Norwich players running the least of all in the Prem

[grefstad 0]

According to BBC pre-match writup of Liverpool-Norwich, they claim that Norwich have covered less ground than any other team in the division so far.

If so, it is slightly worrying.

I guess the stats probably comes from Opta,

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34236959

Norwich''s tally of seven points from the opening five matches is their best start to a Premier League season since they had 10 points at the same stage in 1993.

Their players have run a total of 514km so far in 2015-16, the lowest tally in the division.

Wes Hoolahan had provided four goal assists, more than any player in the top flight this season ahead of the weekend''s fixtures.

Alexander Tettey has already been booked four times this season. It is the highest tally in the Premier League.

[coachkemp 0]

[quote user="grefstad"]According to BBC pre-match writup of Liverpool-Norwich, they claim that Norwich have covered less ground than any other team in the division so far.

If so, it is slightly worrying.

I guess the stats probably comes from Opta,

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34236959

Norwich''s tally of seven points from the opening five matches is their best start to a Premier League season since they had 10 points at the same stage in 1993.

Their players have run a total of 514km so far in 2015-16, the lowest tally in the division.

Wes Hoolahan had provided four goal assists, more than any player in the top flight this season ahead of the weekend''s fixtures.

Alexander Tettey has already been booked four times this season. It is the highest tally in the Premier League.[/quote]Maybe we haven''t run as far because we have been making other teams chase the ball rather than the other way round? I don''t see an issue where if a team are near their own box and we are in a strong position that we should go charging after the ball and let space in behind, they can have it in areas we don''t see as dangerous. A big thing I say when I coach is let the ball do the work, and that the ball can travel a lot further and a lot quicker than the player can. Which is why maybe we haven''t been running as far?Also the style of football will dictate this as well with boys at leicester for example nearly topping the tables on distances which is a reflection of their drop deep and sprint on the counter style of football..?

[Oswald Cobblepot 0]

That stat doesn''t particularly concern me tbh. Maybe they are expending their energy in a much more efficient way i.e not chasing down lost causes, pressing off the ball at the right times etc. Alex Neil has got them well drilled and each player knows their role. They''ve performed well enough so far, so I wouldn''t read too much into a stat like that.

[hogesar 10,920]

grefstad moaning, how unusual.

To be fair we''ve had good possession figures for several of the games this season. When you''ve got the ball you don''t need to do half as much running as when you haven''t.

If we were bottom of the table and looking like a lazy team not bothered, it''d be a negative. With everything considered, it''s actually quite positive.

[Guest]

Why is it worrying? Since when has the total distance covered by a team been a meaningful stat? Do you have distances over the season from say, last season, and how they correlate to league position?

[It's Character Forming 1,210]

Certainly at Sunderland we were well in control for most of the game and for much of the 2nd half were able to just stroke the ball around. Sounds like the 2nd half vs Bournemouth was pretty similar. So in both those games our players would''ve been running less distance than you''d normally expect.

As often the case, football stats can raise as many questions as they answer.

I think Sunday will show whether there''s any fitness issue as our players will have to press the ball for long periods !

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Oh, for goodness sake.

We run less than any other team, yet have only been outplayed once this season. Some people might call that intelligent coaching. Others.....................

Swansea used to have two thirds possession in games, but still lost them.

[AJ 1,375]

Stats like this are fairly meaningless in the scheme of things. We''ve had a lot of possession and our defending has been pretty good to a point. Neither attacking nor defending requires a lot of running if you do it efficiently as a team. We''ve got 7 points and can''t really complain so far, if our players are reserving their energy to bomb forward given the chance then so be it!

[Pete Raven 276]

This stat was pointed out to Alex Neil in yesterday''s presser.His response?"It tells me we''re the most organised."

[Legend Iwan 30]

That stat was definitely true before last week''s round of matches - haven''t seen since. And correct, it comes from Opta.

[AJ 1,375]

Tidy response from AN!

[Jarders 4]

Is that seriously the photo they are going with on the BBCs prematch write up? Brodgers looking like he''s half way though a sneeze with a broom handle up his arse.

[Iwans Big Toe 383]

Stats on how far we have run need to be looked at with other stats as well. This should help put it into perspective:                                                  Norwich                      OppositionTotal Passes                              1159 (911)                  1663 (1218)Total Passes avg per game       231.7 (227.75)            332.6 (304.5)Passes in final 1/3                     695 (606)                    572 (414)Final 1/3 a.p.g                          139 (151.5)                 114.4 (103.5)Total possession                       247.9% (209.8%)        252.1% (190.2%)Possession a.p.g                       49.58% (52.45%)        50.42% (47.55%)What you can figure out from these, plus the running stats, is that we are quite happy to let the opposition have the ball in their own half. But as soon as they try to cross the half way line we pressure and try to win the ball back. Take the Southampton game out of the equation, where we played for an hour with 10 men, and the stats look even more impressive as to how much more effective we are going forwards than the other teams we''ve played.With that said, it''s only impressive if we are creating chances, preventing goals and winning games.

[Guest]

[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"]This stat was pointed out to Alex Neil in yesterday''s presser.His response?"It tells me we''re the most organised." [/quote]

Brilliant response. You can''t doubt the efficiency of Alex Neil''s team.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,424]

Milner does a lot of running around, still can''t hit a barn door with a banjo.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

It seems to me that Neil and his team have genuinely come up with a new way of coaching football. We seem to have taken what Swansea and Southampton did and added something, although I`m not up enough on football coaching/tactics to say what that is. We run the least, but seem to come good in the second half.....Coincidence? I think not.

[Branston Pickle 4,168]

As others have said, statistics like this are pretty meaningless on their own - obviously if we were losing every week and looking lazy it might be different, but my take is that it shows a certain degree of efficiency about the team which we ought to be happy about - and it is something that other sides ought to try to emulate.

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]As others have said, statistics like this are pretty meaningless on their own - obviously if we were losing every week and looking lazy it might be different, but my take is that it shows a certain degree of efficiency about the team which we ought to be happy about - and it is something that other sides ought to try to emulate.[/quote]I disagree BP, let the others run around like headless chickens and tire themselves out, while we conserve our energy, using the AN methodology.  Simples.[;)]

[Yellowbeagle 0]

Got to love the importance a lot of us Brits place on ''''running around a lot!". Considering that bar the Southampton game, we''ve looked good enough to win each game shows you what rubbish some of these statistics are in isolation.

[grefstad 0]

Good points from many here.

But given the theory of teams dominating possession not having to do as much running (chasing the ball), you would expect the dominant teams, like ManC to walk around the pitch passing the ball.

They are not. These teams work hard, it seems from the stats.

But it may well be something in it that opposition teams, so far, have passed the ball around in their own half, without us bothering to press high. If so, tactical from AN, to save energy ;)

Still, being the team doing the least running is not a good stat, even if it is a "stupid stat" seen in isolation.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

It wouldn''t be a good stat if we were bottom, but we are not ffs

[flying high up in the sky! 1]

We have had few throw ins in our own half as well!!!! What is going on at our club!!!! We are doomed I tell you dooooooooooomed.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="grefstad"] Still, being the team doing the least running is not a good stat, even if it is a "stupid stat" seen in isolation.[/quote]

It''s not a good stat or a bad stat.  It''s just a stat.

[The Walking Man 13]

"Run the least so far"

"Best start to a PL season since 93"

Now based on those stats, correlation would surely say if we run even less we should theoretically get even more points. WE''RE RUNNING TOO MUCH!!!!

My point is, stats are stats, taken in isolation (like in the BBC article) and selectively (like I have just done) they''re pretty pointless and can be used to argue almost anything.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Wait a second, TWM. I read your last response twice. The first time it made no sense, which is why I read it again. Then it clicked.

If I read it 5 or 6 more times, you could be coming home with a Nobel Prize for literature, this based on the statisticial phenomenon presented on this thread by the OP.

[grefstad 0]

Best start to a PL season says nothing. Too many factors to consider, most importantly the quality of the opposition in the 5 games played so far. Not exactly world beaters any of them, so oyr 7 points are, imho, at least 2, maybe 3, less than we could expect

[cornish sam 1,054]

[quote user="The Walking Man "]"Run the least so far"

"Best start to a PL season since 93"

Now based on those stats, correlation would surely say if we run even less we should theoretically get even more points. WE''RE RUNNING TOO MUCH!!!!

My point is, stats are stats, taken in isolation (like in the BBC article) and selectively (like I have just done) they''re pretty pointless and can be used to argue almost anything.[/quote]

It''s just like the lack of pirates causing global warming!

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Does this statistic mean the collective amount of running by our opponents is highest in the league?

What does that say about them, I wonder.

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

Where do we rank in the important "water consumed during breaks" statistic? Are our players thirtieth than average during the game? Is it possible to measure and report how much water in consumed behind doors at half time? If we do drink more water between kick off and the final whistle, should I be concerned?

[Gainer the Gopher 0]

THIRSTIER not 30th