https://statsbomb.com/2019/01/cardif...success-story/
Printable View
That's probably the best appreciation and summary of our tactics this season I've read.
I'm often one to dismiss too many statistics but the stuff about Etheridge and Arter is particularly interesting.
Very interesting - and both worrying and encouraging.
The comparison with last season around the effectiveness of the system of play makes sense, but it doesn't acknowledge that we now have a midfield. Last season we more often than not went from front to back at speed by missing out the grass and the players in the middle. Not this time around. It is more evidence that Warnock, Jepson and Blackwell are willing and able to evolve the tactics as they get hold of better players.
I found it very interesting. I'd already figured out that we were not interested in dominating possession stats and this was a reason why our figures in that respect are so poor, but there was plenty that came as news to me - I'd always had our tactical approach down as quite a simple one (notwithstanding the way our full backs sometimes spend so much time in central positions), but, apparently, not.
I just don't get expected goals.
It's how many you score that counts.
Football has become the American football of 30 years ago.
Full of stats and plays.
An interesting read. I assume that this is an American article (the spelling of 'defense' gives us a clue to that) with a typical tendency to make the simple sound more complicated than it really is. Nevertheless, nice to think that it may not be just 'hoofball' after all.
'A pain in the butt'Quote:
Originally Posted by BINGE THINKING
One of the worst Americanisms.
Sadly, British millenials are now using it.
It's a not very elegant name for a stat that differentiates between types or quality of shot. Its the next step from shots/on target which differentiates between shots that won't go in (because they're off target) and shots that might but are saved. It gives you a bit more information.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
But obviously if you don't like stats then there's not much point opening that article. :hehe: I don't like player autobiographies as I dont care about their opinions, but if others do then up to them.
So does that analysis explain why we struggled recently against Spurs and Manchester United where we have tried to rush the opposition in possession when they entered our half but find our players have then been dragged out of position and left gaps which better teams have exposed ?
I get the concept, but I believe it's the biggest load of tripe I've come across in 35 years of football betting.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
A glorious example of how flawed the 'expected goals' idea is was the Spurs game. According to the 'expected goals' stats on Match of the Day, the game was a close-run thing. Anyone who watched it knows it was the exact opposite of that. I've always been a fan of certain stats, but 'expected goals' is just cobblers.
I read this and found it interesting. However, when all is said and done, are our tactics any more complicated than lump it up there and hope a chance falls our way?Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
No one stat will ever tell you everything about a game. For example, as dominant as Spurs were, they only had four shots on target.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
Eriksen's goal was brilliant but it would have had a low xG because it was so hard to score from there with a defender close by.
Personally, I'm not a massive fan of it but it's still developing and is better than possession stats which was all anyone talked about on here during our last two seasons in the Championship. Nothing can replace actually watching a game but stats can help you see patterns.
I've never believed that possession stats are a great indicator in terms of a team's effectiveness, but they do give a clear indication of how a team plays. I think possession stats have been such a talking point during Warnock's reign simply because the tactics he usually employs tend to make for unattractive viewing. However, the inability of the team to hold on to the ball when they do gain possession is also a point of discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I opened this article to register my dislike of such statsQuote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Heaven forbid somebody disagreeing with other people's opinions.
Do they really give a clear indication? Is it as simple as high = good low= bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
Leicester won the league with unusually low possession stats. They played counter attacking which for many people is the one of thr most exciting forms of play. But you wouldn't know from peeking at the possession stats alone.
Deep apologies for responding.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
Interesting read. We all know we don’t stand a chance v the top sides and get embarassed by them. We all know we grind out wins at best and never outplay teams- even v poor sides.
This article explains the numbers why.
However I think many of us expected us to be firmer this year and make teams work hard to beat us. We don’t. Not v the good sides anyway as they just pass around us and attack the gaps we leave.
It’s a contrast to Malkys side in the premier league when we had some good tussles against the top sides as we left no gaps and no space for them. Warnocks side leaves lots of space for teams to open us up. However it seems only the top 6 are good enough to exploit it.
My biggest problem with xG, unless I am mistaken, is that it doesn't take into consideration the quality of the player. Eriksen's goal was a low expectation chance but he's always scoring those types so the chance should have been quite likely for him. Someone like Arter could have a direct shot at goal from the edge of the box but composure isn't his strength, so surely his xG sould be a lot lower.
It doesn't help that the top sides are twice as good as they were a few years agoQuote:
Originally Posted by Father Dougal
Good point. Maybe in future it will log and factor the kind of chances individual players take (or miss).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shute