I've already proven in the past that screenshots from highlights don't necessarily show what you think it shows...BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:23 amDF395FA1-C3C0-47E1-8939-D7EB3BE2C81F.png8BDB06A3-FDAE-45E4-BFDC-40DC830FE3DA.png
Both these scenarios happened with us losing the ball in roughly the same area of the pitch around the halfway line and I think were both two passes on from there….
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
Correct. If anything, our centre-backs were marginally deeper v Wycombe than v Ipswich, and we tried twice as many tackles in the oppo half v Ipswich than Wycombe.brommers95 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:45 pmRight, without cheating - I’ll say that the bottom tackle and bottom touch map are from the Ipswich gameDave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:07 pmI haven't said which way round they are... nobody guessed
That said, there is a graphic that shows we were deeper v Ipswich than Wycombe. It's this one, comparing the overall team heatmaps (kicking left to right, vs Wycombe then Ipswich):
. .
We had much more involvement in Wycombe's half than Ipswich's. This could be because in the second game we sat off, using the halfway line as a trigger, although Baka's SKD-style sliding tackles and Charles's general Dickov-style pestering suggested otherwise to the eye.
Perhaps more importantly, and more generally if disappointingly less conclusively, we should consider that no football team operates in a vacuum: the other team's playing, too. Wycombe are a low-possession, long-ball team who knock it forward quickly and therefore cause more aerial duels, possession turnovers etc. Ipswich are a high-possession, short-passing team who like to construct moves, and it could be that we decided to engage with them deeper in our territory to avoid being passed around: not so much eschewing the high press as holding a formation. Though it's more reactive, it can work, and I'm glad it did; but while it's tempting (especially with the formation rethink) to take it as a tactical Year Zero, I wouldn't necessarily extrapolate too much from it. As noted, let's see what happens when we play a more direct team.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Stats
I get the masterplan - just not sure we execute on it well. If the notion is that with all the possession we're creating more (and hopefully better) openings, we look a long way down the league table of shots/min possession, on target/minutes of possession and goals per minute of possession. If it's not impacting those things what's the point of it? Wycombe have comparatively poor possession stats but beat us comfortably on all the above.GhostoftheBok wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:14 pmThe idea for Evatt's system isn't that you just hold the ball for no reason. The possession stats come from moving it around to create openings but also from pressing the opposition to cause turnovers - meaning their possession never gets going. Hopefully both those aspects improve as we get used to the shape. The latter should, because the work rate and pace available in forward areas is excellent now if people stay fit. If Dempsey is intended for '10' eventually I feel sorry for any defence that has to face being pressed by him, Charles and Baka/Bod.
Of course these are all averages from whoscored, which might show something other than taking it on a game by game basis...
- Attachments
-
- Stats 190122.jpg (138.37 KiB) Viewed 3607 times
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
Interesting numbers, Worthy.
Unless they're rubbish (and don't create chances or score goals), long-ball teams will generally have higher "shots per minute possession" (let's call it Shots pMP) stats because they don't have much possession.
Wycombe are good at what they do. Rotherham are similar, if less extreme. But less possession doesn't always mean more shots, and vice versa. Wigan average 56.3% possession, McDons 59.2%, and their Shots pMP is slightly under ours. But they're up the top because they've taken their chances better than we have - their Shots On Target pMP is above ours and Goals pMP significantly so.
So I'd say the problem there is not so much the creation of chances as the finishing of them.
Unless they're rubbish (and don't create chances or score goals), long-ball teams will generally have higher "shots per minute possession" (let's call it Shots pMP) stats because they don't have much possession.
Wycombe are good at what they do. Rotherham are similar, if less extreme. But less possession doesn't always mean more shots, and vice versa. Wigan average 56.3% possession, McDons 59.2%, and their Shots pMP is slightly under ours. But they're up the top because they've taken their chances better than we have - their Shots On Target pMP is above ours and Goals pMP significantly so.
So I'd say the problem there is not so much the creation of chances as the finishing of them.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Stats
There's a couple of ways of looking at the first para - one is as you say, because they don't have much possession they have a higher Shots pMP. The other is, that they're actually better at converting the lump into something that might count towards a shot on goal/goal. Wycombe/Rotherham both scored more goals than us.
I'm not suggesting that more possession = less shots. But I'd also point to MkDon's and Wigan both getting more shots on target per game (which I guess is one you could score from) and they also have more goals than us.
I think to some extent it supports the notion that despite high possession, we aren't doing enough that counts with it.
Shots on target per game = 14th
Shots per game = 6th
Goals = 14th
Shots per min possession = 13th
Then the two that count highest (for me )
Shots on target per min possession = 21st
Goals per min possession = 19th
I'm not suggesting that more possession = less shots. But I'd also point to MkDon's and Wigan both getting more shots on target per game (which I guess is one you could score from) and they also have more goals than us.
I think to some extent it supports the notion that despite high possession, we aren't doing enough that counts with it.
Shots on target per game = 14th
Shots per game = 6th
Goals = 14th
Shots per min possession = 13th
Then the two that count highest (for me )
Shots on target per min possession = 21st
Goals per min possession = 19th
- 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 agree, largely because I can't find a thing there that contradicts what I said above
I could have posted the following in this thread, Tactics or the match thread, but: if y'all haven't yet read Brommers' website piece on the Ipswich match, treat yourself. It's got videos and everything.
https://bwfcanalysis.wordpress.com/2022 ... ch-town-h/
(and Brommers: let us know on here whenever you do one. Don't be shy, it's relevant)
I could have posted the following in this thread, Tactics or the match thread, but: if y'all haven't yet read Brommers' website piece on the Ipswich match, treat yourself. It's got videos and everything.
https://bwfcanalysis.wordpress.com/2022 ... ch-town-h/
(and Brommers: let us know on here whenever you do one. Don't be shy, it's relevant)
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 36184
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Stats
There is a danger of becoming binary in descriptions of teams. You aren’t ‘long ball’ or ‘possession based’. Ultimately all teams will mix it. And some will be more one way or another. But for me Bolton’s problem was doing the same thing too dogmatically rather than finding a way to mix up their approach.
Nobody wants us lumping balls to endlessly. On the other hand our build up play has been too slow as I think Worthy’s stats reflect. So we need ways to speed up our attacking play at times. Which might be earlier balls into the box. Might be going more direct. Might be playing down the channels. But ultimately this league is variety. Wigan are solid, organised. They can play but also win a game of attrition. You can’t do well only when allowed to play how you want ideally.
Nobody wants us lumping balls to endlessly. On the other hand our build up play has been too slow as I think Worthy’s stats reflect. So we need ways to speed up our attacking play at times. Which might be earlier balls into the box. Might be going more direct. Might be playing down the channels. But ultimately this league is variety. Wigan are solid, organised. They can play but also win a game of attrition. You can’t do well only when allowed to play how you want ideally.
- brommers95
- Reliable
- Posts: 864
- Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 3:10 pm
Re: Stats
Will do!Dave Sutton's barnet wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 12:38 pmI agree, largely because I can't find a thing there that contradicts what I said above
I could have posted the following in this thread, Tactics or the match thread, but: if y'all haven't yet read Brommers' website piece on the Ipswich match, treat yourself. It's got videos and everything.
https://bwfcanalysis.wordpress.com/2022 ... ch-town-h/
(and Brommers: let us know on here whenever you do one. Don't be shy, it's relevant)
It’ll be interesting to see how direct we are against a Shrewsbury side that are one of the more direct sides in the division and less bothered about having the ball.
I think our Ipswich approach was based around the fact they pressed quite high, Trafford tried to play out from the back early on which went…badly. So he either thought “feck this, I’m going long” or somebody told him “feck that, go long”.
Shrewsbury don’t tend to do a lot of pressing so Santos & co could see plenty of the ball. It'll be more of a test to see if we can break them down and I’m confident we can with the renewed energy in the side.
- Dave Sutton's barnet
- Immortal
- Posts: 28701
- Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 4:00 pm
- Location: Hanging on in quiet desperation
- Contact:
Re: Stats
Heaven forbid!
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32469
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Stats
Hell forbid, surely?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 164 guests