I should really try to make pretty graphs instead.
I briefly wrote on the last page that I put our expected goals numbers into a statistical poisson distribution to produce expected points numbers. This is all based on Opta numbers sourced via the FotMob app.
- Early on, we were lucky to get 4 points from Accrington and Derby - xG says a fairer return from those two games would've been around two points. - Our early luck has turned since the emphatic win over Plymouth - our actual points return has been consistently short of expectation (based on chance quality) since the two lines converged after the fifth and sixth game. - According to the data, we're currently two to three points below where expected goals would anticipate us being. Will it correct or will we continue to be wasteful with our goalscoring opportunities?
This and the tables Callum put together show that they aren't being a bit unlucky and getting beat by all the top sides.
I think a drop off was inevitable losing Twine, Darling and others but they also made some good signings on paper so most expected them to drop from automatic candidates to play off candidates. It is MK dons though so hopefully they get relegated!
Ben Garner is anticipating a challenging game against Oxford United at The Valley on Saturday.
Garner has been left encouraged by the manner of his side's recent performances as the Addicks go in search of a first league win in seven this weekend.
"Our only focus going into tomorrow is the three points," said the manager. "We want to get back to winning games. There's lots of positive signs - looking at our performance metrics this week we're in the top three, top five for a lot of really key metrics that would normally see you winning games.
"That isn't quite happening but we need to make sure that we don't lose sight of that and we keep doing the good things. If we tighten up in one or two areas and improve in one or two areas then we'll get the points that our play should warrant."
Translated as if we stop giving away stupid goals and if anyone has suddenly become capable of shooting on target and actually scoring, then we'll get the points.
Translated as if we stop giving away stupid goals and if anyone has suddenly become capable of shooting on target and actually scoring, then we'll get the points.
It sounds simple doesn't it? :-)
Frustratingly for us right now, I believe we've got the the hard bit right: we are largely controlling matches outside of both penalty areas.
It's once we enter the penalty areas, where talent/instinct takes over, that we're coming up short.
Ben Garner is anticipating a challenging game against Oxford United at The Valley on Saturday.
Garner has been left encouraged by the manner of his side's recent performances as the Addicks go in search of a first league win in seven this weekend.
"Our only focus going into tomorrow is the three points," said the manager. "We want to get back to winning games. There's lots of positive signs - looking at our performance metrics this week we're in the top three, top five for a lot of really key metrics that would normally see you winning games.
"That isn't quite happening but we need to make sure that we don't lose sight of that and we keep doing the good things. If we tighten up in one or two areas and improve in one or two areas then we'll get the points that our play should warrant."
We are probably in the bottom 3 or 5 for other key metrics that would normally see us lose games. He’s basically saying we need to tighten up the defence and improve decision making/finishing in the final third which is pretty obvious but probably won’t happen with the current personnel. Especially when he keeps leaving out the players that might actually improve that. Kirk and Payne have played a part in over half our goals this season from limited minutes, if they aren’t in the 11 again tomorrow then these excuses are going to start to wear thin
We are now second in open play xG (behind Ipswich) and 23rd in set play xG (ahead of Lincoln).
Being one of the more "slow and intricate" sides, it's easy to assume that we must be passing it around the back and doing nothing. But it's not true. As shown by my not-as-pretty scatter plot below.
Opta also tracks total passing sequences of 10+ passes as well as the number of "direct sequences".
Direct sequences are measured as "the number of open play sequences that starts just inside the team's own half and has at least 50% of movement towards the opposition's goal and ends in a shot or a touch in the opposition box."
We rank 2nd in moves of 10+ passes (behind Ipswich) and 2nd in direct passing moves (behind Peterborough).
"Garnerball" works. We just need more quality in the team to finish the chances we're creating.
We are now second in open play xG (behind Ipswich) and 23rd in set play xG (ahead of Lincoln).
Being one of the more "slow and intricate" sides, it's easy to assume that we must be passing it around the back and doing nothing. But it's not true. As shown by my not-as-pretty scatter plot below.
Opta also tracks total passing sequences of 10+ passes as well as the number of "direct sequences".
Direct sequences are measured as "the number of open play sequences that starts just inside the team's own half and has at least 50% of movement towards the opposition's goal and ends in a shot or a touch in the opposition box."
We rank 2nd in moves of 10+ passes (behind Ipswich) and 2nd in direct passing moves (behind Peterborough).
"Garnerball" works. We just need more quality in the team to finish the chances we're creating.
We are also 7th for open play xG conceded though. So I wouldn’t say it’s that certain that Garnerball works, I doubt any teams have been promoted while conceding that many chances. It’s easy on the eye but the bottom line is we don’t have good enough players at either end of the pitch for the system to be effective. Unless Garner can work out a way for us to be more effective (and he has been trying tbf to him and may be getting somewhere with the 4-4-2) then he will struggle to keep his job unless we can get at least into the top half this season
Judging Garnerball by just looking at attacking and possession metrics is always going to make it look good. That’s only half of the game. Goalscoring is a bit of an issue, but we’ve scored more goals than 8 of the teams above us in the league. Defensively we’ve conceded more than all but 2 of them. Better finishing will improve us a bit but we still can’t press or defend properly so it won’t make much difference
Yeah well you would say that. Promotion here we come eh?
Our defensive metrics are too poor to mount a serious challenge, as @NabySarr points out above.
But Garner is right. If we keep creating the better chances, we will end up winning games. You can't be the better team week in week out and keep failing to win, it's statistically impossible.
From here, one of two things happens. Either:
1. the xG numbers drop off a cliff with players low on morale/confidence, Garner rightfully gets the boot in this situation 2. our results pick up to match the attacking output and we climb the table - it won't be enough for top two at this point but there's too much of the season and a January window left to rule out the top half / a top six (don't laugh) charge.
Yeah well you would say that. Promotion here we come eh?
Our defensive metrics are too poor to mount a serious challenge, as @NabySarr points out above.
But Garner is right. If we keep creating the better chances, we will end up winning games. You can't be the better team week in week out and keep failing to win, it's statistically impossible.
From here, one of two things happens. Either:
1. the xG numbers drop off a cliff with players low on morale/confidence, Garner rightfully gets the boot in this situation 2. our results pick up to match the attacking output and we climb the table - it won't be enough for top two at this point but there's too much of the season and a January window left to rule out the top half / a top six (don't laugh) charge.
I don't think your right here.
Based on what I have seen both this season and the last 35 odd years of watching far too much football is that the status quo will continue.
This team creates a lot of positions where you could score. I don't think that's in doubt, measured both through eyes and stats.
What this team doesn’t do is create a lot of chances where in balance, of both the chance and the individual involved, you should score. A good example is the Dobson chance last week. That's the same xG if its Dobson or Haaland or CBT or Washington or BWP or Taylor. Did anyone expect Dobson to score?
What will happen is xG will continue to be pretty good and results won't match it. Then the goals per xG will actually get worse. We have already seen a sequence of that with Stockley this season.
I have seen dozens if games and at the end thought how the hell did we manage to lose, or win, that. Highbury springs to mind. I haven't felt that once this season.
Yeah well you would say that. Promotion here we come eh?
Our defensive metrics are too poor to mount a serious challenge, as @NabySarr points out above.
But Garner is right. If we keep creating the better chances, we will end up winning games. You can't be the better team week in week out and keep failing to win, it's statistically impossible.
From here, one of two things happens. Either:
1. the xG numbers drop off a cliff with players low on morale/confidence, Garner rightfully gets the boot in this situation 2. our results pick up to match the attacking output and we climb the table - it won't be enough for top two at this point but there's too much of the season and a January window left to rule out the top half / a top six (don't laugh) charge.
I don't think your right here.
Based on what I have seen both this season and the last 35 odd years of watching far too much football is that the status quo will continue.
This team creates a lot of positions where you could score. I don't think that's in doubt, measured both through eyes and stats.
What this team doesn’t do is create a lot of chances where in balance, of both the chance and the individual involved, you should score. A good example is the Dobson chance last week. That's the same xG if its Dobson or Haaland or CBT or Washington or BWP or Taylor. Did anyone expect Dobson to score?
What will happen is xG will continue to be pretty good and results won't match it. Then the goals per xG will actually get worse. We have already seen a sequence of that with Stockley this season.
I have seen dozens if games and at the end thought how the hell did we manage to lose, or win, that. Highbury springs to mind. I haven't felt that once this season.
Or hopefully in a quicker more direct 4-4-2 we’ve found a way of playing that suits this squad and we’ll get better results than we did in the first 10 or so games.
If we can score from set pieces more often we did last night that can only help.
Yeah well you would say that. Promotion here we come eh?
Our defensive metrics are too poor to mount a serious challenge, as @NabySarr points out above.
But Garner is right. If we keep creating the better chances, we will end up winning games. You can't be the better team week in week out and keep failing to win, it's statistically impossible.
From here, one of two things happens. Either:
1. the xG numbers drop off a cliff with players low on morale/confidence, Garner rightfully gets the boot in this situation 2. our results pick up to match the attacking output and we climb the table - it won't be enough for top two at this point but there's too much of the season and a January window left to rule out the top half / a top six (don't laugh) charge.
I don't think your right here.
Based on what I have seen both this season and the last 35 odd years of watching far too much football is that the status quo will continue.
This team creates a lot of positions where you could score. I don't think that's in doubt, measured both through eyes and stats.
What this team doesn’t do is create a lot of chances where in balance, of both the chance and the individual involved, you should score. A good example is the Dobson chance last week. That's the same xG if its Dobson or Haaland or CBT or Washington or BWP or Taylor. Did anyone expect Dobson to score?
What will happen is xG will continue to be pretty good and results won't match it. Then the goals per xG will actually get worse. We have already seen a sequence of that with Stockley this season.
I have seen dozens if games and at the end thought how the hell did we manage to lose, or win, that. Highbury springs to mind. I haven't felt that once this season.
Or hopefully in a quicker more direct 4-4-2 we’ve found a way of playing that suits this squad and we’ll get better results than we did in the first 10 or so games.
If we can score from set pieces more often we did last night that can only help.
Indeed but all 7 of our goals can from either a counter attack or a high turnover. They aren't what we had previously, in the main, been missing.
Most of them weren't goals you could score at 0-0 either which is a different problem.
I would hazard a guess that our goals to xg ratio is awful when we aren't winning and fantastic when we are.
Yeah well you would say that. Promotion here we come eh?
Our defensive metrics are too poor to mount a serious challenge, as @NabySarr points out above.
But Garner is right. If we keep creating the better chances, we will end up winning games. You can't be the better team week in week out and keep failing to win, it's statistically impossible.
From here, one of two things happens. Either:
1. the xG numbers drop off a cliff with players low on morale/confidence, Garner rightfully gets the boot in this situation 2. our results pick up to match the attacking output and we climb the table - it won't be enough for top two at this point but there's too much of the season and a January window left to rule out the top half / a top six (don't laugh) charge.
I don't think your right here.
Based on what I have seen both this season and the last 35 odd years of watching far too much football is that the status quo will continue.
This team creates a lot of positions where you could score. I don't think that's in doubt, measured both through eyes and stats.
What this team doesn’t do is create a lot of chances where in balance, of both the chance and the individual involved, you should score. A good example is the Dobson chance last week. That's the same xG if its Dobson or Haaland or CBT or Washington or BWP or Taylor. Did anyone expect Dobson to score?
What will happen is xG will continue to be pretty good and results won't match it. Then the goals per xG will actually get worse. We have already seen a sequence of that with Stockley this season.
I have seen dozens if games and at the end thought how the hell did we manage to lose, or win, that. Highbury springs to mind. I haven't felt that once this season.
Or hopefully in a quicker more direct 4-4-2 we’ve found a way of playing that suits this squad and we’ll get better results than we did in the first 10 or so games.
If we can score from set pieces more often we did last night that can only help.
Indeed but all 7 of our goals can from either a counter attack or a high turnover. They aren't what we had previously, in the main, been missing.
Most of them weren't goals you could score at 0-0 either which is a different problem.
I would hazard a guess that our goals to xg ratio is awful when we aren't winning and fantastic when we are.
This feels like it’s been a problem for years, we are better against better opposition that leave us space to attack. Even in our championship season we did quite well against the top 6 sides and generally won games where we had less possession and lost games when we had more. Remains to be seen whether we can win against sides that are happy to let us have the ball and sit back and look to counter us, hopefully Shrewsbury on Saturday will prove we can do it
Comments
Blackett-Taylor 79% (62 mins)
Mendez-Laing 57% (10 mins)
Stockley 32% (44 mins)
Knight 20% (68 mins)
Collins 20% (45 mins)
I briefly wrote on the last page that I put our expected goals numbers into a statistical poisson distribution to produce expected points numbers. This is all based on Opta numbers sourced via the FotMob app.
- Early on, we were lucky to get 4 points from Accrington and Derby - xG says a fairer return from those two games would've been around two points.
- Our early luck has turned since the emphatic win over Plymouth - our actual points return has been consistently short of expectation (based on chance quality) since the two lines converged after the fifth and sixth game.
- According to the data, we're currently two to three points below where expected goals would anticipate us being. Will it correct or will we continue to be wasteful with our goalscoring opportunities?
Oxford the biggest underperformers, Lincoln the biggest overperformers.
https://twitter.com/xg_data/status/1572512154775064579?s=46&t=LX0fvPoMbI3CHot1H2KdBg
This and the tables Callum put together show that they aren't being a bit unlucky and getting beat by all the top sides.
https://theanalyst.com/na/2022/08/league-one-stats-2022-23/
Ben Garner is anticipating a challenging game against Oxford United at The Valley on Saturday.
Garner has been left encouraged by the manner of his side's recent performances as the Addicks go in search of a first league win in seven this weekend.
"Our only focus going into tomorrow is the three points," said the manager. "We want to get back to winning games. There's lots of positive signs - looking at our performance metrics this week we're in the top three, top five for a lot of really key metrics that would normally see you winning games.
"That isn't quite happening but we need to make sure that we don't lose sight of that and we keep doing the good things. If we tighten up in one or two areas and improve in one or two areas then we'll get the points that our play should warrant."
Frustratingly for us right now, I believe we've got the the hard bit right: we are largely controlling matches outside of both penalty areas.
It's once we enter the penalty areas, where talent/instinct takes over, that we're coming up short.
https://theanalyst.com/na/2022/08/league-one-stats-2022-23/
We are now second in open play xG (behind Ipswich) and 23rd in set play xG (ahead of Lincoln).
Being one of the more "slow and intricate" sides, it's easy to assume that we must be passing it around the back and doing nothing. But it's not true. As shown by my not-as-pretty scatter plot below.
Opta also tracks total passing sequences of 10+ passes as well as the number of "direct sequences".
Direct sequences are measured as "the number of open play sequences that starts just inside the team's own half and has at least 50% of movement towards the opposition's goal and ends in a shot or a touch in the opposition box."
We rank 2nd in moves of 10+ passes (behind Ipswich) and 2nd in direct passing moves (behind Peterborough).
"Garnerball" works. We just need more quality in the team to finish the chances we're creating.
https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/how-important-is-xg-charlton-athletic-boss-ben-garner-on-why-he-does-take-interest-in-those-stats/
The rest of us have lives
But Garner is right. If we keep creating the better chances, we will end up winning games. You can't be the better team week in week out and keep failing to win, it's statistically impossible.
From here, one of two things happens. Either:
1. the xG numbers drop off a cliff with players low on morale/confidence, Garner rightfully gets the boot in this situation
2. our results pick up to match the attacking output and we climb the table - it won't be enough for top two at this point but there's too much of the season and a January window left to rule out the top half / a top six (don't laugh) charge.
Based on what I have seen both this season and the last 35 odd years of watching far too much football is that the status quo will continue.
This team creates a lot of positions where you could score. I don't think that's in doubt, measured both through eyes and stats.
What this team doesn’t do is create a lot of chances where in balance, of both the chance and the individual involved, you should score. A good example is the Dobson chance last week. That's the same xG if its Dobson or Haaland or CBT or Washington or BWP or Taylor. Did anyone expect Dobson to score?
What will happen is xG will continue to be pretty good and results won't match it. Then the goals per xG will actually get worse. We have already seen a sequence of that with Stockley this season.
I have seen dozens if games and at the end thought how the hell did we manage to lose, or win, that. Highbury springs to mind. I haven't felt that once this season.
If we can score from set pieces more often we did last night that can only help.
Most of them weren't goals you could score at 0-0 either which is a different problem.
I would hazard a guess that our goals to xg ratio is awful when we aren't winning and fantastic when we are.