Attachment 4208
Attachment 4209Attachment 4210Attachment 4211
we....don't look bad.
Printable View
Attachment 4208
Attachment 4209Attachment 4210Attachment 4211
we....don't look bad.
Not outstanding at any, mid table. Looks about right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
:hehe: A pretty good guide! For all the xG tables, charts on this and that, points on the board are the most important.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
We've won once, drawn once and lost three times to the bottom seven at Christmas with two games yet to play against those sides and three games left to play until half-way point. We're four points away from the play-offs.
Is there a term to describe the opposite of a flat-track bully?
Ppg vs the top 8:Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
1 Norwich City 2.17
2 Bournemouth 1.80
3 Preston North End 1.63
4 Watford 1.60
5 Stoke City 1.50
6 Huddersfield Town 1.29
7 Brentford 1.17
8 Cardiff City 1.14
9 Derby County 1.13
10 Swansea City 1.00
11 Sheffield Wednesday 1.00
12 Birmingham City 1.00
13 Middlesbrough 0.86
14 Bristol City 0.71
15 Coventry City 0.71
16 Reading 0.67
17 Queens Park Rangers 0.67
18 Millwall 0.67
19 Barnsley 0.57
20 Luton Town 0.57
21 Wycombe Wanderers 0.29
22 Blackburn Rovers 0.25
23 Nottingham Forest 0.14
24 Rotherham United 0.14
Ppg vs 9-16
1 Swansea City 2.38
2 Reading 2.17
3 Norwich City 2.00
4 Bournemouth 2.00
5 Cardiff City 2.00
6 Brentford 1.83
7 Blackburn Rovers 1.83
8 Stoke City 1.75
9 Middlesbrough 1.75
10 Bristol City 1.67
11 Birmingham City 1.57
12 Millwall 1.57
13 Watford 1.43
14 Luton Town 1.33
15 Rotherham United 1.17
16 Coventry City 1.00
17 Preston North End 0.86
18 Barnsley 0.83
19 Huddersfield Town 0.80
20 Nottingham Forest 0.71
21 Derby County 0.57
22 Sheffield Wednesday 0.57
23 Queens Park Rangers 0.57
24 Wycombe Wanderers 0.33
Ppg vs the bottom 8
1 Barnsley 2.71
2 Middlesbrough 2.60
3 Blackburn Rovers 2.50
4 Norwich City 2.29
5 Bristol City 2.14
6 Luton Town 2.14
7 Brentford 2.13
8 Reading 2.00
9 Watford 2.00
10 Bournemouth 1.88
11 Huddersfield Town 1.88
12 Nottingham Forest 1.83
13 Swansea City 1.71
14 Queens Park Rangers 1.71
15 Stoke City 1.67
16 Coventry City 1.57
17 Millwall 1.43
18 Preston North End 1.40
19 Rotherham United 1.33
20 Cardiff City 1.17
21 Sheffield Wednesday 1.17
22 Wycombe Wanderers 1.14
23 Derby County 0.75
24 Birmingham City 0.60
Don't those charts underline that we're among best in most of them, if not all. We're clearly better than about 12, we can outbattle anyone if they turn it into a scrap and we get marmalised if they can pass the ball with intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
Defensively they suggest we're about average, no it much better. It also suggests we're a very good attacking unit. I'd agree with the first one, certainly not the second. After yesterday we're the 4th worst for scoring from open play as a percentage of all goals in the divisionQuote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
three dimensional field pussy :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
This twitter post has the same tables from similar time the year before for a comparison: https://twitter.com/LutonAnalytics/s...98174709379073
- We're taking fewer shots per game so far (12.5 to just under 12) but facing fewer shots as well (from 14 to just over 10). We're amongst the sides listed as "busy attack, quiet defence" compared to rest of the league which wasn't the case last season when we were listed as having a "busy defence" and were on the median line for our attack between quiet and busy.
- Last season we needed just under 9 shots to score which has creeped up ever so slightly and we now need 9 shots per goal. We're now listed as "constant threat" compared to other teams in the division whereas last year we were in the "languidly clinical" quadrant
- Last season we faced 14 shots per game and conceded 1 goal for just over 10 shots per game but this year we're facing just over 10 shots a game and conceding a goal for just over 10 shots faced. Have moved from "competent but busy" towards "avoiding the issue" quadrant
- Finally, our expected goals per game was 1.30 and expected goals conceded the same figure last season, "better attack, worse defence", whereas this year we're seeing figures of 1.42 expected goals and 1.00 expected goals conceded. We're now listed in the "better attack, better defence" quadrant.
With usual caveat of stats being like a bikini, hint at things only, it appears we have improved on most of the measurements compared to this time last year and have started to do better in comparison to others as well.
Yet, despite those better stats, we're not doing as well this season, in comparison with where we finished. MacAdder made an interesting point in a reply earlier where he says he prefers to trust his eyes to stats. Despite the stats, I don't think there are many City fans who think we're playing better than we did last season.Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
You're opening up a can of worms with perception of how well we're playing measured on performance against expectations, viewed through the lens of how we're playing against the opposition (it seems to be a tougher league this year) plus primacy and recency bias of us finishing strongly last year and starting poorly this year, and conclusions reached on the basis of where we're placed in the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
Anyway, all I wanted to do was add the tables from roughly this point last year for a comparison. Conclusions can wait til the end of the year for me.
Of course it's a can of worms! It's part of the reason I enjoy posting some stat stuff. I never see it as definitive, but as a sometimes useful guide and a talking point.Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
My impression of this season is that we have a capacity to win big (two 3-0s and a 4-0) which we didn't have this time last year (our one three goal win, against QPR, was a complete freak), while our poor, but improving, record when we fall behind suggests we may not be s mentally strong this time. As for goals against, I do feel that our much maligned central midfield are not a bad combination defensively, it's with the other side of the game that there is a problem. However, all four of them were available throughout last season so my, perhaps, cruel explanation of our improved defensive figures is that we've not had Aden Flint in the side this season!