I never thought

[Guest]

This new regime under this unknown Farke bloke would ever work and would fall apart. I hope he is now proving me wrong and for the record i reckon he really is a nice bloke.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

....the title of Big Vince''s Autobiography.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Still early days, weren''t Norwich top of the league with Alex Neil about this time last season.

I have always been very positive about Webber and Farke, but still too early to call which way it will go. An impressive streak of results, but hard to know if they can keep it going. Norwich have blown any teams away and their underlying numbers don''t look great at the moment. Hopefully the attack side of things will click a bit more soon.

[Van wink 2,994]

What are the underlying numbers Bethnal?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Shots per game, shots on target per game, shots conceeded per game and the expected goals for and expected goals against all look like a team you would expect to finish mid-table. The differentials actually look very similar to what Alex Neil''s team were producing this time last season.

Norwich have had a tougher schedule than at a similar point last year, so that is a bit of mitigation, but I''m still not thoroughly convinced at this point. Since Millwall the expected goals against has gone down, but at a similar rate as the expected goals for.

The sample size is still small, so earlier to be drawing a whole lot of conclusions.

Before anyone has a go at me about stats, yes they aren''t 100% accurate and all the usual caveats apply, it is just an indicator, but does have a track record of being a pretty good one. I base my view on Norwich on what the numbers say and also what I see on the pitch. Norwich have relied on wonder goals from Maddison for a few wins, as well as sloppy finishing from the opposition. I think a good foundation is being built but the attack is looking short of what you would expect a team pushing for the play-offs to produce. A fit and fully firing Nelson and Pritchard could completely change this, as well as players like Murphy, Wildschut and Jerome improving their outputs.

[Bill 1,788]

"Shots per game, shots on target per game, shots conceeded per game and

the expected goals for and expected goals against all look like a team

you would expect to finish mid-table."Sadly the league table I look at don''t have those first three numbers.I even checked back on previous tables and they don''t seem to have them either. How strange.

[Van wink 2,994]

Where does team spirit, resilience, great support, self belief, all fit in to that though.

[Bill 1,788]

"Before anyone has a go at me about stats, yes they aren''t 100% accurate and all the usual caveats apply, it is just an indicator"As a tea leaves and chickens entrails.The ''stats as you refered to them are meaningless BECAUSE of the caveats. Would we have played the same against Boro and Sheff Utd if they had scored first ? Would we have played the same against Hull if we were not 0-1 down ? Similarly would we have gone looking for a second goal against Reading if they had not equalised ?At the moment we are not playing as we have before. So comparisons are meaningless. You migyt as well compare a spin bpwler against a fast bowler, on a different pitch, different weather and chasing a different target.As long as the points are being won that is what matters. The longer the run of those games continues the more valid becomes the point.Comparing a shot that hits row z with one that misses the post by inches. Comparing a shot from 30 yards with one from six yards... etcStats are meaningless guff in that context.

[Coq au vin 0]

I think BYG is spot on, we''ll all getting a little carried away. Anyway City 1st you hate the stats men and the formation crowd but ultimately they convey the reality of how the game is won and how the teams that face each other work out how to beat one another.

BYG is anchoring themselves for the inevitable dip we always seem to hit at this point. My overriding concern like BYG''s is by pushing ourselves against Arsenal have we left ourselves to drop points against a play off rival and Portugal?

My gut is saying goals in our attacking 3rd need to start happening. Watkins is back now thankfully and with the goal Murph scored hopefully means the lad is back to his old self. My concern really sits with Jerome and Oliveira as both have hardly been pulling up trees.

Maybe we all got a little used to the buccaneering forward play of last season I don''t know, I just hope we can maintain a play off place and the hype and love for the team and club itself remains.

[Bill 1,788]

Anyway City 1st you hate the stats men and the formation crowd but

ultimately they convey the reality of how the game is won and how the

teams that face each other work out how to beat one another.

2ABSOLUTE NONSENSE ! ! !What stats indicated that the binners rightback was weak and his cover Waghorn tends to drift towards the middle of the pitch.What formation were City in when Hoolahan hit the ball from his own half to Wildschutt, what formation was it when Stieperman was ahead of him. ? What stats highlighted that Skuse would be ball watching so allowing Maddison to be unmarked.Football is an extremely fluid game that cannot be measured solely on the basis of incomparable ''stats''

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Shots per game, shots on target per game, shots conceeded per game and the expected goals for and expected goals against all look like a team you would expect to finish mid-table. The differentials actually look very similar to what Alex Neil''s team were producing this time last season. Norwich have had a tougher schedule than at a similar point last year, so that is a bit of mitigation, but I''m still not thoroughly convinced at this point. Since Millwall the expected goals against has gone down, but at a similar rate as the expected goals for. The sample size is still small, so earlier to be drawing a whole lot of conclusions. Before anyone has a go at me about stats, yes they aren''t 100% accurate and all the usual caveats apply, it is just an indicator, but does have a track record of being a pretty good one. I base my view on Norwich on what the numbers say and also what I see on the pitch. Norwich have relied on wonder goals from Maddison for a few wins, as well as sloppy finishing from the opposition. I think a good foundation is being built but the attack is looking short of what you would expect a team pushing for the play-offs to produce. A fit and fully firing Nelson and Pritchard could completely change this, as well as players like Murphy, Wildschut and Jerome improving their outputs.[/quote]

 

Bethnal, I''m interested if you''re looking at stats for the whole season so far, or from the end of August ?

 

also TBF about last season, when we were top of the league under AN, I remember quite a few comments from posters like Ricardo discussing our defensive fragility being evident in quite a few performances (despite being top) and expressing concern that it would eventually undo us, which were subsequently borne out.  I don''t think anyone could seriously say we have been defensively fragile since the international break at the start of September.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Bizarrely, or maybe not, I''m with Uncle Rhubarb on this one. Football is in danger of becoming a stat driven game where percentages and ipads inflict a kind of clinical computer driven game where spontaneity and flair is coached out of the game altogether.  Modern day living is already turning us into mindless operators rather than creative thinkers.  I would say chuck the ipads away and start using your brains to work out the best way to play the beautiful game.

[Van wink 2,994]

👍

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Shots per game, shots on target per game, shots conceeded per game and the expected goals for and expected goals against all look like a team you would expect to finish mid-table. The differentials actually look very similar to what Alex Neil''s team were producing this time last season.

Norwich have had a tougher schedule than at a similar point last year, so that is a bit of mitigation, but I''m still not thoroughly convinced at this point. Since Millwall the expected goals against has gone down, but at a similar rate as the expected goals for.

The sample size is still small, so earlier to be drawing a whole lot of conclusions.

Before anyone has a go at me about stats, yes they aren''t 100% accurate and all the usual caveats apply, it is just an indicator, but does have a track record of being a pretty good one. I base my view on Norwich on what the numbers say and also what I see on the pitch. Norwich have relied on wonder goals from Maddison for a few wins, as well as sloppy finishing from the opposition. I think a good foundation is being built but the attack is looking short of what you would expect a team pushing for the play-offs to produce. A fit and fully firing Nelson and Pritchard could completely change this, as well as players like Murphy, Wildschut and Jerome improving their outputs.[/quote]

So I take it from that the stats up to Millwall suggested we were better than our position. Shame nobody said so at the time....

Stats certainly have a place and over ten years ago I was lucky enough to take a look at the stats in the Colney classroom. I remember thinking that it would be a great advantage to be a good footballer who could also absorb, retain and understand all the stats available to them.

Stats interest me but have no effect on my support. I am one who supports the club from the heart. Consequently before a game I always believe and after a game I''m jubilant or disappointed. The stats couldn''t strengthen or dilute any of that for me.

[ricardo 7,347]

Its naive to think that stats are meaningless.Teams that have the most shots on target are likely to score the most goalsTeams that concede the most shots on target are likely to concede the most goals.Teams that score more than they concede are likely to finish higher than those that don''t.Teams that score 2 for every 1 conceded are almost certain to be promoted.

But some people think stats mean nothing.Oh well

[Tumbleweed 106]

Different stats mean different things.

Winning more games mean you''ll get more points.

More passes means more possession.

But having more posession means absolutely nothing.

So you can''t say stats are useful or useless. Just depends which ones you choose and why.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="ricardo"]Its naive to think that stats are meaningless.Teams that have the most shots on target are likely to score the most goalsTeams that concede the most shots on target are likely to concede the most goals.Teams that score more than they concede are likely to finish higher than those that don''t.Teams that score 2 for every 1 conceded are almost certain to be promoted.

But some people think stats mean nothing.Oh well[/quote]Meaningless gibberish as you now have entered to world of probabilities ie toss a coin 5 times and each time it lands on heads. The dimwitted stats saddos will tell you that must mean that the next spin will be weighted towards a tail .Just as some folk on here were bleating how Ipswich were more likely to beat us, as they had not done so in 9 years !Player A shoots tamely at the goal after a break from a corner. Hoswever he is still carry a knock from a clumsy tackle a few minures beforePlayer B does an amazing run (a la Huckerby v Brum) and just pokes it inches wide.What show up on Saddo.com ? Can you really judge how well City played at Arsenal by counting how many yards each player ran, the number of passes he made, the throw ins he took etc ? Meaningless drivel unless it is not only put into context but all the variables are factored in. Which would be almost impossible.

ps perhaps it might also explain why you predicted a Tory majority of 70 (or was it 100) whilst I said it would be a hung parliament

[lake district canary 4,531]

Statistics have their place, but should be taken with a large pinch of salt and some scepticism. Context is important as City Rhubarb says - and stats cannot take all the variables on board so are flawed from the outset.   Statisticians shout loudly and complain bitterly whenever anyone questions their use - but it doesn''t make them right - they are just protecting their field in which there is a lot of time, effort and money involved.  It is not fashionable to dismiss stats - they fit in so neatly to the computer driven world we all live in - but individuality is in danger of disappearing in sport and a lot of other things, almost totally because of a mindset that is retricted by a mechanical, non-human way of doing things.  I would far rather see a manager make substitutions or formation changes

in a match on gut feeling, rather than seeing him or his assistant

poring over a laptop or ipad before making changes.  Once a match starts

the computer should not be anywhere in sight - managers/coaches need to

rely on their own instincts than on some cold statistics which may or

may not be relevant or of any use.    

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

Need to win some home games first before we go too overboard

Is our game more suited to playing away??.....2 good results in this next week would go a long way to proving we can win anywhere

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

[quote user="Rhubarb"][quote user="ricardo"]Its naive to think that stats are meaningless.Teams that have the most shots on target are likely to score the most goalsTeams that concede the most shots on target are likely to concede the most goals.Teams that score more than they concede are likely to finish higher than those that don''t.Teams that score 2 for every 1 conceded are almost certain to be promoted.

But some people think stats mean nothing.Oh well[/quote]Meaningless gibberish as you now have entered to world of probabilities ie toss a coin 5 times and each time it lands on heads. The dimwitted stats saddos will tell you that must mean that the next spin will be weighted towards a tail .Just as some folk on here were bleating how Ipswich were more likely to beat us, as they had not done so in 9 years !Player A shoots tamely at the goal after a break from a corner. Hoswever he is still carry a knock from a clumsy tackle a few minures beforePlayer B does an amazing run (a la Huckerby v Brum) and just pokes it inches wide.What show up on Saddo.com ? Can you really judge how well City played at Arsenal by counting how many yards each player ran, the number of passes he made, the throw ins he took etc ? Meaningless drivel unless it is not only put into context but all the variables are factored in. Which would be almost impossible.

ps perhaps it might also explain why you predicted a Tory majority of 70 (or was it 100) whilst I said it would be a hung parliament

[/quote]Where in that post did Ricardo say "how well City played at Arsenal"? He didn''t. You just made it up firsty. Now go back and read what Ricardo actually did say and this time try to understand it. You could apologise to Ricardo for making things up while you''re at it.

[City 2nd 191]

lake district canary wrote the following post at 2017-10-26 10:58 PM:

Modern day living is already turning us into mindless operators rather than creative thinkers.

Hmmmmmm! Well, you said it!?

So you don’t think our current form and the improvement since Millwall and Villa is anything to do with Farke and his coaching team then?!

[JF 694]

There are always exceptions to the stats. Take the arsenal team that heard the chants of 1-0 to the Arsenal and boring, boring Arsenal every week.

[ricardo 7,347]

What is the League Table, if not a tabulation of statistics?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Had a feeling mentioning stats might spark a bit of debate.

I''ll try to answer a few points people have raised.

1) "Where does team spirit, resilience, great support, self belief, all fit in to that though?"

I would say those factors are ''inputs'' into a team and by having them all a team will perform better. Goals are the defining factor in games, and how many opportunities a team creates to score and denies the opposition creating, are the key outputs. If a team with crappy spirit and fans still creates a load of chances and stops other teams from creating them, then you would call that successful.

2) "Comparing a shot that hits row z with one that misses the post by inches. Comparing a shot from 30 yards with one from six yards... etc"

True, not all shots are equal, which is why they should be looked at alongside "expected goals" which is basically a measure of shot quality. Shots taken and shot conceded is a "quick and dirty" analysis, but still has some validity, there is generally a decent correlation between number of shots take/conceded to number of goals scored/conceded.

3)"Bethnal, I''m interested if you''re looking at stats for the whole season so far, or from the end of August ?"

As I said in the post I have looked at the season as a whole and the period pre and post Millwall.

4) About last season, when we were top of the league under AN, I remember quite a few comments from posters like Ricardo discussing our defensive fragility being evident in quite a few performances (despite being top) and expressing concern that it would eventually undo us, which were subsequently borne out. I don''t think anyone could seriously say we have been defensively fragile since the international break at the start of September."

The stats reflect that since Millwall the defence has improved, (conceding .5 xg on average) however the attack has also gone down, not as much, but still decreased. Like Ricardo et al so correctly pointed out that Norwich''s defence was "fragile", at the moment I would say that Norwich''s attack is a little blunt, and without improvement results will start to slip.

5) "So I take it from that the stats up to Millwall suggested we were better than our position. Shame nobody said so at the time..."

Yes, statistically, Norwich were looking better than the third worst team in the league post Millwall. I think I did same something to that effect at the time, although maybe not here.

I understand some people''s negativity to stats. Especially as they are often so poorly presented. Possession, pass completion, distance ran - these are generally statistics that analysts won''t pay too much attention to, certainly in isolation.

Clubs across the country spend large sums of money on the collection and analysis of match statistics. I would estimate that Norwich spend well in excess of £100k a season on this, they certainly have 2 or 3 data analysts on the books. Club would not spend this money if they didn''t think it was given them an edge over their opponents. Farke is obviously into statistics as he will be able to wheel them out in the post-match interviews. So within 10 - 15 mins after a game he knows information about possession, shots but also duels won etc.

At Arsenal a company that provides analysis on identifying young players gave a presentation to Wenger to demonstrate the service they provide, he was so impressed that he used some of his transfer budget to buy the whole company (in excess of £1m) so other teams didn''t have access to their work (this analysis was part of the reason Eddie Nketiah was brought in after being rejected by Chelsea).

Players like Ronaldo and Messi are both know to demand detailed break downs of their performance data and use it to improve their games. Having access to this data doesn''t make them "robots", but helps them to have a greater understanding of what is and isn''t effective, and therefore become more creative and dangerous players.

Teams and players that don''t embrace greater analysis are destined to fall behind those that do. Gambling companies have been using it for years to help identify potential winning bets, the owner of Brentford became a millionaire this way.

Yes it isn''t full proof, but it has also has enough of a proven track record to convince clubs, big and small, that it is worth spending considerable sums on.

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

Everything always gets so black and white on this board.

The coach should make decisions based on his overall approach, experience and what he sees on the pitch, but informed by stats in their proper context.

The stats shouldn''t dictate the approach, and can be dismissed if the coach so chooses, but they are undoubtedly a valuable tool in his kit.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Fantastic post Beth. Thank you buddy 👍

[king canary 7,580]

Stats are helpful to understanding a game but also need to be placed in context.

I''m a big NFL fan and that game is fairly stats obsessed, however analysts there will tell you that stats still need to pass the ''eye test.'' Quarterbacks are judged not just on stats but on intangibles, the ability to make throws into tight windows, the understanding of just where to put a ball to make it catch-able only to his team mate etc etc.

There was a really good episode of Guardian Football Weekly podcast where they had the former head of analytics from Brentford on there explaining his role and how it worked. Definitely gave me much greater insight into it.

I can see the argument though that fans don''t really need to know these things though. There is nothing more boring than someone claiming a chance you saw with your own eyes isn''t a good chance because ''xg says that is only scored 1 in 8 times'' or obsessing over how much running an individual player did or trying to claim player x is better than player y because his pass completion is 4% higher. Football is a messy sport and of analyzing can suck the joy out of it.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

5) "So I take it from that the stats up to Millwall suggested we were better than our position. Shame nobody said so at the time..."

Yes, statistically, Norwich were looking better than the third worst team in the league post Millwall. I think I did same something to that effect at the time, although maybe not here. [/quote]I remember this report being ridiculed at the time, maybe he was right.https://www.racingpost.com/sport/norwich-not-as-bad-as-shocking-scoreline-at-millwall-suggests/298473"Norwich not as bad as shocking scoreline at Millwall suggests"

[king canary 7,580]

@TC

This paragraph is just sums up the problem some people have with stats though.

"Norwich were ahead 9-6 on shots, 5-4 on shots on target, 6-1 on corners and possession was 70-30. It was never a 3-0 half."

I mean, it is ludicrously simplistic. What relevence does having more corners have? How important is 70% possession if it is all harmless passing in front of a packed defense? How was it ''never a 3-0 half'' when one team scored 3 goals and the other scored 0?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

5) "So I take it from that the stats up to Millwall suggested we were better than our position. Shame nobody said so at the time..."

Yes, statistically, Norwich were looking better than the third worst team in the league post Millwall. I think I did same something to that effect at the time, although maybe not here. [/quote]I remember this report being ridiculed at the time, maybe he was right.https://www.racingpost.com/sport/norwich-not-as-bad-as-shocking-scoreline-at-millwall-suggests/298473"Norwich not as bad as shocking scoreline at Millwall suggests"[/quote]

As a one off, you could accept that report - however, you could have said we were the better team many times last season - and the beginning of this.  Even the 1-3 with Sunderland (yes, I was there) we showed a lot of quality, but that defensive frailty follwed us from last season - and Millwall was the final straw.  Critically to our well being Farke reacted to that, realised things had to change and changed them.  He learned the lessons in five matches - and now it would be a surprise if we ever sank back to those levels of defensive weakness under his managership.