| Are you sure the problem is in attack? 22:10 - Jan 2 with 4743 views | BOBD |
Goals scored:-
Ipswich 47
Plymouth 46
Wednesday 45
Bristol R 40
Peterborough 39
Exeter 38
Charlton 36
Derby 33
Wycombe 33
Burton 32
Goals conceded:-
Derby 17
Wednesday 18
Bolton 20
Barnsley 21
Cheltenham 25
Fleetwood 25
Ipswich 25
Plymouth 26
Wycombe 26
Oxford 27
Ipswich have kept 9 clean sheets, Plymouth have kept 10 - Wednesday have kept 14 clean sheets!
[Post edited 2 Jan 2023 22:20]
|  | | |  |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 21:58 - Jan 14 with 766 views | pointofblue |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 21:45 - Jan 14 by DJR |
I don't the issue in defence is with Donacien, Woolfy and Burgess, it is the players outside or in front of them who seem to me to be the problem because they have a habit of not picking up, or closing down, their man. Today was a case in point because Mumba received the ball but neither Humphreys or Davis were close to him.
The impression I get is that some of our players ball watch a bit too much, when they need to be much more aware of the opposition players around them. |
Today was the second time in a few games where Humphreys was shrugged off too easily by an opposing player leading to a goal. Exceptionally promising player that he is, he's probably not strong enough when we're trying to defend to lead. [Post edited 14 Jan 2023 23:12]
| |
| |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 22:58 - Jan 14 with 704 views | positivity |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 18:34 - Jan 14 by FrimleyBlue |
It's just so simple. Game management.
It's up to the highly paid manager to figure out how to do it. He's had financial support. He's got what he wants. Time to achieve it. |
i'm not sure today is the best time to judge if the new signings are what we need, let's give them more than 30 minutes combined to see if they're the support we need! | |
| |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 19:59 - Jan 31 with 585 views | Swansea_Blue |
A bit late to this, but here's an update. The November table is meaningless now as it coincided with our better run.
https://footystats.org/england/efl-league-one/xg
By the metrics this site uses, we're by far the best in the league for creating goal scoring opportunities yet the second worse for converting them. That bears out what we see every week, with lots of wasted good opportunities (xG vs Actual).
We're also comfortably conceding the fewest goal scoring opportunities in the league. We're doing relatively slightly better in terms of the actual verses expected conceded: we're 6th worse in this stat (not shown on the table - I've just copied across to excel to work it out).
So there's not much in it. We're the best at creating chances and the best at restricting them. We're relatively bad (2nd worse) at converting the chances we create and only slightly better (6th worse) at defending the chances conceded.
Addressing either would help. It might be easier to address goals conceded, as we concede a lot from set pieces for example and that's easier to manage than players fluffing a chance. I'm sure the club have all the stats on this and will be looking for where those marginal gains can be made. |  |
| |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 20:33 - Jan 31 with 531 views | Exiled2Surrey |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 19:59 - Jan 31 by Swansea_Blue |
A bit late to this, but here's an update. The November table is meaningless now as it coincided with our better run.
https://footystats.org/england/efl-league-one/xg
By the metrics this site uses, we're by far the best in the league for creating goal scoring opportunities yet the second worse for converting them. That bears out what we see every week, with lots of wasted good opportunities (xG vs Actual).
We're also comfortably conceding the fewest goal scoring opportunities in the league. We're doing relatively slightly better in terms of the actual verses expected conceded: we're 6th worse in this stat (not shown on the table - I've just copied across to excel to work it out).
So there's not much in it. We're the best at creating chances and the best at restricting them. We're relatively bad (2nd worse) at converting the chances we create and only slightly better (6th worse) at defending the chances conceded.
Addressing either would help. It might be easier to address goals conceded, as we concede a lot from set pieces for example and that's easier to manage than players fluffing a chance. I'm sure the club have all the stats on this and will be looking for where those marginal gains can be made. |
My perception, based on no data, is that our XG is made up of lots of small chances rather than fewer large chances - splitting hairs maybe but I wonder whether the stats adjust for the quality of striker (is the XG for a premier league striker from a particular situation the same as for a league one striker) and whether therefore our XG flatters us - that is a question for someone who knows what they are talking about | | | |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 22:56 - Jan 31 with 466 views | SamWhiteUK |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 18:29 - Jan 14 by Ryorry |
It's our lack of *winning* goals that's the problem.
As in too many draws.
Winning 4-0 is lovely for GD, but we'd be better off with the 'surplus' 3 goals resulting in 3 x 2-1 wins instead of 3 x 1-1 or 0-0 draws. [Post edited 14 Jan 2023 18:30]
|
Exactly this. The trouble is the goals we concede are in the WRONG games, ie we concede to change a win to a draw rather than a draw to a loss. The former drops 2 points, the latter drops 1.
For any given two games, you're better off winning one and losing one, than drawing both.
There are two ways to counteract this - score more in those games, or stop conceding. The problem isn't our attack or defence specifically, in my eyes. |  | | |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 08:57 - Feb 1 with 353 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 20:33 - Jan 31 by Exiled2Surrey |
My perception, based on no data, is that our XG is made up of lots of small chances rather than fewer large chances - splitting hairs maybe but I wonder whether the stats adjust for the quality of striker (is the XG for a premier league striker from a particular situation the same as for a league one striker) and whether therefore our XG flatters us - that is a question for someone who knows what they are talking about |
Their description of the method is here:
‘How is the xG calculated for EFL League One?
FootyStats uses a unique formula for calculating xG. Traditional xG only takes account of shot positions while FootyStats uses a combination of shot accuracy (on/off target), shot frequency (number of shots), attack dangerousness, overall attack pressure (posession amount and depth of posession) to summarize expected goals for EFL League One. The reason for using more data points to calculate xG is because many attacks can be extremely dangerous without a shot attempt, and using other data such as posession and depth of attack can increase the granularity of EFL League One's xG data.’
It’s not looking at things like quality of the player, just positions we get into, how often, attempts on & off target, etc. It’s not unequivocal, but it’ll be treating teams in the same league equally I’d have thought, so fairly reliable for comparisons. It’s interesting but not the be all and end all, I suppose is the best way to look at it. Ultimately we can see the problems with our own eyes when Wes skies one from 6 yards out or we fail to challenge for a defensive header. | |
| |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 09:34 - Feb 1 with 346 views | Exiled2Surrey |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 08:57 - Feb 1 by Swansea_Blue |
Their description of the method is here:
‘How is the xG calculated for EFL League One?
FootyStats uses a unique formula for calculating xG. Traditional xG only takes account of shot positions while FootyStats uses a combination of shot accuracy (on/off target), shot frequency (number of shots), attack dangerousness, overall attack pressure (posession amount and depth of posession) to summarize expected goals for EFL League One. The reason for using more data points to calculate xG is because many attacks can be extremely dangerous without a shot attempt, and using other data such as posession and depth of attack can increase the granularity of EFL League One's xG data.’
It’s not looking at things like quality of the player, just positions we get into, how often, attempts on & off target, etc. It’s not unequivocal, but it’ll be treating teams in the same league equally I’d have thought, so fairly reliable for comparisons. It’s interesting but not the be all and end all, I suppose is the best way to look at it. Ultimately we can see the problems with our own eyes when Wes skies one from 6 yards out or we fail to challenge for a defensive header. |
That is very helpful, thank you - gives me a bit more faith in the numbers discussed here. Sounds like the numbers I was looking at previously from experimental361 might be using a different methodology, or are they all basically doing the same thing?
It looks like from this that if KJ storms down the right and flashes one across the goal for no one to tap in, then that will contribute to this stat, as will spending time moving the ball from side to side across the edge of their box looking for an opening (possession amount and depth of possession). And, as you say, those other clangers we have witnessed in recent frustrating performances. | | | |
| Are you sure the problem is in attack? on 09:49 - Feb 1 with 336 views | OldFart71 |
Think it all comes down to the type of football you require your team to play. Remember the season when Arsenal won the Prem and many of their wins were 1-0. We have been set up to dominate games, which we have. Many by 60-70%. But the problem has been not turning that dominance into goals and conceding some sloppy, some flukey and some wonder goals late on after perhaps our dominance has waned a bit and subs haven't had the impact that was expected of them. The additions should turn our season around to where it was when we had a bench of subs that did have an impact. But due to a crop of injuries and illness several who we relied upon as backups either dropped out or had to be played. The only positions I have any real concern about are the two centre backs. Which two to play and are the other two capable substitutes. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
