Really good performance

[king canary 7,681]

@badger

''especially if we can improve on chance creation and conversion''

How likely us this though?

We''re very likely to sell the player who is both our top scorers and key creative force in the summer. We need to diversify our attack if we''re going to improve without Maddison.

[westcoastcanary 173]

xG is designed to reduce the subjectivity in evaluating chances. As I posted earlier on this thread, our cumulative xG is not among the best for Championship clubs, but nor is it among the worst. Your "guess" earlier was that it''s similar to "most" of our competitors, which implies that our chance creation is not very different from "most"; if so, it surely can''t be failure to create enough goal scoring chances that explains our lack of goals?

[westcoastcanary 173]

Sorry, that was for Rogue not you kc.

[Indy 3,323]

I had the pleasure of my 6th game, 1st half we passed and moved superbly well, far quicker moving the ball forward. Should have been three up.

The second half was utterly painful as we appear to resort to slow build up which suited Bolton and their take a point set up.

Couldn’t believe with the game running out of time how we just ran out of any real urgency almost like the players as some fans ar just playing to see the season through.

Farke is a grea5 coach, he’s certainly got the right ideas, shame his best players have been and will be sold leaving him to try and build on lower league players, hopefully he’ll be able to get the same out of some as he has Zimmerman.

As others, if we lose Maddison and Klose in the summer they’ll be hard to replace and I can’t see this squad in the top 6 next season. I can see a few more years of struggle with balancing finances and finances.

Unlike others I’ll wait till the summer see the departures and players in before getting too excited about next year.

We’ll see if Webber is worth his big ego this summer.

[Indy 3,323]

Should have been football and finances.

[king canary 7,681]

@westcoast

Have you seen this site out of interest?

https://experimental361.com

They do timeliness for individual championship games xg.

It looks from these that v Wolves and Ipswich we actually outperformed our xg while v Bolton we only had an xg of 1.25 despite all the talk of how many chances we created.

[Indy 3,323]

[quote user="Len"][quote user="Clint"]Len, I don''t see how being 14th in the 2nd tier with no chance of promotion and 1/4 of the season still remaining, having a negative goal difference and averaging only a goal a game, is sorting out any kind of decline. I''d say this is by far the worst position we''ve been in since relegation to league 1 10 years ago.[/quote]We''re above where we''d expect to be given that we needed to replace so many players, and with a better manager than we would normally expect to have.Looking at the signings, the way we are playing and the general blueprint we have for going forward, I''m looking forward to good times ahead. The goals will come![/quote]

Len, I think a with other clubs, ours is the golde generation, the younger generation haven’t had the privilege of seeing us in our glory days, 19 seasons of top flight with a couple blips into the old second division, cup win and Europe, now we’re content with championship as our level as some one here say is where we are, constantly pointing out that only the top ten clubs are guaranteed premiership football everyone else playing for survival.

So in reality is a top 10 finish in the championship and keeping the club in the black financially success? If so then great long may it continue.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

@westcoast

What I was suggesting on a different thread is that we probably take a similar % of our chances compared to other teams, not the xG figure (which I''m not 100% on) - for example if the average ''chance conversion'' is 30%, if you create 10 chances you have a lot more room for error than if you only create 3 chances

(Note, i dont know what the average chance conversion is between teams, the 30% is just an example)

[Badger 2,413]

KC - obviously, the only honest reply I can give is I don''t know. However, another transfer window means that Webber/ Farke can obtain players that they feel fits their system, rather than trying to make the players fit the system. It also means that he will have time to work with recent permanent acquisitions. There is reason to be optimistic if you are of that bent and reasons to be pessimistic if you are not! (hence my point about psychology [:)]).WCC where can I get this seasons Expected goals - I''ve searched whoscored but can''t find it?

[JF 694]

Thisisbabyish wrote the following post at 25/02/2018 8:53 AM:

Anyone who thinks we should have walked yesterday''s game knows jack about football.

Anyone who thinks we should have walked yesterday’s game is basing it on opinions made after the match, after seeing several clear cut chances missed in the first half. The game should have been over by half time

[Herman 9,842]

Oh God, I actually agree with JF. I''m off for a shower. With coal tar soap[:D]

[westcoastcanary 173]

@ king canary, Rogue Baboon and Badger

Yes kc, and in fact I''ve been using those Timelines to look into how our cumulative xG over the season compares with that of our opponents (not their cumulative xG over the season, but the cumulative xG of our various opponents in our games against them). This is to try and provide some sort of answer to whether our lack of goals is primarily due to not creating enough decent chances, or to not taking enough of the decent chances we do create. Our cumulative xG after 34 games is actually slightly higher than the cumulative xG of our opponents in those games, but our conversion rate (xG:actual goals) is lower. As I posted previously, we have slightly improved our xG conversion rate since early November (from 0.77 to 0.80) but in our 34 games so far our opponents have a combined rate of  0.90. In sum, while it would be good to improve our average xG (i.e. make even better chances), what we need above all is to be more clinical with the chances we do create. Yesterday against Bolton was a case in point.

Badger, I don''t know of any readily accessible site that publishes xG data by team. Bethnal might know of somewhere.

[Capt. Pants 4,300]

It was also our 3rd game in 7 days and in the previous 2 we have had to go fairly ''deep'' to get anything out of them so I think some of the players just ran out of desire and energy. I''m not sure we played as well first half as some make out, but it was still a distinct improvement over the slow sideways build up we get when we play 5 at the back. So food for thought there.We miss Pinto''s runs on the right. Hernandez kept drifting in and Murphy is just so frustrating and can''t seem to cope with the physicality of the Championship.The rest of the season now is about preparing for the next, and the promotion/play-off challenge that Webber and Farke have to deliver.

[Haggerdoo 6]

[quote user="Capt. Pants"]If you thought that second half was good you really need your head tested. As an attacking force we were non existant.[/quote]

Agree - and Murphy was utter 5hite again - time he was dropped

[Len 74]

[quote user="Indy"][quote user="Len"][quote user="Clint"]Len, I don''t see how being 14th in the 2nd tier with no chance of promotion and 1/4 of the season still remaining, having a negative goal difference and averaging only a goal a game, is sorting out any kind of decline. I''d say this is by far the worst position we''ve been in since relegation to league 1 10 years ago.[/quote]We''re above where we''d expect to be given that we needed to replace so many players, and with a better manager than we would normally expect to have.Looking at the signings, the way we are playing and the general blueprint we have for going forward, I''m looking forward to good times ahead. The goals will come![/quote]

Len, I think a with other clubs, ours is the golde generation, the younger generation haven’t had the privilege of seeing us in our glory days, 19 seasons of top flight with a couple blips into the old second division, cup win and Europe, now we’re content with championship as our level as some one here say is where we are, constantly pointing out that only the top ten clubs are guaranteed premiership football everyone else playing for survival.

So in reality is a top 10 finish in the championship and keeping the club in the black financially success? If so then great long may it continue.[/quote]If we stick to Webber''s blueprint then we should over the long run outcompete several of the clubs that have overtaken us in recent years.Many clubs are having to be propped up with rich owners because they''re not following the Chase-type of model that Webber has reintroduced. Keeping the club in the black, together with playing good football are signs of success. Playing poor quality football (because we didn''t have a consistent plan from Rioch onwards) and shovelling money into the transfer market with little coming the other way are signs of failure.We''re about nine months into the new system, and I''d expect a vast improvement on where we are now. The buy/sell cycles of players are such that the financial benefits of the new model probably won''t be fully felt for another 2+ years.If one of our players is sold at a vast profit then fans ought to be seeing this as a sign of success instead of crying "no ambition". We''re being forced to sell for financial reasons at present, but I''d expect tactical selling to continue even when we''re playing in the division above.Selling our better players is perhaps the essence of the difference between the Webber (and Chase) approach and the overall aimless misery we''ve experienced under Wynn-Jones and Delia where we''ve often hung on until players become almost worthless.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]@westcoast

What I was suggesting on a different thread is that we probably take a similar % of our chances compared to other teams, not the xG figure (which I''m not 100% on) - for example if the average ''chance conversion'' is 30%, if you create 10 chances you have a lot more room for error than if you only create 3 chances

(Note, i dont know what the average chance conversion is between teams, the 30% is just an example)[/quote]

We''ve actually created more chances overall than any other Championship team bar Brentford. We are currently 2nd in the overall table, second in the table for home games only, and 8th in the table for away games. So whatever the deficiencies of our attacking play, creating chances as such is not one of them.

The usual response to this is that, while OK, we do create lots of chances, too few of them are “good chances”, in particular far too many of the chances we create involve shooting from distance, from outside the box. The real complaint is that we don’t create enough chances in the penalty area. And indeed, the stats bear out the claim that a much larger proportion of our shots at goal are from outside the area compared to most other Championship clubs. So once again we lie second only to Brentford in the table for shots from outside the area, but as far down as 16th in the table for shots inside the area (though we are still above Preston and Ipswich, 17th and 21st respectively). 

Now, of course, upping the number of chances created in the penalty area, or even better the six yard box, would be an indisputably good thing. But there’s a fallacy in the reasoning underlying that usual response. It wrongly equates “we aren’t creating enough “good” chances” with “we aren’t creating enough chances inside the box”. Put another way, while it is true that we are creating relatively few chances within the box, you can’t infer from that that “we are creating relatively few good chances”. The reason is that, while statistically you are more likely to score from shots taken within the box as opposed to outside it, not every chance created in the box is “a good chance”. Hence the importance of xG, “expected goals”, which is precisely a measure of how good any particular chance is.

Yes, we could benefit from creating more and better chances; we are currently average at that. But the importance of being clinical with the chances you get can''t be over-estimated. Just as an illustration, early in November when our cumulative xG was 18 but our GF total only 14, our Suffolk neighbours topped the xG to goal conversion table having scored 26 goals against an expected 16! They had outscored their xG by 10 goals, we were short of ours by 4, and even though their cumulative xG was below ours, they were 7th in the Championship table with a GD of +4, while we were 13th with a GD of -5.

[vos 155]

Whilst I accept the theory that Farke needs more time, nonetheless unless he changes the tactics we are going nowhere. Having been forced to miss a few games recently it was a horrible reminder to see us waste the first 15 minutes by needlessly passing the ball between defenders in our own half. What is the point. The slow build up just allows the opponents to sit back and pick us off quite easily when we eventually attack. Additionally when you win a corner you get it in to the box to pressurise the defenders before they have settled. Why have two players over freekicks i.e. one who should be in the mix is wasted. As is regularly mentioned,when you are looking for a win, why have everyone back to defender a corner. To be fair we did eventually create a bit more up front via Johanssen giving some forward support but he faded from the scene. I do not go along with the argument that we had a mid week game. It does not affect the likes of Spurs, who are worlds apart in class, but our fitness levels should be similar. We desperately need a decent front man/striker. Overall, certainly not a fine performance against a team who offered nothing.

[vos 155]

Been away for a bit. Was his name Hernandez !!!! When I first supported it was either Morgan, Hollis, Smith or Brown.

[Duncan Edwards 2,271]

It wasn’t vintage, that much is for sure. Bolton rode their luck in the first half and we ultimately paid for our profligacy in that period. At half time I said to a friend that the game had “1-0 to Bolton written all over it”. Disgusting use of a meaningless cliche maybe, but after Leitner missed (I’d have stuck someone else’s mortgage on him to score) I just felt the game was entering smash and grab territory.

Bolton were desperate for a point; their football was just desperate but having cling to the precipice by their fingernails in the first half, they managed the game much better in the second and probably felt that they’d earned their point.

The fact remains that they really aren’t very good and a side that were challenging for promotion should turn them over. But we’re not. We’ve taken three points from three games; a last gasp equaliser in a game we should have won, a last gasp equaliser in a game we could have lost and a blank against a side we should beat at home. The results haven’t been good enough. At the least, we’d have probably expected a minimum of four points - win and a draw at home and a defeat at the leaders being the most likely scenario.

But, as Hoggy says, it can be difficult to differentiate between performance and result. We’re also far more likely to remember what happened last when we consider our view of the games. So, our worst half of football in the three recent matches was the second half against Bolton. If we, hypothetically, reversed the halves against the Trotters so that after a dull as ditchwater first half we really took it to them in the second, the consensus would likely be more that we were desperately unlucky and deserved to win rather than we were powder puff in attack and lacked the wherewithal to break down a relegation candidate. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s human nature.

Ultimately, disappointing as the nil-nil was, the booong at the end was a bit much. People pay their money and as such it’s up to them but we’re far more resolute than a few months ago, we never looked like losing the game - even to a sucker punch smash and grab type one nil to them cliche way - and did play some incisive football at times.

Frustration abounds though.

Folk are worried that if we can’t beat Bolton with our current squad, whatever will be the situation once the Gunn, Maddison, Klose, Pinto, Reed, Wes exodus takes place?

Well, we couldn’t beat Bolton WITH those players. So it seems getting rid is the way forward...right?

[king canary 7,681]

On the point of being unable to separate the result and the performance- surely that same accusation could be leveled at a fair few after the Ipswich game?

[hogesar 9,776]

Surely a derby is even more emotional in terms of judgement and anyway, most people admitted it wasn''t a great performance, just a great way to end the match.

Also, Westcoast, it''s interesting to see we''re 2nd in the table for chances created. You''re correct about the counter-argument destined to come from that stat, but it does make a few people who claim we create ''absolutely nothing'' look even more silly.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

2nd on chances created? I would be interested to see what is considered a ''chance'' then.

For example, would Maddisons 2 free kicks v Ipswich have been considered chances?

[king canary 7,681]

I''m assuming chances created just means ''shots'' which is a pretty meaningless stat.

If you combine our second in the table ''chances'' with our very much midtable xg it points to the obvious conclusion that most of our chances are low % long shots.

[Jim Smith 2,349]

I thought the first half "performance" was excellent. Control, composure and if you watch the highlights we had 4 or 5 very good, clear goalscoring chances. We should have been at least 2 or 3 up at half time and had we been then everyone would have been praising that performance as one of our best of the season.

I donn;t know what we do to recitify these misses or if it was just one of those days. Murphy has form for wastefulness admittedly but Oliveira didn;t do much wrong with his couple of chances, Madders was unlucky when he hit the post and Leitner is a good player who I suspect would score that 7 or 8 times out of ten.

[hogesar 9,776]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]I thought the first half "performance" was excellent. Control, composure and if you watch the highlights we had 4 or 5 very good, clear goalscoring chances. We should have been at least 2 or 3 up at half time and had we been then everyone would have been praising that performance as one of our best of the season.

I donn;t know what we do to recitify these misses or if it was just one of those days. Murphy has form for wastefulness admittedly but Oliveira didn;t do much wrong with his couple of chances, Madders was unlucky when he hit the post and Leitner is a good player who I suspect would score that 7 or 8 times out of ten.[/quote]

Can''t disagree with any of that Jim [Y]

[westcoastcanary 173]

@hogesar

That stat for chances created is chiefly of interest in so far as it underlines the insidious effect on debate of terminological inexactitude. You''ll get 100% agreement if you say "We need to create more chances" but silence if you then ask "What exactly do you mean by ''a chance''?" The usual answer is something along the lines of "I mean, er, a scoring opportunity". Well yes, but then what exactly is "a scoring opportunity"? When Reed made his pass to NO against Wolves, how many would have said the pass created "a chance", or actually considered it "a scoring opportunity"?

Well, it clearly was "a scoring opportunity"; he scored from it. "That''s not what I meant?" Well OK, what exactly did you mean then?"

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Jim Smith

".......  if you watch the highlights we had 4 or 5 very good, clear goalscoring chances. We should have been at least 2 or 3 up at half time ........"

Yet as king canary pointed out subsequently on this thread, our xG against Bolton was only 1.25. Our finishing would have to have been far more clinical than the average team to be 2 or 3 up at half time, and the fact is that, over our 34 games to date, our finishing has fallen consistently short of even the standard of the average team. 

[king canary 7,681]

@Westcoast

If you want ''terminological exactitude'' then I don''t think you''re going to get it here. Most fans don''t need to talk like statisticians and why would they want to?

For most fans a ''scoring opportunity'' means something like Leitner''s chance on Saturday or even the Murphy opportunity. Low % shots from 30 yards aren''t.

[Jim Smith 2,349]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@Jim Smith

".......  if you watch the highlights we had 4 or 5 very good, clear goalscoring chances. We should have been at least 2 or 3 up at half time ........"

Yet as king canary pointed out subsequently on this thread, our xG against Bolton was only 1.25. Our finishing would have to have been far more clinical than the average team to be 2 or 3 up at half time, and the fact is that, over our 34 games to date, our finishing has fallen consistently short of even the standard of the average team. 

[/quote]

Well if xG is the number of goals you''d expect to score given the quality of the chances created (as i think is the case?) then I think all that shows is that the xG stat for our game against Bolton is a load of b***ocks. Leitner and Murphy''s chances were as good as you will get. nelson had a good one as well as well as good opportunities fropm the edge of the box for the same player and Madders.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

For me, Leitners chance, Maddisons chance v Wolves (forcing save from Ruddy) were ''chances'' - opportunities where you would expect the player to score, or at least force a decent save from the keeper