Stats under Tim and Andre

[Lilbaz]

Napoleon said give me lucky generals. Well, i'll take a lucky manager any day of the week. We've had enough unlucky ones to last a life time.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

No need to be scared, this is just a statistical analysis of that old football cliché rub of the green. It is just shorter than examining game by game by incident and piece of anecdotal evidence by piece and coming to the conclusion that if the queen had balls she might be the king.

It's just saying what many of us already knew from using just our eyes. Everything that was wrong wasn't always about AVB's tactical nous and everything right since hasn't all been because of Sherwood's tactical nous. Scorelines can lie, goals their willing accomplices, and often the differences can be marginal and about individual human error or excellence. If Soldado was at his most confident best (which is always hard when settling into a new life/country/league) he may have buried a few of the half chances that came his way in the same way Adebayor is now (god knows we've seen Adsebayor miss much easier chances than he's now scoring) and score lines and perspectives of performances may have been altered.

In several games under AVB we did create chances, in several games under Sherwood we've created fuck all. The idea that one was all technodull and one is effervescent freedom is a misconception.

The performance on wednesday that many are calling our best was ironically the most like an AVB type yet. Higher line, higher press, a more defensive CM, of our attacking players 4 are basically CM's, we were much more cohesive off and on the ball, we controlled more of the ball than in most our other away games etc.


Just taking the Newcastle game as an example of how fortunes revolve.

A much stronger Newcastle came to WHL, they pressed well early on and broke on us to score, also had a couple of other counter attacking chances first half, mostly on the break as we largely dominated possession throughout 65%. Certainly Newcastle at no time controlled the home game in the same way they controlled the away one Wednesday from the 52nd minute to the 80th.

In the home game, second half we battered Krull's goal but things were blocked and not one of the saves he made (record saves in an EPL game) rebounded kindly (there was even that one that seemed impossible not to be tapped in on the line but the rebound favoured the defender).

Our first three goals wednesday came from a cross, a long shot and a closer shot that were all parried straight to our players, one of which was shined into the floor and bounces over the keeper. Only one of our 4 goals came from an actual decent chance that was created by us passing the ball into a clear scoring chance.

This was a Newcastle bereft of it's spine, Collucini, Cabaye, Tiote, Remy and we effectively had 4 CM's on the pitch yet still couldn't take more than 50% of the ball, we took 65% at home. Had more shots inside the box, more shots on target, limited them to less in the home game, had more territory, more ball in their third in the home game.

We didn't lay siege the the Newcastle goal wednesday, whereas the home game set an EPL record for saves made (and contrary to the propaganda, there were more shots inside the box than Wednesday).

So was it tactical genius or the roll of the ball or individual quality (Remy & Krull e.g.) - or lack of on our part - that made the biggest difference ? I think both games were decent enough performance that we deserved to take points from, the difference was one was littered with good fortune, and/or individual moments of quality that went for us, the other wasn't.

Adebayor has accounted for 10 (8 goals/2 assits) of Sherwoods 21 league goals. It is not luck that he is playing, that was a decision Sherwood made. The luck is maybe that his 10 goal contribution has come in 908 minutes for Sherwood, last season he managed a total of 6 goals/assists in 1600. The type of goal he's scoring now (ManU, Everton, Newcastle bouncer) and the open goals he was missing last season.

The article takes into account zero of quality, a central header from 17 yards from a corner under pressure with bodies everywhere doesn't represent a better chance of scoring than somebody unmarked with time 19 yards out with no bodies between him and the goal, this article says the header is the better chance!

Plus actually the article totally ignores a huge reason that we are now scoring more goals, which is that we now get considerably more bodies into the penalty area. One point at newcastle in open play we had 6! Under AVB it was rarely more than one, the article makes no mention of this major change.

There were times in the home game against Newcastle when we had 6 in their box. But I guess this doesn't count because under AVB they were all there in a robotic capacity or something ? You're just as guilty as the article of ignoring evidence to suit your agenda.


Some of the chances we have created in games under Sherwood have had nothing to do with his tactical input, they have been as a consequence of the reverse in fact. Teams taking the game to us and dominating the ball and territory - contrary to what Sherwood was saying pre and post match he wanted to happen - was meaning we were creating chances on the break, which are invariably of a more dangerous nature because the defending team aren't "set". Southampton and ManU were great examples of this. The notion that this was somehow tactically astute is laughable and demonstrates ignorance in reading and understanding the game. This is mistaking playing at a higher tempo - as some claimed - for playing reactive break football. Higher tempo football is what we played in the first 50 minutes at Newcastle.

If we keep working hard, play coherent football I'm more than happy with Sherwood keeping his job, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree with bullshit spouted about him or the previous regime.

 

[spurs_girl_tasha]

But, but we won the possession!

Ridiculous article, I occasionally like a good stat but it's clear to see that under AVB any were half chances, shots from a distance, whereas under Tim they actually try to get into the box (crazy, I know).

The author is clearly a twat.

 

[Shadydan]

Sorry this article is absolute bollox!

 

[Spurs_Bear]

That's how I feel, I never ever expected to see Tim as a manager. Now he is I just want him to do well.

The problem is a lot of people bought into AVB, and couldn't accept his failures.

Exhibit A...

No need to be scared, this is just a statistical analysis of that old football cliché rub of the green. It is just shorter than examining game by game by incident and piece of anecdotal evidence by piece and coming to the conclusion that if the queen had balls she might be the king.

It's just saying what many of us already knew from using just our eyes. Everything that was wrong wasn't always about AVB's tactical nous and everything right since hasn't all been because of Sherwood's tactical nous. Scorelines can lie, goals their willing accomplices, and often the differences can be marginal and about individual human error or excellence. If Soldado was at his most confident best (which is always hard when settling into a new life/country/league) he may have buried a few of the half chances that came his way in the same way Adebayor is now (god knows we've seen Adsebayor miss much easier chances than he's now scoring) and score lines and perspectives of performances may have been altered.

In several games under AVB we did create chances, in several games under Sherwood we've created fuck all. The idea that one was all technodull and one is effervescent freedom is a misconception.

The performance on wednesday that many are calling our best was ironically the most like an AVB type yet. Higher line, higher press, a more defensive CM, of our attacking players 4 are basically CM's, we were much more cohesive off and on the ball, we controlled more of the ball than in most our other away games etc.


Just taking the Newcastle game as an example of how fortunes revolve.

A much stronger Newcastle came to WHL, they pressed well early on and broke on us to score, also had a couple of other counter attacking chances first half, mostly on the break as we largely dominated possession throughout 65%. Certainly Newcastle at no time controlled the home game in the same way they controlled the away one Wednesday from the 52nd minute to the 80th.

In the home game, second half we battered Krull's goal but things were blocked and not one of the saves he made (record saves in an EPL game) rebounded kindly (there was even that one that seemed impossible not to be tapped in on the line but the rebound favoured the defender).

Our first three goals wednesday came from a cross, a long shot and a closer shot that were all parried straight to our players, one of which was shined into the floor and bounces over the keeper. Only one of our 4 goals came from an actual decent chance that was created by us passing the ball into a clear scoring chance.

This was a Newcastle bereft of it's spine, Collucini, Cabaye, Tiote, Remy and we effectively had 4 CM's on the pitch yet still couldn't take more than 50% of the ball, we took 65% at home. Had more shots inside the box, more shots on target, limited them to less in the home game, had more territory, more ball in their third in the home game.

We didn't lay siege the the Newcastle goal wednesday, whereas the home game set an EPL record for saves made (and contrary to the propaganda, there were more shots inside the box than Wednesday).

So was it tactical genius or the roll of the ball or individual quality (Remy & Krull e.g.) - or lack of on our part - that made the biggest difference ? I think both games were decent enough performance that we deserved to take points from, the difference was one was littered with good fortune, and/or individual moments of quality that went for us, the other wasn't.

Adebayor has accounted for 10 (8 goals/2 assits) of Sherwoods 21 league goals. It is not luck that he is playing, that was a decision Sherwood made. The luck is maybe that his 10 goal contribution has come in 908 minutes for Sherwood, last season he managed a total of 6 goals/assists in 1600. The type of goal he's scoring now (ManU, Everton, Newcastle bouncer) and the open goals he was missing last season.







There were times in the home game against Newcastle when we had 6 in their box. But I guess this doesn't count because under AVB they were all there in a robotic capacity or something ? You're just as guilty as the article of ignoring evidence to suit your agenda.


Some of the chances we have created in games under Sherwood have had nothing to do with his tactical input, they have been as a consequence of the reverse in fact. Teams taking the game to us and dominating the ball and territory - contrary to what Sherwood was saying pre and post match he wanted to happen - was meaning we were creating chances on the break, which are invariably of a more dangerous nature because the defending team aren't "set". Southampton and ManU were great examples of this. The notion that this was somehow tactically astute is laughable and demonstrates ignorance in reading and understanding the game. This is mistaking playing at a higher tempo - as some claimed - for playing reactive break football. Higher tempo football is what we played in the first 50 minutes at Newcastle.

If we keep working hard, play coherent football I'm more than happy with Sherwood keeping his job, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree with bullshit spouted about him or the previous regime.

 

[spurious1]

Good grief. I also enjoy statistical analysis very much, but better not to be reductionist. Human behaviour is a rather complex thing, and to make up some supposedly quantifiable "luck" characteristic is rather absurd. I would just tend to say, if you want to make judgements, it's perhaps fair to judge people on what they have actually done, rather than what theoretically should have happened according to a simplistic model. Management, and particularly football management, has a huge psychological component not easily quantified.

There is no such thing as luck as a actual physical phenomenon, it's just short-term fluctuations or, more often, perception (mostly people imagine others, particularly others they dislike, have a lot of this "luck" characteristic, and you can always trot out some selected data in support of that argument. Believe me I do such things for a living

 

[chris_theo]

You're forgetting a major factor. Time! AVB had enough time to set his game plan out and find a way to play, and was proven quite stubborn, especially in altering his tactics. Sherwood has been a manager for a matter of weeks and has shown flexibility in his approach to each game, meaning he is learning as he goes along. We are attacking, we are scoring, we are winning.........chill!

 

[Legend10]

No need to be scared, this is just a statistical analysis of that old football cliché rub of the green. It is just shorter than examining game by game by incident and piece of anecdotal evidence by piece and coming to the conclusion that if the queen had balls she might be the king.

It's just saying what many of us already knew from using just our eyes. Everything that was wrong wasn't always about AVB's tactical nous and everything right since hasn't all been because of Sherwood's tactical nous. Scorelines can lie, goals their willing accomplices, and often the differences can be marginal and about individual human error or excellence. If Soldado was at his most confident best (which is always hard when settling into a new life/country/league) he may have buried a few of the half chances that came his way in the same way Adebayor is now (god knows we've seen Adsebayor miss much easier chances than he's now scoring) and score lines and perspectives of performances may have been altered.

In several games under AVB we did create chances, in several games under Sherwood we've created fuck all. The idea that one was all technodull and one is effervescent freedom is a misconception.

The performance on wednesday that many are calling our best was ironically the most like an AVB type yet. Higher line, higher press, a more defensive CM, of our attacking players 4 are basically CM's, we were much more cohesive off and on the ball, we controlled more of the ball than in most our other away games etc.


Just taking the Newcastle game as an example of how fortunes revolve.

A much stronger Newcastle came to WHL, they pressed well early on and broke on us to score, also had a couple of other counter attacking chances first half, mostly on the break as we largely dominated possession throughout 65%. Certainly Newcastle at no time controlled the home game in the same way they controlled the away one Wednesday from the 52nd minute to the 80th.

In the home game, second half we battered Krull's goal but things were blocked and not one of the saves he made (record saves in an EPL game) rebounded kindly (there was even that one that seemed impossible not to be tapped in on the line but the rebound favoured the defender).

Our first three goals wednesday came from a cross, a long shot and a closer shot that were all parried straight to our players, one of which was shined into the floor and bounces over the keeper. Only one of our 4 goals came from an actual decent chance that was created by us passing the ball into a clear scoring chance.

This was a Newcastle bereft of it's spine, Collucini, Cabaye, Tiote, Remy and we effectively had 4 CM's on the pitch yet still couldn't take more than 50% of the ball, we took 65% at home. Had more shots inside the box, more shots on target, limited them to less in the home game, had more territory, more ball in their third in the home game.

We didn't lay siege the the Newcastle goal wednesday, whereas the home game set an EPL record for saves made (and contrary to the propaganda, there were more shots inside the box than Wednesday).

So was it tactical genius or the roll of the ball or individual quality (Remy & Krull e.g.) - or lack of on our part - that made the biggest difference ? I think both games were decent enough performance that we deserved to take points from, the difference was one was littered with good fortune, and/or individual moments of quality that went for us, the other wasn't.

Adebayor has accounted for 10 (8 goals/2 assits) of Sherwoods 21 league goals. It is not luck that he is playing, that was a decision Sherwood made. The luck is maybe that his 10 goal contribution has come in 908 minutes for Sherwood, last season he managed a total of 6 goals/assists in 1600. The type of goal he's scoring now (ManU, Everton, Newcastle bouncer) and the open goals he was missing last season.







There were times in the home game against Newcastle when we had 6 in their box. But I guess this doesn't count because under AVB they were all there in a robotic capacity or something ? You're just as guilty as the article of ignoring evidence to suit your agenda.


Some of the chances we have created in games under Sherwood have had nothing to do with his tactical input, they have been as a consequence of the reverse in fact. Teams taking the game to us and dominating the ball and territory - contrary to what Sherwood was saying pre and post match he wanted to happen - was meaning we were creating chances on the break, which are invariably of a more dangerous nature because the defending team aren't "set". Southampton and ManU were great examples of this. The notion that this was somehow tactically astute is laughable and demonstrates ignorance in reading and understanding the game. This is mistaking playing at a higher tempo - as some claimed - for playing reactive break football. Higher tempo football is what we played in the first 50 minutes at Newcastle.

If we keep working hard, play coherent football I'm more than happy with Sherwood keeping his job, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree with bullshit spouted about him or the previous regime.

Not going to comment on most of that as really there's no point.

Taking just the point you picked me up on, if we did get 6 in the box from open pay at home to Newcastle which i seriously doubt (but maybe you can prove?) it would only have been in frantic desperation to find an equaliser. That is very different to getting 6 or 5 or regularly 3 and 4 in there when you are either level or winning a game such as we were at Newcastle and other games recently. When we were level or winning under AVB we hardly ever saw more than 2 in there and in the main poor old Soldado on his own sniffing round at scraps!

There are reasons that we we managed 12 goals (non pens) in 16 under AVB and have 21 in just 10 under Sherwood, none of the reasons are in the article, that makes the article a complete load of shit!

Haha that's one hell of a swing of 'luck', have to laugh as that's just what it is, laughable!

 

[dudu]

No need to be scared, this is just a statistical analysis of that old football cliché rub of the green. It is just shorter than examining game by game by incident and piece of anecdotal evidence by piece and coming to the conclusion that if the queen had balls she might be the king.

It's just saying what many of us already knew from using just our eyes. Everything that was wrong wasn't always about AVB's tactical nous and everything right since hasn't all been because of Sherwood's tactical nous. Scorelines can lie, goals their willing accomplices, and often the differences can be marginal and about individual human error or excellence. If Soldado was at his most confident best (which is always hard when settling into a new life/country/league) he may have buried a few of the half chances that came his way in the same way Adebayor is now (god knows we've seen Adsebayor miss much easier chances than he's now scoring) and score lines and perspectives of performances may have been altered.

In several games under AVB we did create chances, in several games under Sherwood we've created fuck all. The idea that one was all technodull and one is effervescent freedom is a misconception.

The performance on wednesday that many are calling our best was ironically the most like an AVB type yet. Higher line, higher press, a more defensive CM, of our attacking players 4 are basically CM's, we were much more cohesive off and on the ball, we controlled more of the ball than in most our other away games etc.


Just taking the Newcastle game as an example of how fortunes revolve.

A much stronger Newcastle came to WHL, they pressed well early on and broke on us to score, also had a couple of other counter attacking chances first half, mostly on the break as we largely dominated possession throughout 65%. Certainly Newcastle at no time controlled the home game in the same way they controlled the away one Wednesday from the 52nd minute to the 80th.

In the home game, second half we battered Krull's goal but things were blocked and not one of the saves he made (record saves in an EPL game) rebounded kindly (there was even that one that seemed impossible not to be tapped in on the line but the rebound favoured the defender).

Our first three goals wednesday came from a cross, a long shot and a closer shot that were all parried straight to our players, one of which was shined into the floor and bounces over the keeper. Only one of our 4 goals came from an actual decent chance that was created by us passing the ball into a clear scoring chance.

This was a Newcastle bereft of it's spine, Collucini, Cabaye, Tiote, Remy and we effectively had 4 CM's on the pitch yet still couldn't take more than 50% of the ball, we took 65% at home. Had more shots inside the box, more shots on target, limited them to less in the home game, had more territory, more ball in their third in the home game.

We didn't lay siege the the Newcastle goal wednesday, whereas the home game set an EPL record for saves made (and contrary to the propaganda, there were more shots inside the box than Wednesday).

So was it tactical genius or the roll of the ball or individual quality (Remy & Krull e.g.) - or lack of on our part - that made the biggest difference ? I think both games were decent enough performance that we deserved to take points from, the difference was one was littered with good fortune, and/or individual moments of quality that went for us, the other wasn't.

Adebayor has accounted for 10 (8 goals/2 assits) of Sherwoods 21 league goals. It is not luck that he is playing, that was a decision Sherwood made. The luck is maybe that his 10 goal contribution has come in 908 minutes for Sherwood, last season he managed a total of 6 goals/assists in 1600. The type of goal he's scoring now (ManU, Everton, Newcastle bouncer) and the open goals he was missing last season.







There were times in the home game against Newcastle when we had 6 in their box. But I guess this doesn't count because under AVB they were all there in a robotic capacity or something ? You're just as guilty as the article of ignoring evidence to suit your agenda.


Some of the chances we have created in games under Sherwood have had nothing to do with his tactical input, they have been as a consequence of the reverse in fact. Teams taking the game to us and dominating the ball and territory - contrary to what Sherwood was saying pre and post match he wanted to happen - was meaning we were creating chances on the break, which are invariably of a more dangerous nature because the defending team aren't "set". Southampton and ManU were great examples of this. The notion that this was somehow tactically astute is laughable and demonstrates ignorance in reading and understanding the game. This is mistaking playing at a higher tempo - as some claimed - for playing reactive break football. Higher tempo football is what we played in the first 50 minutes at Newcastle.

If we keep working hard, play coherent football I'm more than happy with Sherwood keeping his job, but that doesn't mean we all have to agree with bullshit spouted about him or the previous regime.

Agree with some of what you say here. Newcastle at home, despite being hugely frustrating, was the game i really thought we had finally gotten our act together offensively.

We looked dangerous, but you also have to factor in that they went one up at us.

They were different games and not really comparable. Had Newcastle had gone one up on Wednesday perhaps we wouldn't have been so 'lucky' in the area as they may have had more men behind the ball defending a lead. There are so many variables to consider.

I still don't think luck had anything to do with it, but thats more of a personal way of viewing the world in general. Theres a quote i read earlier..... it didn't who made it but i liked it and mirrors my views i think.... 'Luck is probability taken personally'

 

[only1waddle]

Agree with some of what you say here. Newcastle at home, despite being hugely frustrating, was the game i really thought we had finally gotten our act together offensively.

We looked dangerous, but you also have to factor in that they went one up at us.

They were different games and not really comparable. Had Newcastle had gone one up on Wednesday perhaps we wouldn't have been so 'lucky' in the area as they may have had more men behind the ball defending a lead. There are so many variables to consider.

I still don't think luck had anything to do with it, but thats more of a personal way of viewing the world in general. Theres a quote i read earlier..... it didn't who made it but i liked it and mirrors my views i think.... 'Luck is probability taken personally'

This. BC never mentions or factors this in, we looked very good in attack that day, but the shackles were off due to us conceding, and let us not forget we were in the middle of the situation with AvB calling out the home atmosphere, i doubt even he would have encouraged us to prod the ball around at snails pace a goal down at home.
We simply had to attack and commit numbers forward, there was no choice.

 

[Original # 10]

My oh my

 

[Shadydan]

It reads like AVB has written the article himself.

 

[Mr Pink]

It really is a poor piece.

Nearly fell asleep reading it....nostalgia lol

 

[Mr Pink]

It reads like AVB has written the article himself.

He probably had to do something with Adebayor banging in the goals.

 

[jonnyp]

That rubbish is why just looking at stats is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone with a pair of eyes can see we're creating more and better chances under Tim which is also certainly helped by Ade playing some of the best football of his career as well. Certainly there's a lot to be improved upon but we ARE playing better attacking football under Tim, you don't need any stats to make that claim.

 

[mark87]

It reads like AVB has written the article himself.

I was thinking the exact same thing myself!

 

[Legend10]

But, but we won the possession!

Ridiculous article, I occasionally like a good stat but it's clear to see that under AVB any were half chances, shots from a distance, whereas under Tim they actually try to get into the box (crazy, I know).

The author is clearly a twat.

Sums it up quite nicely really!

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Sums it up quite nicely really!

Creep...

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Agree with some of what you say here. Newcastle at home, despite being hugely frustrating, was the game i really thought we had finally gotten our act together offensively.

We looked dangerous, but you also have to factor in that they went one up at us.

They were different games and not really comparable. Had Newcastle had gone one up on Wednesday perhaps we wouldn't have been so 'lucky' in the area as they may have had more men behind the ball defending a lead. There are so many variables to consider.

I still don't think luck had anything to do with it, but thats more of a personal way of viewing the world in general. Theres a quote i read earlier..... it didn't who made it but i liked it and mirrors my views i think.... 'Luck is probability taken personally'

Agree with much of this, but Newcastle provided an easy contrast. Despite making the most saves in an EPL game and many rebounding off, not one went our way in that home game - remember one in particular where a deflected shot still gets saved with his boot then rebounds for what we thought would be a tap in for one of our CB's (if I remember rightly) only to ricochet out off their defender or something. In the away game our first three goals all come from rebounds from their keeper bouncing perfectly to where our players are stood, the third even being miss hit and bouncing over the keeper. Both were good performances. One featured way more fortune though.

This. BC never mentions or factors this in, we looked very good in attack that day, but the shackles were off due to us conceding, and let us not forget we were in the middle of the situation with AvB calling out the home atmosphere, i doubt even he would have encouraged us to prod the ball around at snails pace a goal down at home.
We simply had to attack and commit numbers forward, there was no choice.

Of course the sequence of scoring effects the pattern of play, but the point is surely, that you don't throw caution to the wind when you don't have to ? When we had to we did, that's pretty right isn't it ?

It's not like we have thrown caution to the wind under Sherwood either every phase of every game - or many for that matter. West Brom, Hull, Palace, Everton etc etc.

 

[hodsgod]

That rubbish is why just looking at stats is absolutely ridiculous. Anyone with a pair of eyes can see we're creating more and better chances under Tim which is also certainly helped by Ade playing some of the best football of his career as well. Certainly there's a lot to be improved upon but we ARE playing better attacking football under Tim, you don't need any stats to make that claim.

Stats always need to be analysed, and my analysis is as follows.

According to those stats, under AVB we had 58% chances in the two best categories, under Tim its 69%. a clear improvement. Add the goal stats of Ade and compare it to Soldado, it's absolutely clear why we are scoring more goals. We have better chances and a better striker. It's quite clear really, and it definitely isn't difficult.

The original analysis is so biased it is ridiculous, if it wasn't done by AVB, it must have been his mother!