Ionman34
SC Supporter
- Jun 1, 2011
- 7,182
- 16,793
As some of our more "fragile" posters are worrying about getting " scrollers thumb" on the what our opponents thread, and because we were in fact spamming up the thread if we're honest, I took the advice given and started this fred so we can discuss the merits, or not, of the stats that are now permeating the game more and more.
As the old adage says, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, but I'm of the opinion that stats are a useful tool when used in the right way.
For example, one of the better statistics out there, for me, is the xG stat. I went through the reasons why in the other thread and really can't be arsed to type all that shit out again but, in a nutshell, I believe it provides a fairly accurate measure of how well a team has performed in an attacking sense as well as from a defensive perspective. The Wolves game is a prime example of this, whilst they dominated possession, their xG was less than 1, meaning that they were restricted by a good defensive performance, whilst our xG was nearer 2, showing that we created effectively double the decent scoring opportunities, despite having far less of the ball.
Now the point I made was that the stats should be viewed in conjunction with what you're actually seeing on the pitch, not as something separate. My reasoning behind that is that the two together give a far better understanding of the tactical approach employed. For example, had Wolves xG been up around the 3 mark, that tells me that they have battered us, we've got it badly wrong in our approach and we've only won the game out of sheer luck, bad finishing or a goalkeeper having an absolute worldie. The fact that they were below 1 backs up what I saw when I watched the game, a team set up to control their attacking threat and exploit the space left on the counterattack, creating better chances because that was the plan all along.
I'm not going to claim that xG is infallible because it isn't, the same as any other stat taken in isolation. For example, my Old Man is obsessed by possession stats. If he sees we've dominated possession and lost, he's straight in there with the " how the feck did we lose that game?" mantra, without really thinking about what was actually.done with the ball. For me, the possession stat is the most misleading of the lot when taken in isolation as it doesn't reflect your effectiveness, whether you were penetrative, on the front foot etc. I've lost count of the times we've moaned about how we've passed around in front of an opposition to no effect, then had our pants pulled down and lost the game.
So, whilst stats are marmite to many, maybe that's because they are looking at them from a Black and White perspective rather than as a supplement to what we watch so that we can better understand what was actually happening on the pitch.
Again, I think the Wolves game is a perfect example of this, with many thinking that we nicked the game because Wolves had all the possession. Whereas I saw a tactical setup utilised to exploit their front foot aggression, and the stats back this up.
Discuss
As the old adage says, there are lies, damn lies and statistics, but I'm of the opinion that stats are a useful tool when used in the right way.
For example, one of the better statistics out there, for me, is the xG stat. I went through the reasons why in the other thread and really can't be arsed to type all that shit out again but, in a nutshell, I believe it provides a fairly accurate measure of how well a team has performed in an attacking sense as well as from a defensive perspective. The Wolves game is a prime example of this, whilst they dominated possession, their xG was less than 1, meaning that they were restricted by a good defensive performance, whilst our xG was nearer 2, showing that we created effectively double the decent scoring opportunities, despite having far less of the ball.
Now the point I made was that the stats should be viewed in conjunction with what you're actually seeing on the pitch, not as something separate. My reasoning behind that is that the two together give a far better understanding of the tactical approach employed. For example, had Wolves xG been up around the 3 mark, that tells me that they have battered us, we've got it badly wrong in our approach and we've only won the game out of sheer luck, bad finishing or a goalkeeper having an absolute worldie. The fact that they were below 1 backs up what I saw when I watched the game, a team set up to control their attacking threat and exploit the space left on the counterattack, creating better chances because that was the plan all along.
I'm not going to claim that xG is infallible because it isn't, the same as any other stat taken in isolation. For example, my Old Man is obsessed by possession stats. If he sees we've dominated possession and lost, he's straight in there with the " how the feck did we lose that game?" mantra, without really thinking about what was actually.done with the ball. For me, the possession stat is the most misleading of the lot when taken in isolation as it doesn't reflect your effectiveness, whether you were penetrative, on the front foot etc. I've lost count of the times we've moaned about how we've passed around in front of an opposition to no effect, then had our pants pulled down and lost the game.
So, whilst stats are marmite to many, maybe that's because they are looking at them from a Black and White perspective rather than as a supplement to what we watch so that we can better understand what was actually happening on the pitch.
Again, I think the Wolves game is a perfect example of this, with many thinking that we nicked the game because Wolves had all the possession. Whereas I saw a tactical setup utilised to exploit their front foot aggression, and the stats back this up.
Discuss
