| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? 23:41 - Oct 20 with 8751 views | Dr_Parnassus |
So we finally now find ourselves in a bit of form.
But there has been a notable shift from 800 passes a game with no willingness to go long to a more mixed direct approach which many were calling for very early on.
An earlier conversation got me thinking, is plan A now dead? For me that would be extremely encouraging.
I will work out the figures now, will post them regardless. But my money is on a distinct downturn in short balls and possession in our wins compared to our ‘non wins’. Here they are:-
Our 4 wins this season:-
Possession: 62.7%
Long ball %: 12.5%
Our 9 winless games this season:-
Possession: 67.2%
Long ball %: 8.1%
Doing these stats it was actually striking how poorly we perform when restricted to short passing.
That’s a 35% decrease in short passes in our wins vs the games we don’t win. That’s gigantic. Our possession also noticeably less in our wins.
It’s very interesting from a statistical stand point that our wins correlate with a more direct approach and I wonder if the Swansea analysts are earning their money and fed that to Martin. There does seem a distinct change.
I’m very grateful that despite what we were told by some, Martin is adaptable and can absolutely bin his plan A when it clearly isn’t bearing fruit.
Deserves credit for that, without question. |  |
| |  |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 08:46 - Nov 25 with 934 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 07:54 - Nov 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
<<That’s telling in itself. They know I’m right but just don’t want to admit it.>>
How many passes was that yest doc? |
Flattering you hang on my every word.
895 yesterday. 9% long, a nice and healthy mix as I said we should be doing.
895 was unlikely, I was right.
Are you claiming its likely that we reach that level of passes in a game? I didn't say we won't I said it's unlikely... which it is. Very much an anomaly.
Fancy a bet we won't make anywhere near 895 next week? I will even give you 10% leeway if you like?
Didn't think so  | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 08:50 - Nov 25 with 919 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 08:46 - Nov 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Flattering you hang on my every word.
895 yesterday. 9% long, a nice and healthy mix as I said we should be doing.
895 was unlikely, I was right.
Are you claiming its likely that we reach that level of passes in a game? I didn't say we won't I said it's unlikely... which it is. Very much an anomaly.
Fancy a bet we won't make anywhere near 895 next week? I will even give you 10% leeway if you like?
Didn't think so |
For a gentleman in the betting industry, I thought you'd know better than to chase losses. It's a mugs game. You asked for a bet that we wouldn't see 800 plus passes again, how many times has it happened since saying that, two occasions pop up straight away.
That's all. |  | | |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 08:55 - Nov 25 with 907 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 08:50 - Nov 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
For a gentleman in the betting industry, I thought you'd know better than to chase losses. It's a mugs game. You asked for a bet that we wouldn't see 800 plus passes again, how many times has it happened since saying that, two occasions pop up straight away.
That's all. |
Losses? Have I ever lost a bet on here in my life then?
I didn't think so either.
I didn't ask for that bet, you are making that up. I said that level of passes AND the low long pass %. What did we say 5%?
You refused to take it (presumably because you are confident I am right)... and I would still be winning that bet. [Post edited 25 Nov 2021 9:02]
| |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 08:57 - Nov 25 with 906 views | Dr_Parnassus |
and twice? what was the second time? | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:10 - Nov 25 with 887 views | Dr_Parnassus |
I will assume you retract that then.
Wouldn't want the embarrassing situation of bumping a thread trying to prove someone wrong, before realising what he said was correct after-all and then going on to be more wrong yourself than the sentence you tried to highlight initially.
Why you chaps decide to do this to yourselves I don't know.  | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:15 - Nov 25 with 877 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 08:55 - Nov 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Losses? Have I ever lost a bet on here in my life then?
I didn't think so either.
I didn't ask for that bet, you are making that up. I said that level of passes AND the low long pass %. What did we say 5%?
You refused to take it (presumably because you are confident I am right)... and I would still be winning that bet. [Post edited 25 Nov 2021 9:02]
|
You said gentlemans bet we wouldn't see a low percentage long ball again, and passes over 800.
I don't do betting. Mugs game, as you've found out.
<< have asked everyone if they would like a Gentleman’s bet that we see neither again this season >> [Post edited 25 Nov 2021 9:16]
| | | |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:19 - Nov 25 with 864 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:10 - Nov 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
I will assume you retract that then.
Wouldn't want the embarrassing situation of bumping a thread trying to prove someone wrong, before realising what he said was correct after-all and then going on to be more wrong yourself than the sentence you tried to highlight initially.
Why you chaps decide to do this to yourselves I don't know. |
<<We will see high possession and high passing, we see this in every passing side. But we won’t be seeing 4% long balls again and we probably won’t be seeing 800 passes again.
They were both products of an ineffective game plan which sacrificed attacking direct intent for possession in non threatening areas. We don’t do that anymore and that’s the major change - and of course the one being called for.
I have asked everyone if they would like a Gentleman’s bet that we see neither again this season - not a single person has taken me up on that. >>
Dear me. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:21 - Nov 25 with 855 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:19 - Nov 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
<<We will see high possession and high passing, we see this in every passing side. But we won’t be seeing 4% long balls again and we probably won’t be seeing 800 passes again.
They were both products of an ineffective game plan which sacrificed attacking direct intent for possession in non threatening areas. We don’t do that anymore and that’s the major change - and of course the one being called for.
I have asked everyone if they would like a Gentleman’s bet that we see neither again this season - not a single person has taken me up on that. >>
Dear me. |
''But we won’t be seeing 4% long balls again'' (correct)
''and we probably won’t be seeing 800 passes again'' (correct)
Notice I said ''probably'' to the second part because that can be affected by such things as an abnormally high possession game. Which 80% most certainly is. I left the door open to it possibly happening, but being unlikely.
I still hold that view.
Which bit are you disputing exactly?
And which is the other game with over 800 passes? [Post edited 25 Nov 2021 9:25]
| |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:24 - Nov 25 with 845 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:21 - Nov 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
''But we won’t be seeing 4% long balls again'' (correct)
''and we probably won’t be seeing 800 passes again'' (correct)
Notice I said ''probably'' to the second part because that can be affected by such things as an abnormally high possession game. Which 80% most certainly is. I left the door open to it possibly happening, but being unlikely.
I still hold that view.
Which bit are you disputing exactly?
And which is the other game with over 800 passes? [Post edited 25 Nov 2021 9:25]
|
You asked for gentleman bet we'll see neither again as i demonstrated with your direct quote from a previous post.
What did we do against Peterborough? Or was that the percentage of long balls? Something along those lines anything between 4% and 7% is ridiculous, but we won 3-0. | | | |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:30 - Nov 25 with 828 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:24 - Nov 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
You asked for gentleman bet we'll see neither again as i demonstrated with your direct quote from a previous post.
What did we do against Peterborough? Or was that the percentage of long balls? Something along those lines anything between 4% and 7% is ridiculous, but we won 3-0. |
Indeed, did you take the bet then? If not, who did?
If nobody, then how can I be chasing my losses on something I didn't lose.
I didn't say it wouldn't happen, I said its unlikely to happen. Which it is. 80% possession will be an extremely rare figure which is the reason we hit 800+.
Between 4 and 7 short is ridiculous, 7 being borderline of course. You seem to have issues understanding what people say though. I didn't say we can never win with it. Did I?
I think its ridiculous to hit 100% long balls too, if we won doing so, that statement would still be correct.
So I take it you realise you were wrong about having 800+ passes twice then? | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:35 - Nov 25 with 822 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:30 - Nov 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
Indeed, did you take the bet then? If not, who did?
If nobody, then how can I be chasing my losses on something I didn't lose.
I didn't say it wouldn't happen, I said its unlikely to happen. Which it is. 80% possession will be an extremely rare figure which is the reason we hit 800+.
Between 4 and 7 short is ridiculous, 7 being borderline of course. You seem to have issues understanding what people say though. I didn't say we can never win with it. Did I?
I think its ridiculous to hit 100% long balls too, if we won doing so, that statement would still be correct.
So I take it you realise you were wrong about having 800+ passes twice then? |
I don't do betting, good job I don't either you'd be skint with your track record so far.
Yeah 791 x passes against Peterborough, I got mixed up with the other thing you had wrong regarding the 7% short which apparently wasn't going to happen again. | | | |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:48 - Nov 25 with 814 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:35 - Nov 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
I don't do betting, good job I don't either you'd be skint with your track record so far.
Yeah 791 x passes against Peterborough, I got mixed up with the other thing you had wrong regarding the 7% short which apparently wasn't going to happen again. |
I have never lost a bet in my life on here, as you well know. Probably why you bumped this in frustration hoping I wouldn’t re-read what I said properly.
Luckily I’m very careful with my words due to the existence of posters such as you who get so annoyed by my track record being so excellent hence trying to point out anything they can, even if they have to ignore or change certain key words in order to try.
Where did I say 7% short wouldn’t happen again? I don’t for a second believe we won’t see 7% again, I can only assume you have made that up.
I understand the bump didn’t go as planned but don’t be that guy that resorts to lying. It’s not big and it’s not clever.
Glad you admitted you were wrong though regarding your claim that we had 800+ passes “pop up straight away” though. At least something productive has come from this odd bump. Thanks.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2021 9:49]
| |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:59 - Nov 25 with 801 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:48 - Nov 25 by Dr_Parnassus |
I have never lost a bet in my life on here, as you well know. Probably why you bumped this in frustration hoping I wouldn’t re-read what I said properly.
Luckily I’m very careful with my words due to the existence of posters such as you who get so annoyed by my track record being so excellent hence trying to point out anything they can, even if they have to ignore or change certain key words in order to try.
Where did I say 7% short wouldn’t happen again? I don’t for a second believe we won’t see 7% again, I can only assume you have made that up.
I understand the bump didn’t go as planned but don’t be that guy that resorts to lying. It’s not big and it’s not clever.
Glad you admitted you were wrong though regarding your claim that we had 800+ passes “pop up straight away” though. At least something productive has come from this odd bump. Thanks.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2021 9:49]
|
You don't pick them wisely enough. Don't you remember the "So it's Bournemouth" thread title?
Why would I be frustrated? You wanted to make a gentleman's bet about us never getting to 800 x passes again, how many was it yesterday? We were 50 off the record last night. Nothing made up at all, we had discussion after Peterborough regarding the "4%-7% long balls". No lying whatsoever. J | | | |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:02 - Nov 25 with 782 views | onehunglow |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:59 - Nov 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
You don't pick them wisely enough. Don't you remember the "So it's Bournemouth" thread title?
Why would I be frustrated? You wanted to make a gentleman's bet about us never getting to 800 x passes again, how many was it yesterday? We were 50 off the record last night. Nothing made up at all, we had discussion after Peterborough regarding the "4%-7% long balls". No lying whatsoever. J |
Why not a gentlemens dual.
Choose your weapons |  |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:03 - Nov 25 with 787 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 09:59 - Nov 25 by 34dfgdf54 |
You don't pick them wisely enough. Don't you remember the "So it's Bournemouth" thread title?
Why would I be frustrated? You wanted to make a gentleman's bet about us never getting to 800 x passes again, how many was it yesterday? We were 50 off the record last night. Nothing made up at all, we had discussion after Peterborough regarding the "4%-7% long balls". No lying whatsoever. J |
I pick them extremely wisely yes.
I do remember the 'So its Bournemouth' thread yes, the thread that you still fail to understand that it was a probability thread. Similar to the probability point made here too, its a shame you don't take the time to learn because that is twice you would have saved yourself.
Having a discussion of ''4-7%'' and claiming I said we would never have that again isn't the same thing. We did have a discussion around that, I said it was a ridiculous figure (7% obviously being the borderline)... but don't believe I ever said what you just claimed, because I don't believe that, we may well do if some unlikely scenarios converge to allow it, but it wont be the norm..
So depends which statement you settle on as to if you are lying or not, at the moment they aren't the same. | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:09 - Nov 25 with 782 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:02 - Nov 25 by onehunglow |
Why not a gentlemens dual.
Choose your weapons |
I choose we will never see 4% long balls again this season. Happy to give an extra 1% leeway too, to make is 5% or less.
I will also do 6% AND 800+ passes this season, something we won't see.
My views are exactly the same as they were when we were all discussing this, and there is nothing anybody has seen since that should make anyone think I am incorrect.
But of course everyone knows that hence why nobody would ever be brave enough to take the bet. They just ''hope'' it happens so they can bump a thread without having the guts to stake a claim otherwise.
Its the internet, thats what happens. [Post edited 25 Nov 2021 10:10]
| |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:36 - Nov 25 with 766 views | Catullus |
Risca, had enough of swimming in treacle yet?
From my point of view, if someone says something probably won't happen then it does, it makes them wrong. Maybe saying 'possibly' is a better option.
If someone says we probably won't win the EPL next season and we do then the statement is not correct because we did win it, isn't it that simple...not when you're discussing it with certain posters.
The odds of us hitting 800 passes again this season are quite long but I would say worth a punt. When we play any of those teams in bad form, any of the bottom 4 or 5, there is a better chance but obviously we are less likely to do it against a top end club.
This just shows plan A is far from dead. We are a short passing side the majority of the time. We have averaged 581 passes per game and that will possibly rise because we weren't so good for the first several weeks.
We can argue about this all season but come May we'll have a full data set, I'm sure the exchange will continue! | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:42 - Nov 25 with 756 views | onehunglow |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:36 - Nov 25 by Catullus |
Risca, had enough of swimming in treacle yet?
From my point of view, if someone says something probably won't happen then it does, it makes them wrong. Maybe saying 'possibly' is a better option.
If someone says we probably won't win the EPL next season and we do then the statement is not correct because we did win it, isn't it that simple...not when you're discussing it with certain posters.
The odds of us hitting 800 passes again this season are quite long but I would say worth a punt. When we play any of those teams in bad form, any of the bottom 4 or 5, there is a better chance but obviously we are less likely to do it against a top end club.
This just shows plan A is far from dead. We are a short passing side the majority of the time. We have averaged 581 passes per game and that will possibly rise because we weren't so good for the first several weeks.
We can argue about this all season but come May we'll have a full data set, I'm sure the exchange will continue! |
I just believe we pass for the sake of it.
Both goals last night were a result of the ball being played directly and quickly to team mates . Both excellent.
Stroking the ball for the sake of it fools few .
That s not quite true though
Possession football eh. | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:49 - Nov 25 with 754 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:36 - Nov 25 by Catullus |
Risca, had enough of swimming in treacle yet?
From my point of view, if someone says something probably won't happen then it does, it makes them wrong. Maybe saying 'possibly' is a better option.
If someone says we probably won't win the EPL next season and we do then the statement is not correct because we did win it, isn't it that simple...not when you're discussing it with certain posters.
The odds of us hitting 800 passes again this season are quite long but I would say worth a punt. When we play any of those teams in bad form, any of the bottom 4 or 5, there is a better chance but obviously we are less likely to do it against a top end club.
This just shows plan A is far from dead. We are a short passing side the majority of the time. We have averaged 581 passes per game and that will possibly rise because we weren't so good for the first several weeks.
We can argue about this all season but come May we'll have a full data set, I'm sure the exchange will continue! |
Then your point of view is wrong then and another that doesn’t understand probability.
If you freely admit that the odds of us hitting 800 passes are long then you are saying it “probably” won’t happen. That is literally the definition of “probably” won’t.
Ben Hamer probably won’t score a hattrick for us next week. If he does that statement is still correct, the chances of it happening were slim and the chances of it happening were not “probable”… hence “probably”.
That doesn’t show anything remotely like plan A not being dead. It’s long gone, dead and buried. We now regularly have around 10% long balls and do not rely on the short at all costs game anymore, this has been demonstrated time after time.
Being “predominantly” a short ball team is not plan A. That would describe every single team in the league, short balls is by far the most common mode of pass. We were around 13/14% under Cooper.
Around 550-600 passes will be the norm, 8-12% long balls. | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:53 - Nov 25 with 751 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:42 - Nov 25 by onehunglow |
I just believe we pass for the sake of it.
Both goals last night were a result of the ball being played directly and quickly to team mates . Both excellent.
Stroking the ball for the sake of it fools few .
That s not quite true though
Possession football eh. |
We do far less of that these days though thankfully since we changed it up.
It was incredibly infuriating early on though, and the people that defended that style I’m sure have now realised the importance of the direct ball since we have adopted it so effectively.
Exactly what we were saying was needed. | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 11:12 - Nov 25 with 736 views | YouBackJastard |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 10:42 - Nov 25 by onehunglow |
I just believe we pass for the sake of it.
Both goals last night were a result of the ball being played directly and quickly to team mates . Both excellent.
Stroking the ball for the sake of it fools few .
That s not quite true though
Possession football eh. |
Could be argued both goals were a result of us tiring the opposition press out by holding possession and striking later on, which seems to have been the RM gameplan with him switching out Downes for Ntcham and starting Korey Smith, the best off-the-ball presser at the club. | | | |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 11:34 - Nov 25 with 714 views | onehunglow |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 11:12 - Nov 25 by YouBackJastard |
Could be argued both goals were a result of us tiring the opposition press out by holding possession and striking later on, which seems to have been the RM gameplan with him switching out Downes for Ntcham and starting Korey Smith, the best off-the-ball presser at the club. |
It could be but better club have and will punish us.
It's all about the number goals we score compared with opponents.
No points for passing per se. | |
| |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 11:52 - Nov 25 with 704 views | YouBackJastard |
| Long balls vs forced short passing - is plan A dead? on 11:34 - Nov 25 by onehunglow |
It could be but better club have and will punish us.
It's all about the number goals we score compared with opponents.
No points for passing per se. |
To be fair we’ve done fantastically well v sides above us already, just the very top two who battered us (who have also battered almost every team they’ve faced) away from home. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
lay off the booze