WBA are top by 6 points. They have now scored 57 goals in the League which is 9 more than anyone else but not one player has reached double figures - Austin is top with 8 (most of those from the subs bench) and this represents 14% of goals scored. All 13 outfield players used by WBA last night have found the net albeit that Grosicki (two sub appearances for WBA) did so for Hull.
This is, of course, far better than having an over reliance on one or two players simply because players get injured or lose form. What would happen to Fulham, for example, if Mtirovic got injured for any period of time? He has scored 21 in 29 appearances out of a total of 47 for the team or 45% of all goals.
Another stat that backs up others further up this thread (about points lost from a lead etc.) which suggest we struggle to keep up the intensity at which we play for 90 mins. I dont think its about fitness as Bow has a tough regime on this and ran an intense pre-season. Those who missed pre season with us are likely to take a while to get to the same level, but i think squad depth and injuries will likely have had a significant impact on this.
Interesting this as we usually outscore XG. I said on the post match thread that it felt like it was going to be one of those days where we created plenty of chances but couldn't put one away which is the opposite of usual. This season we haven't in general created many but they've been good quality chances and we tend to put away a good amount.
I know you do this sort of thing as a bit of a joke and you play up on the parody of yourself kinda thing. But I'll respond anyway. The obvious response is that no it doesn't if they are lower quality shots. Thats if you assume we continue to have all the high quality chances we currently create. In reality instructing players to shoot more could actually leave us scoring less goals. Currently we are patient with out buildup playing almost like basketball (or how 5 a side football should be played) with a pivot reasonably deep we try and force an opening and if its not on rather than shooting we return to the pivot and try again. We build until we get an opening and have a high quality chance hence our high conversion rate. If we shoot on sight chances are we wouldn't get to the point of creating that high quality chance as we would have simply given the ball back to the opposition by taking a low % shot. That in turn would allow them to keep coming back at us.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Now, on the other side, teams have to go forward. If you score twice in a match, you have a way higher chance to win - but looking at the correlation here, I think it shows defence is more of a precursor to league success with 3 of the top 6 in the bottom half for scoring 2+. <a href="https://t.co/fC5RR06GZ9">pic.twitter.com/fC5RR06GZ9</a></p>— The Biscuit Analytic (@BiscuitAnalytic) <a href="
I know you do this sort of thing as a bit of a joke and you play up on the parody of yourself kinda thing. But I'll respond anyway. The obvious response is that no it doesn't if they are lower quality shots. Thats if you assume we continue to have all the high quality chances we currently create. In reality instructing players to shoot more could actually leave us scoring less goals. Currently we are patient with out buildup playing almost like basketball (or how 5 a side football should be played) with a pivot reasonably deep we try and force an opening and if its not on rather than shooting we return to the pivot and try again. We build until we get an opening and have a high quality chance hence our high conversion rate. If we shoot on sight chances are we wouldn't get to the point of creating that high quality chance as we would have simply given the ball back to the opposition by taking a low % shot. That in turn would allow them to keep coming back at us.
Just words. We can still play patient build up football but if the opportunity is there then take a shot.
My final word on it is proof. Our penalty. Came from a shot from Lapslie who was outside the box (oh dear, doesnt fit in with our successful XG model) and from a player who isnt expected to score. In your world he should have passed it..... which in all probability would have led to nothing. He didnt & we got a pen.
I know you do this sort of thing as a bit of a joke and you play up on the parody of yourself kinda thing. But I'll respond anyway. The obvious response is that no it doesn't if they are lower quality shots. Thats if you assume we continue to have all the high quality chances we currently create. In reality instructing players to shoot more could actually leave us scoring less goals. Currently we are patient with out buildup playing almost like basketball (or how 5 a side football should be played) with a pivot reasonably deep we try and force an opening and if its not on rather than shooting we return to the pivot and try again. We build until we get an opening and have a high quality chance hence our high conversion rate. If we shoot on sight chances are we wouldn't get to the point of creating that high quality chance as we would have simply given the ball back to the opposition by taking a low % shot. That in turn would allow them to keep coming back at us.
Just words. We can still play patient build up football but if the opportunity is there then take a shot.
My final word on it is proof. Our penalty. Came from a shot from Lapslie who was outside the box (oh dear, doesnt fit in with our successful XG model) and from a player who isnt expected to score. In your world he should have passed it..... which in all probability would have led to nothing. He didnt & we got a pen.
End of
Absolutely not and nothing even remotely close to what I was saying.
I know you do this sort of thing as a bit of a joke and you play up on the parody of yourself kinda thing. But I'll respond anyway. The obvious response is that no it doesn't if they are lower quality shots. Thats if you assume we continue to have all the high quality chances we currently create. In reality instructing players to shoot more could actually leave us scoring less goals. Currently we are patient with out buildup playing almost like basketball (or how 5 a side football should be played) with a pivot reasonably deep we try and force an opening and if its not on rather than shooting we return to the pivot and try again. We build until we get an opening and have a high quality chance hence our high conversion rate. If we shoot on sight chances are we wouldn't get to the point of creating that high quality chance as we would have simply given the ball back to the opposition by taking a low % shot. That in turn would allow them to keep coming back at us.
Just words. We can still play patient build up football but if the opportunity is there then take a shot.
My final word on it is proof. Our penalty. Came from a shot from Lapslie who was outside the box (oh dear, doesnt fit in with our successful XG model) and from a player who isnt expected to score. In your world he should have passed it..... which in all probability would have led to nothing. He didnt & we got a pen.
End of
In no one’s world he should have passed it, there was nothing else really on.
I’d say patient build up but shooting if an opportunity is there is how Bowyer wants us to play. What we don’t do much of is take hopeful long shots or swing in crosses from deep.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Now, on the other side, teams have to go forward. If you score twice in a match, you have a way higher chance to win - but looking at the correlation here, I think it shows defence is more of a precursor to league success with 3 of the top 6 in the bottom half for scoring 2+. <a href="https://t.co/fC5RR06GZ9">pic.twitter.com/fC5RR06GZ9</a></p>— The Biscuit Analytic (@BiscuitAnalytic) <a href="
What I take from that chart is the team who has scored 4+ goals in a game more times than anyone else is currently top & all but 1 of the teams that have failed to score 4 goals in a game are in the bottom half of the table with all bar Reading are in the bottom 6.
Score 3 or more goals in a game & you'll not likely to lose.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Now, on the other side, teams have to go forward. If you score twice in a match, you have a way higher chance to win - but looking at the correlation here, I think it shows defence is more of a precursor to league success with 3 of the top 6 in the bottom half for scoring 2+. <a href="https://t.co/fC5RR06GZ9">pic.twitter.com/fC5RR06GZ9</a></p>— The Biscuit Analytic (@BiscuitAnalytic) <a href="
What I take from that chart is the team who has scored 4+ goals in a game more times than anyone else is currently top & all but 1 of the teams that have failed to score 4 goals in a game are in the bottom half of the table with all bar Reading are in the bottom 6.
Score 3 or more goals in a game & you'll not likely to lose.
What do you make of the fact that the team that in 2nd has scored 49 times, the one in 3rd have 48 goals and the 5th placed side has 45 as opposed to our 44? Would that extra one goal catapult us up to 5th or would conceding 15 goals less be more likely to do the job?
Fair point - I did say on the match thread last week I think it would take teams by surprise if we actually put one into the box for a change. Might stun them all into not attacking it.
Comments
WBA are top by 6 points. They have now scored 57 goals in the League which is 9 more than anyone else but not one player has reached double figures - Austin is top with 8 (most of those from the subs bench) and this represents 14% of goals scored. All 13 outfield players used by WBA last night have found the net albeit that Grosicki (two sub appearances for WBA) did so for Hull.
This is, of course, far better than having an over reliance on one or two players simply because players get injured or lose form. What would happen to Fulham, for example, if Mtirovic got injured for any period of time? He has scored 21 in 29 appearances out of a total of 47 for the team or 45% of all goals.
too busy looking at the wrong end of the table where we are !!
11.6% chance of relegation
Most likely finishes: 20th, 12.5% or 18th, 12.2%
https://twitter.com/seconomists/status/1228253508761260034?s=21
https://twitter.com/Blades_analytic/status/1229372315332378624/photo/1
Davis and Pratley very similar. Conor our standout. WIlliams reasonably solid at both.
Mowatt one we should be looking at when Barnsley go down.
My final word on it is proof. Our penalty. Came from a shot from Lapslie who was outside the box (oh dear, doesnt fit in with our successful XG model) and from a player who isnt expected to score. In your world he should have passed it..... which in all probability would have led to nothing. He didnt & we got a pen.
End of
Absolutely not and nothing even remotely close to what I was saying.
I’d say patient build up but shooting if an opportunity is there is how Bowyer wants us to play. What we don’t do much of is take hopeful long shots or swing in crosses from deep.
What I take from that chart is the team who has scored 4+ goals in a game more times than anyone else is currently top & all but 1 of the teams that have failed to score 4 goals in a game are in the bottom half of the table with all bar Reading are in the bottom 6.
Score 3 or more goals in a game & you'll not likely to lose.
This is from @EFLStats
I have no idea what model is being used. Infogol has us at 23rd in their xG table.
Good times.
Interesting given the comments about us not being able to take a corner.