You sum it up perfectly.Am I understanding it correctly in that we should have scored more and conceded less?
We would have got it right I'm sure , the whole thing is just senseless . But can't keep dwelling on it
Crazy really, hopefully there's a bit of data correction tonight !The difference between our xGA 1.14 and Burnley's 0.97 is ridiculous considering we've conceded 23 they've let in 6!
I always thought we would do well against those two. We don't mind an open game. Tonight worries me but if we can sneak a goal who knows.Yeah, my son was calling November "the month of doom". However, apart from Derby, we've beaten Boro and come from behind to draw with Sunderland and Sheff Urd.
Thinking the three hour trip up North will be worth it tonight.
Don’t we have a lot of low quality shots though? Even Saturday when we battered them on shots I don’t remember a huge amount of clear cut chances.
Of maybe more relevance is we’ve had 40 ‘big chances’ (ranking 4th) and missed 30 of them (ranking 1st).
Yes, I was looking for that stat too as I was pretty sure I had heard that a week or so ago. We miss a lot of 'big chances'. But it is actually not as bad as you'd think as it is usually a sign of a good team that is creating lots of chances. 'Big chances missed' and 'goals scored' tend to have a strong correlation come the end of the season.I'm assuming ranking 1st here is not a good thing e.g. we've missed the most big chances of anyone!
I’ve often felt this but can’t find anything statistically that points to it. In fact, our non-penalty xG to shots ratio is 0.11, with the highest achievers in the league at 0.12 and the lowest at 0.07. Suggests there’s plenty worse than us.
Of maybe more relevance is we’ve had 40 ‘big chances’ (ranking 4th) and missed 30 of them (ranking 1st).
People tend to focus on the defence being the issue and that is probably fair but we are 14th on goals conceded and 6th on xGA. The former is not great if you want to be right up there but still mid table and higher than our league position. If we had converted more of our chances we would still be in the mix. When people blame formations, positional play, coaching etc that does seem a little over simplistic as we are talking elite sport and fine margins. Ultimately you can blame anything on 'coaching' but our shape is generally okay, we generally have numbers back.
If you look at the goals v Sheffield, even for the second when the ball was turned over, the players were all in good positions and that is probably all you can do from the sidelines. Blame who you like on the field - lati lost his man/got beat for pace both times, MvE stood still/didn't cover, Dasilva should have been closer to his man for the first and cut out the cross but from a Sheffield U perspective they are two excellent balls from Hamer, good movement, good finishes.
The point about us going behind a lot is very valid and really hard to factor out of the available data.It’s a concern if we’re conceding a lot more goals than our xGA suggests because it almost confirms the eye test that we concede many soft goals. Which will be down to a combination of individual errors (Rudoni v Derby) or positional/tactical errors such as Sheff U’s 1st goal at the weekend.
These data metrics are a useful tool and why I believed MR could turn things around. However, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
What they don’t really consider is ‘game state’ and that’s a big flaw here. In most games, we’ve conceded the first goal so spend time trying to attack against teams defending a lead. Which means that we trying to create more chances against teams digging in to protect the lead which is almost definitely distorting the data here.
Sheffield United and Swansea at home are good examples of games where the ‘game state’ and underlying data don’t quite add up.
Add tonight’s game to the list. Two avoidable goals and we’ve lost 2-0.The point about us going behind a lot is very valid and really hard to factor out of the available data.
Re: soft goals, yeah, I agree. The Rudoni error I'm actually fine with - mistakes happen - but I can't get my head round the number of times where we have players back, they are in position and yet still somehow leave a striker entirely unmarked under no pressure in our penalty area. How many times this season does it feel like most of the back line 'switched off?'
These stats mean nothing when your defence minus MVE is made up of Thomas, Kitching, Binks, Joel Lat, DaSilva and Bidwell.
So Burnley are a horrible team to play against(/watch) so tonight in isolation was no surprise to me but I will say what I said in the 'defence' thread. I'm just not convinced a back 6 of:Add tonight’s game to the list. Two avoidable goals and we’ve lost 2-0.
100% - we’ve conceded the first goal in 11 of our 17 games this season.I think our numbers are massively influenced by how much time we’ve spent behind this season tbh. No chance have we been anywhere near as good as these numbers would suggest.
The point about us going behind a lot is very valid and really hard to factor out of the available data.
Re: soft goals, yeah, I agree. The Rudoni error I'm actually fine with - mistakes happen - but I can't get my head round the number of times where we have players back, they are in position and yet still somehow leave a striker entirely unmarked under no pressure in our penalty area. How many times this season does it feel like most of the back line 'switched off?'
I think our numbers are massively influenced by how much time we’ve spent behind this season tbh. No chance have we been anywhere near as good as these numbers would suggest.
Surely 57 missed out of 121 according to your screenshot?We missed the most big chances, 84 out of 121.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?