Possession stats yesterday

[dylanisabaddog 4,906]

Are these stats correct? Possession is obviously pretty much irrelevant but I can't remember Wolves having the ball much in the second half and they rarely reached our penalty area

[cambridgeshire canary 6,698]

Close enough it seems. Fair to say Wolves hardly even bothered Krul, think rather amusigly the only players to give Krul any trouble were Hanley and Aarons

[Petriix 2,834]

Wolves had loads of possession, passing it sideways and back. We were really disciplined and didn't give them much of an opening at all.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

Those stats don’t surprise me to be fair. Wolves had lots of possession but never threatened bar for two individual errors. As Smith said we controlled the game both with and without the ball for large portions. Something you’d never catch Daniel saying interestingly, even though some of our worst defeats came in our first season when we had ~70% possession!

I must say Smith does seem a bit more level headed / realistic when it comes to judging a match, saying we got 2 more points than we deserved versus Southampton and 2 less yesterday is bang on - Farke though obsessed over possession and always felt we were doing more in games than we actually were..

[Capt. Pants 4,225]

I can't recall Krul having to make a diving save, although neither did their keeper to be fair.

Wolves wanted to move us around and wait for the inevitable error. It didn't really happen though. Jiminez didn't look particularly mobile and Gibbo did a good job at the back as did the two fullbacks.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,937]

Just now, Capt. Pants said:

I can't recall Krul having to make a diving save, although neither did their keeper to be fair.

Wolves wanted to move us around and wait for the inevitable error. It didn't really happen though. Jiminez didn't look particularly mobile and Gibbo did a good job at the back as did the two fullbacks.

 

Dunno, Sa had to make spreading saves rather than diving ones.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

Unlike one or two on here i don't rely on a load of stats to tell me what i should have seen from either the team or players as individuals as i watch with my eyes and let my brain make the judgements on how the game went.

[hogesar 9,657]

Just now, TIL 1010 said:

Unlike one or two on here i don't rely on a load of stats to tell me what i should have seen from either the team or players as individuals as i watch with my eyes and let my brain make the judgements on how the game went.

Unlike our head coach then, who is a stats geek.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

9 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Unlike our head coach then, who is a stats geek.

He obviously doesn’t have as keen an eye as TIL when it comes to judging a game.

[hogesar 9,657]

5 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

He obviously doesn’t have as keen an eye as TIL when it comes to judging a game.

Clearly! Haha.

Ignoring that though, there's no one on this planet who bases a game just from stats. But stats can still be a valuable thing in context which is why clubs pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to collect them and innovate towards new data gathering techniques. 

As I've said elsewhere, stats are also handy because every single one of us has bias towards Norwich, which is then compounded by our individual bias towards certain players. For example, many decided during our first Premier League relegation that Rupp is useless and wouldn't get in a championship side. That is demonstrably incorrect.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

For example, many decided during our first Premier League relegation that Rupp is useless and wouldn't get in a championship side. That is demonstrably incorrect.

Blimey, you've got some serious man-love for Rupp Hoggy boy; I do hope you aren't stalking the poor lad. He does have a nice beard tbf. But remember  - when the fun stops, stop. Or at least run for it when you hear the sirens (it might be Til).

I can't remember many saying he wasn't a Championship quality player. However, I can remember many saying he wasn't a Premier League quality player. He was good yesterday but one swallow and all that. Hopefully, Dean can get more out of him than Daniel ever did. Consistency is the key. 

OTBC

[Midlands Yellow 3,970]

29 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Blimey, you've got some serious man-love for Rupp Hoggy boy; I do hope you aren't stalking the poor lad. He does have a nice beard tbf. But remember  - when the fun stops, stop. Or at least run for it when you hear the sirens (it might be Til).

I can't remember many saying he wasn't a Championship quality player. However, I can remember many saying he wasn't a Premier League quality player. He was good yesterday but one swallow and all that. Hopefully, Dean can get more out of him than Daniel ever did. Consistency is the key. 

OTBC

Hoggs wallpaper at home. 
 

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Anyone seen xG stats for yesterday? I’ve googled but can’t find them.

[cornish sam 951]

3 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Anyone seen xG stats for yesterday? I’ve googled but can’t find them.

I think it was 1.3 for us, 0.25 for them... Something of that ilk anyway

Edited November 28, 2021 by cornish sam

[cornish sam 951]

1 minute ago, cornish sam said:

I think it was 1.3 for us, 0.25 for them... Something of that ilk anyway

Now I'll look them up instead of trying to remember what MOTD showed, actually was 1.6 v 0.5 here  https://experimental361.com/2021/11/28/premier-league-timelines-27-28-nov-2021/

[Monty13 2,231]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Unlike one or two on here i don't rely on a load of stats to tell me what i should have seen from either the team or players as individuals as i watch with my eyes and let my brain make the judgements on how the game went.

Stats are just the mathematical interpretation of what you are seeing. They still need interpretation, and the amount of interpretation depends on how deep you go.

I don’t understand people who dismiss facts any more than I understand people who twist and select the facts to suit their belief.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Stats like xG are a useful corrective to lazy journos & media types who tend to just focus on the score line which for football can sometimes be quite a misleading reflection of the game.

 

For us the 1.6v0.5 is a fair reflection of the fact that we could and probably should have won.

 

Interesting to see Liverpool were  only 2.4 v 1.2 yesterday, on the highlights it looked like their goals came from some very high quality chances, one being an open goal from 5 yards out, but xG would imply they didn’t get a lot of chances beyond the ones on the highlights ?

[horsefly 4,296]

18 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Stats are just the mathematical interpretation of what you are seeing. They still need interpretation, and the amount of interpretation depends on how deep you go.

I don’t understand people who dismiss facts any more than I understand people who twist and select the facts to suit their belief.

Spot on! I think the stats show we've moved to a more counter-attacking model of football rather than focusing on possession. Defend much higher up the pitch, closing down with a lot greater intesnsity, and breaking forward quickly. On yesterday's evidence it seems to suit our crop of players better; we shouldn't underestimate how good Wolves have been lately and we made them look very ordinary.

[chicken 2,624]

3 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

I can't recall Krul having to make a diving save, although neither did their keeper to be fair.

Wolves wanted to move us around and wait for the inevitable error. It didn't really happen though. Jiminez didn't look particularly mobile and Gibbo did a good job at the back as did the two fullbacks.

 

A shot on target requires the intervention of a keeper so that kind of puts pay to the concept that their keeper didn't have to make saves... they are all on the highlights...

[TheGunnShow 5,937]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

Clearly! Haha.

Ignoring that though, there's no one on this planet who bases a game just from stats. But stats can still be a valuable thing in context which is why clubs pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to collect them and innovate towards new data gathering techniques. 

As I've said elsewhere, stats are also handy because every single one of us has bias towards Norwich, which is then compounded by our individual bias towards certain players. For example, many decided during our first Premier League relegation that Rupp is useless and wouldn't get in a championship side. That is demonstrably incorrect.

Not sure which commentator said it, but this sums up my view perfectly:

"Statistics are like miniskirts. What they show is revealing, but what they hide is vital!"

[Canary Jedi 579]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Are these stats correct?

 

Don’t forget that 87.3% of statistics are made up!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Stats may be OK for a coach or performance chap but I find them irritating at times. I really couldn't care less about possession. Overall we were clearly the better team yesterday and made it uncomfortable for Wolves second half. Even with my bias.

Stats could tell me something else. But I am not bothered what Shearer, Stelling or Morrison say about my team. Its what I perceive for my own benefit hat counts for me.

[AJ 1,218]

They had a lot of possession deep in their defence, assume that's where most of it came from as like you say can't really remember them dominating 

[hogesar 9,657]

3 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Blimey, you've got some serious man-love for Rupp Hoggy boy; I do hope you aren't stalking the poor lad. He does have a nice beard tbf. But remember  - when the fun stops, stop. Or at least run for it when you hear the sirens (it might be Til).

I can't remember many saying he wasn't a Championship quality player. However, I can remember many saying he wasn't a Premier League quality player. He was good yesterday but one swallow and all that. Hopefully, Dean can get more out of him than Daniel ever did. Consistency is the key. 

OTBC

I wouldn't go as far as to say man-love but I rate him as a very useful squad player if not a regular starter at the top level. You don't have to do much of an advanced search on here to see people going further than my example and putting Rupp at League One level.

[hogesar 9,657]

3 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Hoggs wallpaper at home. 
 

Can you photoshop Hooper out for me? Then more than happy to wallpaper this bad boy 

[Bluefloyd 58]

Yeah, we pressed selectively and their back 3 had the ball quite a bit. Seemed to be a bit more organised with the pressing too. For the first time I saw Pukki talking to Sargent about who to pick up and when to press. Hanley also seemed to be more vocal too. 

Gilmour stood next to Kilman yesterday was like a bar chart presenting the same possession data. 

[Fr. Chewy Louie 137]

11 hours ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Those stats don’t surprise me to be fair. Wolves had lots of possession but never threatened bar for two individual errors. As Smith said we controlled the game both with and without the ball for large portions. Something you’d never catch Daniel saying interestingly, even though some of our worst defeats came in our first season when we had ~70% possession!

Immediately thought of this game... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40983497 😱

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

10 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

Unlike one or two on here i don't rely on a load of stats to tell me what i should have seen from either the team or players as individuals as i watch with my eyes and let my brain make the judgements on how the game went.

Yep , I'm sure you've learnt all there is to learn.  How satisfying  that must be.

[Nuff Said 5,118]

8 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Stats may be OK for a coach or performance chap but I find them irritating at times. I really couldn't care less about possession. Overall we were clearly the better team yesterday and made it uncomfortable for Wolves second half. Even with my bias.

Stats could tell me something else. But I am not bothered what Shearer, Stelling or Morrison say about my team. Its what I perceive for my own benefit hat counts for me.

Come on KG, you must know what this sounds like? You’ll be telling us next we’ve had enough of experts and you know this guy on Facebook who we should be listening to. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

13 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Come on KG, you must know what this sounds like? You’ll be telling us next we’ve had enough of experts and you know this guy on Facebook who we should be listening to. 

The problem is with people who just look at the game with their 'eye' with no basis behind their opinion is that they often just see what they want to see. Unfavoured players get singled out for doing one or two things badly in the game but other more favourable players are overlooked when they make similar mistakes.

I don't think the use of possession is of particular relevance without context for the areas the possession is at and the chances created as a result of it. However I am definitely interested in the clear differences between Dean Smith saying 'we controlled the game without the ball' and Farke who was all about possession possession possession.

As highlighted Dean Smith's take seems much more reasonable to me, I could imagine if Farke was Wolves manager he would be harping on about their increased possession like 'possession difference' somehow could towards the league table like goal difference does... when really the fact they created absolutely nothing from it is what matters (indeed their only chances came from our own defensive errors).