Huge review: Tottenham 2013/14: Stats, disharmony & general craziness

[spurs9]

They're numbers i've derived from a load of stats to represent Offensive Power and Defensive Power.
So really useful in finding out what a midfielder does.

What stats are these derived from?

 

[OmarsComing]

Sorry to be dumb. What are OP & DP?

Original poster or poster

Double penetration.

 

[DOX]

Hey.

I've done a massive stat review of our season if anyone's interested.
Took ages so would be nice if someone read it

http://thebigripple.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/tottenham-201314-stats-disharmony.html

Here's a sample to whet the whistle:

'Well, Saint, it's a game of two halves.'
So said erstwhile Tottenham legend Jimmy Greaves to his TV partner Ian St John way back when. And for Tottenham, the season 2013/14 was a season of two halves; a season of Villas Boas and Sherwood, a season of selling Elvis and buying the Beatles only for them to disband & start staging naked love-ins, a season of transition & settling in & of disagreements & disharmony right the way through to the bitterly disjointed end.
On paper the successes, or lack of them, weren't too dissimilar to seasons prior. Nearly but not quite, although the nearly became 'nowhere nearly' and the not quite became 'not at all.' A surfeit of organisation countered by a void of goals characterised the early months until the plan went more than awry at the Etihad. Limping on until a dismantling by an ascendant Liverpool, the departure of Villas-Boas mid way through was nonetheless unexpected & i've maintained since that he was less pushed and more agreeably escorted from his office. Never before have I sensed a man's fate be so clearly apparent as was his during that game & particularly in the subsequent interview. Wearing the redundant air of a man choosing to quit before he was fired, I suspect the final meeting was quick & painless, along the lines of 'I'm going' & 'Yes, you are.'
Left with an unforeseen vacancy, Chief Dan Levy cast his net far & wide & found a barren ocean of managerial fish so thawed out a fish finger from the freezer in Tim Sherwood and let things be. Also thawed out was Adebayor, the mercurial striker arriving with vigour & panache whilst as time went on others were cast back to the sea. The existence of the elusive 'Lamela Mermaid' remains, to this day, unproven.

Impressive work, sire

 

[Spursidol]

Hey.

I've done a massive stat review of our season if anyone's interested.
Took ages so would be nice if someone read it

http://thebigripple.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/tottenham-201314-stats-disharmony.html

Here's a sample to whet the whistle:

'Well, Saint, it's a game of two halves.'
So said erstwhile Tottenham legend Jimmy Greaves to his TV partner Ian St John way back when. And for Tottenham, the season 2013/14 was a season of two halves; a season of Villas Boas and Sherwood, a season of selling Elvis and buying the Beatles only for them to disband & start staging naked love-ins, a season of transition & settling in & of disagreements & disharmony right the way through to the bitterly disjointed end.
On paper the successes, or lack of them, weren't too dissimilar to seasons prior. Nearly but not quite, although the nearly became 'nowhere nearly' and the not quite became 'not at all.' A surfeit of organisation countered by a void of goals characterised the early months until the plan went more than awry at the Etihad. Limping on until a dismantling by an ascendant Liverpool, the departure of Villas-Boas mid way through was nonetheless unexpected & i've maintained since that he was less pushed and more agreeably escorted from his office. Never before have I sensed a man's fate be so clearly apparent as was his during that game & particularly in the subsequent interview. Wearing the redundant air of a man choosing to quit before he was fired, I suspect the final meeting was quick & painless, along the lines of 'I'm going' & 'Yes, you are.'
Left with an unforeseen vacancy, Chief Dan Levy cast his net far & wide & found a barren ocean of managerial fish so thawed out a fish finger from the freezer in Tim Sherwood and let things be. Also thawed out was Adebayor, the mercurial striker arriving with vigour & panache whilst as time went on others were cast back to the sea. The existence of the elusive 'Lamela Mermaid' remains, to this day, unproven.

Interesting read.

But IMO sometimes how you look at stats can change a lot of what is said.

For example your defensive concvlusion :

'More concerning from the figures is the decline in defensive standards under Sherwood. The blue figures show that Chiriches, Walker, Vertonghen & Rose have all recorded far lesser numbers & as I stated before, Tim's teams have had a hell of a lot more defending to do; indicative of the reduction in control in games'.

I'd suggest that Sherwood chose to go for a strategy of scoring goals - and his stas are that Spurs under TS in PL scored more than double the goals per game than under TS, at a cost of conceding 25% more goals per game. Its generally recognised that TS usually didn't use a DM (partly because Sandro and Capoue were often not match fit in the 2md half of the season) which probably helped the offensive players at Spurs but certainly made the defensive players jobs harder.

So I'd suggest that its a strategic decision to focus on scoring goals which caused what you call ' a decline in defensive standards under Sherwood' rather than the defenders being poorer and defensive organisation being poorer as your words suggest..


But overall I liked the analysis - even when I'm not surev that some of your interpretation is correct, it does challenge the reader to either accept your interpretation or devise their own. And that must be good for us all to be forced to think why the stats are as they are - and lead to fewer ill informed comments !

Good job sir !.

 

[LukeBB]

An excellent and provocative read, thank you for your efforts keep up the good work!

 

[Gedson100]

Interesting read.

But IMO sometimes how you look at stats can change a lot of what is said.

For example your defensive concvlusion :

'More concerning from the figures is the decline in defensive standards under Sherwood. The blue figures show that Chiriches, Walker, Vertonghen & Rose have all recorded far lesser numbers & as I stated before, Tim's teams have had a hell of a lot more defending to do; indicative of the reduction in control in games'.

I'd suggest that Sherwood chose to go for a strategy of scoring goals - and his stas are that Spurs under TS in PL scored more than double the goals per game than under TS, at a cost of conceding 25% more goals per game. Its generally recognised that TS usually didn't use a DM (partly because Sandro and Capoue were often not match fit in the 2md half of the season) which probably helped the offensive players at Spurs but certainly made the defensive players jobs harder.

So I'd suggest that its a strategic decision to focus on scoring goals which caused what you call ' a decline in defensive standards under Sherwood' rather than the defenders being poorer and defensive organisation being poorer as your words suggest..


But overall I liked the analysis - even when I'm not surev that some of your interpretation is correct, it does challenge the reader to either accept your interpretation or devise their own. And that must be good for us all to be forced to think why the stats are as they are - and lead to fewer ill informed comments !

Good job sir !.

Thanks for the detailed feedback!

You're right; different people will draw differing conclusions from the stats. Other things will jump out to people, I just tried to give my view a I read it. If I went back now, i'd probably spot other intricacies!
It's interesting. A lot of the time it was thought Sherwood wasn't using a DM he actually had Bentaleb in there and he was doing more of a patrolling role like say an Arteta or a Carrick rather than a Sandro, but was performing pretty well.

There was a bit extra that I took out cos it was a bit too 'numbery' about how Sherwood's focus was far less risk averse and as a result the whole team was turning the ball over far more frequently, hence the line about 'less control'.
I do think defensive organisation was poorer under Sherwood, and appreciate it wasn't great under either of them at times(!), but he asked a lot more of his defense men and his tactics weren't string enough to offer adequate cover in situations when the full back spushed up. Would Villas Boas have tolerated Rose jogging back? I doubt it? Would Villas Boas have played Eriksen in front of Rose, thus exposing Rose, I doubt that too.

It's not the defenders fault, it's just the more exposed they are the more likely they are to suffer at the hands of the opposition. And I think there was a tactical naivety in Sherwood's belief that he could rely on his attack and not really take into account opposition talents or tactics.

But yeah, it's all just my interpretation! I'm not so arrogant to think that my analysis is definitive or even that my ratings are foolproof. I just wanted to produce a piece and had generated the ratings so figured why not?
So I totally agree, anything that focuses people's minds into interpreting what they are seeing rather than just parroting the latest tabloid article must be a good thing and if I've achieved that even 1% then i'd be very happy.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Interesting read.

But IMO sometimes how you look at stats can change a lot of what is said.

For example your defensive concvlusion :

'More concerning from the figures is the decline in defensive standards under Sherwood. The blue figures show that Chiriches, Walker, Vertonghen & Rose have all recorded far lesser numbers & as I stated before, Tim's teams have had a hell of a lot more defending to do; indicative of the reduction in control in games'.

I'd suggest that Sherwood chose to go for a strategy of scoring goals - and his stas are that Spurs under TS in PL scored more than double the goals per game than under TS, at a cost of conceding 25% more goals per game. Its generally recognised that TS usually didn't use a DM (partly because Sandro and Capoue were often not match fit in the 2md half of the season) which probably helped the offensive players at Spurs but certainly made the defensive players jobs harder.

So I'd suggest that its a strategic decision to focus on scoring goals which caused what you call ' a decline in defensive standards under Sherwood' rather than the defenders being poorer and defensive organisation being poorer as your words suggest..


But overall I liked the analysis - even when I'm not surev that some of your interpretation is correct, it does challenge the reader to either accept your interpretation or devise their own. And that must be good for us all to be forced to think why the stats are as they are - and lead to fewer ill informed comments !

Good job sir !.

Not every goal conceded was Sherwood's tactical fault, but some of his team selections, tactics and coaching didn't help or actually hindered the chance of solving the creative problem without compromising the conceding one.

He still failed to score more than 1 goal in 50% of his EPL games.

I'm not sure tactically he ever really solved the problem, over and above picking Adebayor. Which to be fair could be called a tactical plus.

 

[Spursidol]

Not every goal conceded was Sherwood's tactical fault, but some of his team selections, tactics and coaching didn't help or actually hindered the chance of solving the creative problem without compromising the conceding one.

He still failed to score more than 1 goal in 50% of his EPL games.

I'm not sure tactically he ever really solved the problem, over and above picking Adebayor. Which to be fair could be called a tactical plus.

I'd suggest that consistemtly playing Eriksen (when fit) was a major positive of Sherwood too, and significantly improved creativity.

Eriksen was not played consistently by AVB who much preferred players who maximised posession, whereas Eriksen can be relied upon (at his best) to conjure up an assist or key pass from nothing. So I'd certainly count that as another plus on top of playing Adebayor.

In terms of goalscoring, even if Sherwood's PL teams only scored one goal in 50% of his hgames in charge, his sides scored three or more on a number of ocassions, whereas AVB sides never did score threee or more, so I'm not sure what your point is - an average of ;less than a goal a game by AVB is just poor.

I'd agree (and have done elsewhere) that some of Sherwood's tactics and team selections wre odd - but by no means all (and the tactical inflexibility of AVB was no less a problem), but I think Sherwood was .conciously taking risks to get results, and not all those risks paid off, but his apparant strategy to score more goals did pay off (more than double the goals per game than i the first half of the season at a cost of an increase of 25% incre4ase in goals conceeded look veery good stats. But ultimately not getting good enough results against other top 6 sides cost both AVB and Sherwood..

.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I'd suggest that consistemtly playing Eriksen (when fit) was a major positive of Sherwood too, and significantly improved creativity.

Eriksen was not played consistently by AVB who much preferred players who maximised posession, whereas Eriksen can be relied upon (at his best) to conjure up an assist or key pass from nothing. So I'd certainly count that as another plus on top of playing Adebayor.

In terms of goalscoring, even if Sherwood's PL teams only scored one goal in 50% of his hgames in charge, his sides scored three or more on a number of ocassions, whereas AVB sides never did score threee or more, so I'm not sure what your point is - an average of ;less than a goal a game by AVB is just poor.

I'd agree (and have done elsewhere) that some of Sherwood's tactics and team selections wre odd - but by no means all (and the tactical inflexibility of AVB was no less a problem), but I think Sherwood was .conciously taking risks to get results, and not all those risks paid off, but his apparant strategy to score more goals did pay off (more than double the goals per game than i the first half of the season at a cost of an increase of 25% incre4ase in goals conceeded look veery good stats. But ultimately not getting good enough results against other top 6 sides cost both AVB and Sherwood..

.

I'm pretty sure that Sherwood dropped Eriksen about as many times as AVB when fit ad available.

 

[Spursidol]

I'm pretty sure that Sherwood dropped Eriksen about as many times as AVB when fit ad available.

Sorry the stats don't back that up. Agreed that Eriksen didn't play a few times under Sherwood, but on one such ocassion Eriksen withdrew from the Denmark squad direectly after suggesting stories of a minor knock were true. Most of the times he played under Sherwood he completed 90 minutes, although on maybe 4 or 5 ocassions he was substituted.

Eriksen under AVB was not a consistent starter and indeed came off the bench more often than starting - check http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Tottenham_Hotspur_Results_2013-14.html and his assists/goals under Sherwood were far greater than under AVB . Where he started he was often substituted by Holtby (and indded vice versa), and under AVB the stats seem to show him completing 90 miutes only 2 or 3 times.

IMO Eriksen just didn't fit the posession football AVB wanted to play as (a) he's too much of an individual particularly attacking whereas AVB wanted close adherence to his prescribed stsyle of polay (b) Eriksen is slight - AVB likes robust players. Sherwood overcame that by playing Eriksen on the left allowing him to drift in to the no 10 position (as Redknapp did initially with Modric) allowing Eriksen to get used to the physical side of the PL (c) Eriksen (who I love) is not the greatest of tracking back - an essential feature of posession play but not under Sherwood who emphasised attack.

So I'd certainly restate that Eriksen's form under Sherwood'd management was a big plus point v AVB.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Sorry the stats don't back that up. Agreed that Eriksen didn't play a few times under Sherwood, but on one such ocassion Eriksen withdrew from the Denmark squad direectly after suggesting stories of a minor knock were true. Most of the times he played under Sherwood he completed 90 minutes, although on maybe 4 or 5 ocassions he was substituted.

Eriksen under AVB was not a consistent starter and indeed came off the bench more often than starting - check http://www.myfootballfacts.com/Tottenham_Hotspur_Results_2013-14.html and his assists/goals under Sherwood were far greater than under AVB . Where he started he was often substituted by Holtby (and indded vice versa), and under AVB the stats seem to show him completing 90 miutes only 2 or 3 times.

IMO Eriksen just didn't fit the posession football AVB wanted to play as (a) he's too much of an individual particularly attacking whereas AVB wanted close adherence to his prescribed stsyle of polay (b) Eriksen is slight - AVB likes robust players. Sherwood overcame that by playing Eriksen on the left allowing him to drift in to the no 10 position (as Redknapp did initially with Modric) allowing Eriksen to get used to the physical side of the PL (c) Eriksen (who I love) is not the greatest of tracking back - an essential feature of posession play but not under Sherwood who emphasised attack.

So I'd certainly restate that Eriksen's form under Sherwood'd management was a big plus point v AVB.

I don't think that is true at all. In fact I'm sure it isn't.

Eriksen was originally picked the first game he was available (Norwich I believe). He then started against Cardiff, Cheslea, West ham and following the poor result against West ham where he didn't perform well he was dropped. Sherwood did exactly the same - started him for a couple of games then dropped him for a couple. He then had a minor knock and missed one or two altogether, then was then started against Newcastle and he picked up another more serious knock and was out for the rest of AVB's reign.

Both managers only actually dropped him for a couple of games he was fit.

He was more conducive to possession football and AVB doesn't only have a penchant for big footballers. That's just more rubbish along the lines of his robotic coaching nonsense.

 

[Spursidol]

I don't think that is true at all. In fact I'm sure it isn't.

Eriksen was originally picked the first game he was available (Norwich I believe). He then started against Cardiff, Cheslea, West ham and following the poor result against West ham where he didn't perform well he was dropped. Sherwood did exactly the same - started him for a couple of games then dropped him for a couple. He then had a minor knock and missed one or two altogether, then was then started against Newcastle and he picked up another more serious knock and was out for the rest of AVB's reign.

Both managers only actually dropped him for a couple of games he was fit.

He was more conducive to possession football and AVB doesn't only have a penchant for big footballers. That's just more rubbish along the lines of his robotic coaching nonsense.

Sorry BC must be your memory playing up - the website I've shown you is a reliable Spurs centred information source, and thoie are the stats I've given you.

As the website shows, you are correct that ' (Norwich I believe). He then started against Cardiff, Cheslea, West ham and following the poor result against West ham where he didn't perform well he was dropped' but miss out that he was subbed in several of those games and after he was dropped then played in Europa League games and played a few more bit part roles before (as you correctly say) he starting against New castle and after after that was injuured.

The interpretation is mine but the stats show that Eriksen played far more minutes per PL game under Sherwood and scored the majority of his goals and assists, whereas under AVB he rarely completed 90 minutes.

AVB simply played/preferred other players to Eriksen. Doesn't make AVB wrong - but personally I like the Eriksen type of player who is very creative and therefore tends tio play 'unstructured' rather than the very structured football that AVB used this season. But as I say that's my preference, and may not be yours.

 

[PeeEyeEmPee]

before I tuck in, does this support my preconceived opinion that Aaron Lennon is a massive massive waste of space?

 

[Gedson100]

before I tuck in, does this support my preconceived opinion that Aaron Lennon is a massive massive waste of space?

Yes

 

[PeeEyeEmPee]

cool, I don't need to bother then

lol just kidding, it's extremely informative, great stuff

 

[Gedson100]

@Bus-Conductor @Spursidol

Dunno if you're aware of 'PDO' a stat that combines goal per shot percentages and save per shot percentages.

Anyway, crux of it is it gives a good measure of relative 'luck' and tends to regress to the mean over time (1.00 on this graph).

For example Newcastle during their bad run had a super low PDO, meaning that they were getting shots off but weren't scoring and were saving a low percentage of shots against them; they were bad but luck made them look terrible. Arsenal during the good period this year had a high total. It helps show if a team is purely good or purely lucky.

Here's our season:

What can we see here?

• We started off OK. We weren't converting much but nor were we conceding.
• Around the time of the Man City game, the wheels started to come off (this is where the PDO falls under 1.00). Interestingly, there was talk that this was the time Villas Boas was asked to reintegrate Adebayor (he played the 2nd half) and play with a greater goal intent. It appears he took some of this on board, but it screwed his system & his luck went right out culminating in a miserable PDO & his eventual departure.
• Sherwood had an absolute flyer insofar as his PDO went sky high; he was getting the rub. Best example I can think of was the Everton game, where we created nothing bar Ade's goal. His underlying numbers were way inferior than AVB's (As I showed in the original article) but his results were getting a huge boost by a) conversion percentages (mainly Ade's ) and a combination of Lloris' form and luck.
• When the wheels came off for Sherwood (about Norwich) they came off spectacularly and we lost 4/6.
• It steadily recovered, along with our form as the season ran out against inferior opposition.

Taken as an average AVB's PDO was 1.01 and Sherwood's 1.05, so indeed they generally regressed to the mean (albeit in a small sample.) Villas Boas was somewhat unlucky with how his season fell apart & Sherwood was somewhat lucky with is flying start. Obviously there are myriad reasons that could also contribute but as a catch all one hit number, PDO does quite a useful job.

The article I cited by Ben Pugsley at the end of my original piece goes into good & greater detail in making a case against Sherwood.