| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. 12:41 - Dec 20 with 4001 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
Using the expected goals measure of team performance it seems we have been playing much more defensively in the last five matches?
Expected goals (source - Infogol), mainly a measure of chances created, look like this over the last ten games -
Blackburn Away 2.35 - 1.90 (us)
Watford Home 1.72 (us) - 1.49
Rotherham Home 2.19 (us) - 1.85
Brentford Away 0.94 - 1.25 (us)
Bristol City Home 2.93 (us) - 1.93
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Huddersfield Away 1.02 - 0.23 (us)
Millwall Away 0.72 - 0.77 (us)
Reading Home 0.96 (us) - 0.28
Stoke Home 1.05 (us) - 0.52
Wycombe Away 1.99 - 0.61 (us)
It looks like the Bristol City game was the last straw for Mark Warburton and he switched to a more defensive strategy against Huddersfield which had an inauspicious beginning. Maybe the criticism of letting in two goals a game finally got to him?
Anyway the nature of the results has changed. In the first four of those matches we scored 6, conceded 8. In the last four matches we have scored 2, conceded 3.
It seems a lot of people don't like it. Their reaction is a scattergun blaming of everything and everybody, but mainly Warbs.
Is there anything in this more defensive switch?
Infogol currently forecast us finishing 17th. [Post edited 21 Dec 2020 9:36]
|  | | |  |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 12:44 - Dec 20 with 3988 views | Nov77 |
What does Nostradamus say? |  |
| |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 13:24 - Dec 20 with 3895 views | nix |
But the thing is it shouldn't be all or nothing, should it?
Maybe we should be able to close it down when we're one up against a decent side. But hell, we should have had more than 11 shots against Wycombe when they had 15. Since Huddersfield we look like a side that's trying not to lose, but we can't do that against teams below us, we need to pick up three points against them and maybe try and draw against top ten sides. The lack of adventure and drive against Wycombe was soul-sapping. |  | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 14:15 - Dec 20 with 3820 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 13:24 - Dec 20 by nix |
But the thing is it shouldn't be all or nothing, should it?
Maybe we should be able to close it down when we're one up against a decent side. But hell, we should have had more than 11 shots against Wycombe when they had 15. Since Huddersfield we look like a side that's trying not to lose, but we can't do that against teams below us, we need to pick up three points against them and maybe try and draw against top ten sides. The lack of adventure and drive against Wycombe was soul-sapping. |
No, of course not, but switching the emphasis will probably make you worse for a while before it makes you better.
Which is probably why he stuck with what he had for so long when many fans were screaming for a tighter defence. Personally I would rather have the gung-ho approach. Try to outscore them.
Perhaps that would have been better against Wycombe, who knows. | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 14:19 - Dec 20 with 3801 views | QPR_John |
I'd love to see the expected goals figure for every team at the end of the season and how it correlates with league positions. Are there figures for last season. | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 15:01 - Dec 20 with 3734 views | daveB |
I don't think we have been more defensive, Wycombe still had 3 clear cut chances yesterday, we've not shut up shop we've just played teams who haven't played very well against us |  | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 15:05 - Dec 20 with 3727 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
Evidence?
I am relying on evidence from five games either side of three weeks ago. You have cherry picked a few chances we coughed up yesterday.
Anyway there are two sides to it. What you create and what you cough up. We are creating much less and we are conceding less goals.
[Post edited 20 Dec 2020 15:17]
| | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 17:06 - Dec 20 with 3631 views | Nov77 |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 15:05 - Dec 20 by Spaghetti_Hoops |
Evidence?
I am relying on evidence from five games either side of three weeks ago. You have cherry picked a few chances we coughed up yesterday.
Anyway there are two sides to it. What you create and what you cough up. We are creating much less and we are conceding less goals.
[Post edited 20 Dec 2020 15:17]
|
We might be conceding less purely because we are now playing a decent keeper. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 17:27 - Dec 20 with 3601 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 17:06 - Dec 20 by Nov77 |
We might be conceding less purely because we are now playing a decent keeper. |
Well I would like to think Dieng is better than Lumley but he played in all ten of those matches, so it isn't that. | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 17:33 - Dec 20 with 3595 views | eastside_r |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 17:27 - Dec 20 by Spaghetti_Hoops |
Well I would like to think Dieng is better than Lumley but he played in all ten of those matches, so it isn't that. |
The thing is, xG is a load of old bollox. |  | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 17:43 - Dec 20 with 3587 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 17:33 - Dec 20 by eastside_r |
The thing is, xG is a load of old bollox. |
Or you're not capable of understanding it. | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 20:28 - Dec 20 with 3481 views | eastside_r |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 17:43 - Dec 20 by Spaghetti_Hoops |
Or you're not capable of understanding it. |
No I do. It’s still bollox.  | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 22:05 - Dec 20 with 3408 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 20:28 - Dec 20 by eastside_r |
No I do. It’s still bollox. |
Ha Ha | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 23:36 - Dec 20 with 3347 views | Loftgirl |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 12:44 - Dec 20 by Nov77 |
What does Nostradamus say? |
Whatever he says, it would be more relevant than the expected goals tripe. |  | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 00:45 - Dec 21 with 3307 views | CLAREMAN1995 |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 23:36 - Dec 20 by Loftgirl |
Whatever he says, it would be more relevant than the expected goals tripe. |
Haha I am enjoying the back and forth on this thread but seriously we look pretty toothless going forward and with no deluge of crosses and 1 lonely poor guy somewhere up top trying to be a striker its not good.
Ironically when we had a few players sprinting into the box yesterday nobody attacked the cross and we fuc*ed up and they scored .
Be much better off heading to the corner flag to kill a minute but that didnt happened .I was excited to see a second goal with a Bullitt header but it went to them dagger |  | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 01:08 - Dec 21 with 3297 views | johncharles |
If we can’t hold a 1-0 lead against Wycombe then perhaps we should abandon the whole idea of defending and just have 5 midfielders and 5 strikers. |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 03:31 - Dec 21 with 3252 views | DavieQPR |
Nobody had heard of xG until it was featured on FM2021. |  | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 06:36 - Dec 21 with 3212 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 03:31 - Dec 21 by DavieQPR |
Nobody had heard of xG until it was featured on FM2021. |
Opta first produced detailed football data in the late 90s. Now used by most clubs to better understand games and players contributions. The BBC first used Expected Goals on MOTD in 2017.
It is only a tool to understand games better and has it's obvious limitations. However it provides insights and truths which would otherwise go missing. | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 06:52 - Dec 21 with 3201 views | timcocking |
Eh? More defensive? The opposition look like scoring every time they get the bloody ball.
We're just playing sh!t. |  | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 07:21 - Dec 21 with 3182 views | Spaghetti_Hoops |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 06:52 - Dec 21 by timcocking |
Eh? More defensive? The opposition look like scoring every time they get the bloody ball.
We're just playing sh!t. |
We did indeed allow Wycombe more chances than in the previous four matches but that doesn't change the basic premise that we have gone more defensive and we are creating less. | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 00:58 - Dec 22 with 2993 views | timcocking |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 07:21 - Dec 21 by Spaghetti_Hoops |
We did indeed allow Wycombe more chances than in the previous four matches but that doesn't change the basic premise that we have gone more defensive and we are creating less. |
With not one, not two, but a literal world record three holding midfielders, it's technically the most defensive set up in human history.
Just a shame we still can't defend. Or attack. | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 07:35 - Dec 22 with 2922 views | daveB |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 15:05 - Dec 20 by Spaghetti_Hoops |
Evidence?
I am relying on evidence from five games either side of three weeks ago. You have cherry picked a few chances we coughed up yesterday.
Anyway there are two sides to it. What you create and what you cough up. We are creating much less and we are conceding less goals.
[Post edited 20 Dec 2020 15:17]
|
i can't give you evidence I can only say what I see with my own eyes. Stoke should have scored 2 against us, Wycombe should have scored 3, Reading had chances, Millwall had plenty of chances as well.When teams put together a half decent attack they are in on our goal and create chances. We just have a much better goalkeeper this year and are playing sides who are not punishing us. The style of play hasn't gone more defensive at all, we are wide open without the ball still.
Looking at pure numbers you are right of course we are conceding less goals but I don't think that tells the whole story. | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 08:05 - Dec 22 with 2910 views | Hunterhoop |
I’m not sure I understand the OP.
All those Expected Goal stats show is that we’ve of a lot worse at attacking since City, which is pretty obvious to anyone who’s been watching us. And that overall the drop off in our attacking has been greater than that of our opposition. That “evidence” says to me, we’ve got worse overall, not just that we’re more defensive.
Besides, if our Expected Goals total is better than our oppo’s more often than not, but we win very rarely, doesn’t that just show that our defence is far worse than our opposition’s and average, and that our finishing is also far worse? Neither of those are good things.
The simple fact we allowed Wycombe to be miles ahead of us on Expected Goals - I’ll repeat, Wyncombe, currently bottom, likely you finish bottom, with the lowest budget in the league’s history (accepting for inflation) - means we’re getting a lot worse very quickly.
Have been saying it for a while. Something is wrong in the dressing room. Whether that’s between players, with Warburton, both, i don’t know. But our body language is just weird. Look at Dykes’ and BOS’ body language when the OG was scored by Wycombe. Yes, the players looked gutted when we conceded the equaliser, but there’s something off. |  | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 08:20 - Dec 22 with 2898 views | daveB |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 08:05 - Dec 22 by Hunterhoop |
I’m not sure I understand the OP.
All those Expected Goal stats show is that we’ve of a lot worse at attacking since City, which is pretty obvious to anyone who’s been watching us. And that overall the drop off in our attacking has been greater than that of our opposition. That “evidence” says to me, we’ve got worse overall, not just that we’re more defensive.
Besides, if our Expected Goals total is better than our oppo’s more often than not, but we win very rarely, doesn’t that just show that our defence is far worse than our opposition’s and average, and that our finishing is also far worse? Neither of those are good things.
The simple fact we allowed Wycombe to be miles ahead of us on Expected Goals - I’ll repeat, Wyncombe, currently bottom, likely you finish bottom, with the lowest budget in the league’s history (accepting for inflation) - means we’re getting a lot worse very quickly.
Have been saying it for a while. Something is wrong in the dressing room. Whether that’s between players, with Warburton, both, i don’t know. But our body language is just weird. Look at Dykes’ and BOS’ body language when the OG was scored by Wycombe. Yes, the players looked gutted when we conceded the equaliser, but there’s something off. |
I agree completely, the way they walk out late for kick off and the second half every week, half the team taking the knee half not, it looks a very divided team.
Last season before games you could see players chatting and laughing together, looks a very different camp this year | | | |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 13:54 - Dec 22 with 2833 views | PinnerPaul |
| More defensive? It seems you don't like it. on 07:35 - Dec 22 by daveB |
i can't give you evidence I can only say what I see with my own eyes. Stoke should have scored 2 against us, Wycombe should have scored 3, Reading had chances, Millwall had plenty of chances as well.When teams put together a half decent attack they are in on our goal and create chances. We just have a much better goalkeeper this year and are playing sides who are not punishing us. The style of play hasn't gone more defensive at all, we are wide open without the ball still.
Looking at pure numbers you are right of course we are conceding less goals but I don't think that tells the whole story. |
OK Dave. I agreed about stats fest, but come on , some you can't argue with
Stoke
Us Shots = 8 off On Target 2
Them Shots = 3 off On Target 2
Reading
Us shots = 4 off 2 on target
Them 2 off target 2 on target
Yes I DO believe in looking at a game overall as well and there is no way we deserved to lose either game, even both oppo managers agreed.
As for a defence 'giving up chances' ANY team does in ANY game - currently seems barmy to me to worry about the defence (2 goals in 3) when we are carrying so little goal threat/creativity (1 OG in 3) | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
