Norwich players running the least of all in the Prem

[Crabbycanary3 994]

What is the probability that AN knows far more about football than grefstad?

I bet you thin your paint out to the nth degree grefstad?

grefstad, do you think our performances warranted more points than we have achieved this season?

The points we have dropped, is that down to our players not running after the opponents?

[grefstad 0]

Ey, crabgenius, whatever you throw at me, I can repel with ease.

To add to the topic, a small digresion about West Ham so far.

They have lost 2 games, and won 3.

In their 3 wins, they have got an average posession of a paltey 38%, BUT, have run much more than the teams they defeated.

In their 2 losses, they averaged a sound 57% possession, but, surprise, surprise, ran a lot less than the teams they lost to.

All Im saying is that running power will always be ingluential in the outcome of games.

No matter what this useless happy-go-merry crab-fellow want you to believe, good teams need to work hard.

Hey, Crab, you would not by accident be the kind of fellow who does not care about your electrical bill to be paid on Monday (while knowing you are short to pay it) just because you unexpectedly found an extra 20 pound note in your pocket to spend on beer, while partying in Prince of Wales road on the Saturday?

You know, it is wise to keep more than one thought in your head, even though things are going fairly OK right now...

And my thought is that Norwich is not running enough, even though we got 7 points. Its early days, but ignoring such stats is imho a bit naive.

Yes, it is not the be all, but it is still worth noting.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Oh for goodness sake.

Just have a look at what AN said about it grefstad, it''s not just me and a few others. Jeez you can use any statistic you like to pick holes. It is not a concern because we have played very well in all bar one games this season. IF we were bottom, having lost all games, not scored any goals etc etc, the yes it would be a concern.

NO I am not ignoring it, because, chances are that if we were top of all the statistical tables , the we would be miles ahead in the League. There is always room for improvement, but you are flogging a dead horse there my friend, so much so, that our own Manager isn''t concerned, and actually, running power is NOT always influential in games. You are just trying to justify your post, and we HAVE worked hard, otherwise your theory would have us at the bottom of the League

[grefstad 0]

Fair enough, we both have our views. Yours are just as valid as mine.

But we''re facing Liverpool away, in-form West Ham away, and a homegame against in-form and never-say-die Leicester before the international break.

Against these teams, we sure need to work hard(er).

If we fail to get something from those games, which is not at all impossible, we will be around the drop zone, and stats will suddenly start to be more revealing.

Sure, there is more to a football game than just the running, but I was voicing a (slight) concern, about a stat I hope will not come back to haunt us through the season, as it does, at least partly, tell us a bit about workrate, pressing, ground covering, etc.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Did you forget to put a smiley on the end of that first line? :)

I will rely on AN and his Sports scientists, cheers all the same.

The boys are as fit as they have ever been, they work hard, and they work when they need to. We are not bottom of the League, we have been very effective thus far (Southampton excepted) We are Norwich, so there is room for improvement, anyone can see that.

Just because you run around more than the next team, doesn''t necessarily mean you are effective. There is FAR more to it than that one stat

[93vintage 16]

I noticed a couple of players looked tired when we conceded against Bournemouth. Whatever the situation, we need to make sure that we''re competitive on the fitness/medical side of things.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Aah, Bournemouth, they''re the team we beat, who are the team who beat West Ham, who are the team who beat Man City, who are the team who are top of the League. Where did it all go wrong? Anyone got any theories?

[grefstad 0]

West Ham beat Man C today, albeit with a good dose of luck, and high efficiency, but I noticed the half time running stats.

West Ham had run 3km longer than the ManC team in the first half. That is quite a lot in difference.

Sadly I have not seen stats after full time, but I did see 3 WH players on top of the "most meters covered" list. Noble being the main man.

Now, it does not explain it all, but West Ham would not beat Liverpool, Arsenal and ManC away, if they averaged Norwich'' running stats...thats pretty clear.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

grefstad, here''s a theory (nothing more). Without watching the Man City game , this could apply to any one sided game. How about the defending team, under tremendous pressure, relies on getting their metres covered, by counter-attacking (long distances, by a few players at a time, you get the idea) as opposed to the attacking team, who are encamped in and around the defending teams area, not needing to accumulate many metres? The defending team is running around also accumulating metres by ''chasing'' the ball, which is being used sensibly by the attacking team?

Looking at the standard figures (shots/corners/possession etc) from the Man City game in particular, it looks like the West Ham players had a lot of work to do, and a long way to go , to get away from their area!

[grefstad 0]

Crab, your theory is likely correct. Teams doing a lot of defending and counterattacking will accumulate meters, espescially when the game is onesided, like the ManC-West Ham game. It was not that onesided in the first half though.

Teams chasing the ball will obviously run more, covering ground, or simply chasing the ball.

But it says something about their spirit, and will to go the extra mile for the cause.

In that respect, stats showing meters run for teams overall indicate their defensive resolve (or fighting spirit, if you like).

No rule without exceptions ofcourse, but I do think Norwich would improve if mote meters are covered per game.

Now, it may also depend on tactical issues, like pressing high, pressing low, etc.

Will be interesting to see how these stats correlate with league position and possession stats come the end of the season.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Crabbycanary3"]Aah, Bournemouth, they''re the team we beat, who are the team who beat West Ham, who are the team who beat Man City, who are the team who are top of the League. Where did it all go wrong? Anyone got any theories[/quote]I''m not sure what you''re getting at here, if we beat a team we must be fit enough? All I''m saying is that there might be room for improvement regarding fitness.

[hogesar 9,673]

I feel that Grefstad has the footballing knowledge of one of my pubes. So let''s not worry about it too much.

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]I feel that Grefstad has the footballing knowledge of one of my pubes. So let''s not worry about it too much.[/quote]

Ah, the forum genius, formerly known as "hogesar", these days known as the king of pubes, joins the discussion with an unusually well written and insightful comment. Say no more, Hog. Go to bed.

[hogesar 9,673]

Well it''s more interesting than some guy in Norway moaning because apparently our players don''t run enough despite results and the entire ethos of our manager indicating that our players work more than hard enough.

You''re one of those that looks, searches, crawls the internet desperate to come across a negative to post on here. It''s a bit sad. But then, that''s Norway for you I guess.

[grefstad 0]

Who is the negative one, Hog? Who is bringing something to discuss to the table, and who is just bringing meaningless geographical territorial slagoff?

Yep, we are all looking at your useless pube posts (tjose of us who even bother to read your dribble) and thinking the same. What has this Hogesar-fellow ever brought to this forum, worthy of discussion?

And what has origin or place to live got to do with this thread?

You sound rather confused, maybe slightly deluded. If you got nothing to say which adds to the thread, then dont. I dont see what you are adding to this discussion worth listening to.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

Hopefully you will know this Gref because I haven''t got a clue where to look. ...

How much running did other teams do when they played our opponents?

And in previous seasons do these running figures even out by May?

[Crabbycanary3 994]

[quote user="93vintage"][quote user="Crabbycanary3"]Aah, Bournemouth, they''re the team we beat, who are the team who beat West Ham, who are the team who beat Man City, who are the team who are top of the League. Where did it all go wrong? Anyone got any theories[/quote]I''m not sure what you''re getting at here, if we beat a team we must be fit enough? All I''m saying is that there might be room for improvement regarding fitness.[/quote]

It was just an ironic look at the stats, and how different people (greftad) interpret them. What you say is right

[lowlyfendweller 0]

Had far did we run today? I wonder if its below or above our average for the season. I''m guessing above, but I hope our organisation was reflected in our economy of effort again. Loved that stat loved AN''s response.

[Carrow89 0]

3 WH players on top of the "most meters covered" list. What would they be? Parking meters, gas meters or even water meters perhaps?  Either way what you have been rambling on about has no meaning in football whatsoever.  I watched the game via a screen as did many on here. None of us need this rubbish to tell us who played well and who did not.  It''s sad that you cannot understand the game and need this worthless sh!t to try and get some understanding of what happened.