Hello. My name is ron. I'm a football analysis addict ...

[ron obvious 1,501]

If nothing else this proves we don't have anything to worry about

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/match-analysis/norwich-city-reading-efl-championship-tactical-analysis

I only saw the last 20 mins. or so but it did seem we were throwing speculative crosses in at an alarming rate (result of Jordan coming on?) Also leaving huge gaps in MF during extra time. And Marco's leg waving 'tackle' just before the goal ... grrr.

That's showbiz folks. We go again.

 

[Badger 2,405]

Thanks Ron. I enjoy these posts too! 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Well-balanced analysis of the game. On another day we deservedly win 3-0.

A very good performance, fully in keeping with our successful methodology. Excessive crossing point noted (especially increased volume of aerial crosses when defence was ‘set’. This action does not move the dial in our percentage favour).

Parma

 

[Nuff Said 5,091]

So Stieperman wasn't sh*t and we shouldn't drop Cantrell?

[ron obvious 1,501]

Just watched the highlights.

Totally ridiculous. In any other universe you could replay that a million times & we win every time.

WTF was going on with Trybull? Are we playing rugby league now?? Ludicrous refereeing.

 

[westcoastcanary 173]

Please can someone explain to me how the Reading game illustrates just how unfair football can be? DF said this in his post-match comments, and it's repeated in the linked analysis piece above. What exactly was unfair about Wednesday's result? The Reading goals were not in any way the result of anything fortuitous: on the contrary they both resulted from rank bad team defence on our part, complemented by good play from Reading. How is shooting yourself in the foot -- twice -- an example of unfairness?

[canarydan23 4,060]

The game was 90 minutes plus. You seem to be judging it on two instances within that 90.

Generally you dominate a game like that then you win. Unless you're hopelessly unlucky. 

Did you watch the game? Ignoring the possession dominance and shots on target comparison, the fact that we were denied two penalties, one absolutely blatant and the other pretty clearcut, is enough to suggest a chunk of misfortune. 

I know you could argue with a fence panel, but surely you're not going to deny that? 

[westcoastcanary 173]

53 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

The game was 90 minutes plus. You seem to be judging it on two instances within that 90.

Generally you dominate a game like that then you win. Unless you're hopelessly unlucky. 

Did you watch the game? Ignoring the possession dominance and shots on target comparison, the fact that we were denied two penalties, one absolutely blatant and the other pretty clearcut, is enough to suggest a chunk of misfortune. 

I know you could argue with a fence panel, but surely you're not going to deny that? 

A fence panel would almost certainly be able to offer a stronger argument than that! 

If I drive without incident for x minutes then overtake on a blind corner and have a smash, have I been unlucky? Have the fates conspired against me? Has it proved that life is unfair? No, what it proves is that I made a bad mistake and paid for it. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

34 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

A fence panel would almost certainly be able to offer a stronger argument than that! 

If I drive without incident for x minutes then overtake on a blind corner and have a smash, have I been unlucky? Have the fates conspired against me? Has it proved that life is unfair? No, what it proves is that I made a bad mistake and paid for it. 

But Reading's XG was only 0.6 - and in reality they scored 2. By the methodology which you have harped on about all season surely we were 'unlucky' that we played them on a day when their finishing was much higher than their usual standard. 😉

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

 

Please can someone explain to me how the Reading game illustrates just how unfair football can be?

As discussed by some of us, there seems to be a consensus that we were denied two penalties. I believe Reading also had a case for one. That would venture an argument that it was unfair of the referee not to award us a penalty. And I am sure you have a stat about how many penalties are scored.

It can also be argued that a mundane foul on the halfway line, something Reading did regularly (17 fouls to our 6) , prevented us from building attacks that would lead to a goal.

But of course, that is all it is. An argument, an opinion, a guess. And stats do not completely paint a picture of what happens in a football match.

As I have said, each to their own but just to sterilise the game by referring to stats or logic constantly takes away the beauty of the game. Football is a 24/7 existence for most ardent fans. And this site exists mainly because as is happening with this post, we are happy and well mannered enough to disagree with each other.

But I would venture a thought. And that is that most football supporters do not rely on stats but get from the game exactly what they look forward to.

[westcoastcanary 173]

3 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

But Reading's XG was only 0.6 - and in reality they scored 2. By the methodology which you have harped on about all season surely we were 'unlucky' that we played them on a day when their finishing was much higher than their usual standard. 😉

Yes, Reading did what we did on a regular basis earlier in the season, take points by scoring more goals than our chance creation warranted. But when we were doing it, I didn't ever say we were "lucky"; what I said was that we were over-reliant on exceptional finishing and needed to do something to reduce that over-reliance. Good finishing is not "luck", and neither Reading goal involved luck. In both cases the Reading players took the opportunity that our poor defensive play handed them. If they hadn't scored, it would have been a case of us being lucky to have got away with it. 

The sense in which luck/fortune plays a part in deciding the outcome of a particular match doesn't incorporate everything you might colloquially say was "lucky" or "unlucky". For example, you might say that Reading were lucky that Buendia was suspended when we played them; you might equally say that we have been incredibly lucky to have had Pukki hit such great form. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

12 minutes ago, westcoastcanary said:

 Good finishing is not "luck", and neither Reading goal involved luck. In both cases the Reading players took the opportunity that our poor defensive play handed them. If they hadn't scored, it would have been a case of us being lucky to have got away with it. 

The sense in which luck/fortune plays a part in deciding the outcome of a particular match doesn't incorporate everything you might colloquially say was "lucky" or "unlucky". For example, you might say that Reading were lucky that Buendia was suspended when we played them; you might equally say that we have been incredibly lucky to have had Pukki hit such great form. 

So "good finishing is not luck" but "we have been incredibly lucky to have had Pukki hit such great form".......er........er........

[westcoastcanary 173]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

most football supporters do not rely on stats but get from the game exactly what they look forward to.

I think where I differ from most KG is that my enjoyment of the game increases the more I understand what I'm watching. It's like reading a book; for some it's just a matter of enjoying a good story, whereas others want to delve deeper into the "meaning" and how that meaning is given expression through the construction of the whole. I used to get a lot of flak last season because I posted that I hadn't once been bored; but it was true, because I was able to follow the sub-text below the superficial story of slow transitions, passing to and fro in the back four, misplaced passes, wins, draws and losses etc. etc.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Thirsty Lizard

To repeat: "The sense in which luck/fortune plays a part in deciding the outcome of a particular match doesn't incorporate everything you might colloquially say was "lucky" or "unlucky"." 

There's a distinction being drawn there Thirsty. Let's see if we can work it out eh?

By the way, for the superstitious among us: today is the 13th. OMG, Leeds and Sheffield are both going to win 

[dylanisabaddog 4,874]

In the days when I still admired Paul Lambert a reporter pointed out that Swansea had nearly 80% possession in a game we had won. "Do they get any points for that?" was his response. 

There are lies, damned lies and football statistics. We didn't play well enough to beat Reading. If Buendia had been playing we probably would have hammered them. The lesson to be learned from the game is that we need to find a way of winning when Emi isn't playing. 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

17 hours ago, ron obvious said:

If nothing else this proves we don't have anything to worry about

https://totalfootballanalysis.com/match-analysis/norwich-city-reading-efl-championship-tactical-analysis

I only saw the last 20 mins. or so but it did seem we were throwing speculative crosses in at an alarming rate (result of Jordan coming on?) Also leaving huge gaps in MF during extra time. And Marco's leg waving 'tackle' just before the goal ... grrr.

That's showbiz folks. We go again.

 

Thanks Ron I appreciate you digging these analysis pieces up & definitely add to the interest for me.

 

it definitely flags the fact that we tried too many crosses especially later in the game, which doesn’t play to our strengths in finishing and we wouldn’t have done with Buendia. Having said that we created enough chances and come within seconds of winning so I’m not too downhearted.