Ben Lee’s analysis

[Branston Pickle 3,660]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

It does seem very convenient though, to make the claim that Hull were impatient and simply willing to take shots from distance, rather than the fact they weren't able to play through us and our low block.

Especially when the tables are turned and we are restricted to long shots, it's always because "we didn't have the quality to break them down" - in his view.

That’s what I’m talking about - there seems to be a bias to the analysis.

[king canary 7,607]

58 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

That’s what I’m talking about - there seems to be a bias to the analysis.

I would argue though that the criticism of his analysis is also coming from a place of bias. 

Nobody has been able to point out anything substantively wrong with his article- the criticism just seems to be it's not positive enough. 

Is Lee any more biased than those who seemingly are biased towards putting more positive spin on all things Norwich right now? At least he's clearly made the effort to watch and provide a detailed analysis of the game. 

Everyone has their own opinion but writing it off as biased because it doesn't chime with your view is a bit lazy to be honest.

[Branston Pickle 3,660]

50 minutes ago, king canary said:

I would argue though that the criticism of his analysis is also coming from a place of bias. 

Nobody has been able to point out anything substantively wrong with his article- the criticism just seems to be it's not positive enough. 

Is Lee any more biased than those who seemingly are biased towards putting more positive spin on all things Norwich right now? At least he's clearly made the effort to watch and provide a detailed analysis of the game. 

Everyone has their own opinion but writing it off as biased because it doesn't chime with your view is a bit lazy to be honest.

It “chimes” with the current way the pinkun is reporting on NCFC, that is the precise point.  The final comment in the piece said everything anyone needs to know.

 

Edited January 15 by Branston Pickle

[hogesar 9,676]

36 minutes ago, king canary said:

I would argue though that the criticism of his analysis is also coming from a place of bias. 

Nobody has been able to point out anything substantively wrong with his article- the criticism just seems to be it's not positive enough. 

Is Lee any more biased than those who seemingly are biased towards putting more positive spin on all things Norwich right now? At least he's clearly made the effort to watch and provide a detailed analysis of the game. 

Everyone has their own opinion but writing it off as biased because it doesn't chime with your view is a bit lazy to be honest.

I thought I'd been totally fair in there being very little statistical difference between some of our losses via not breaking teams down vs Hull not being able to do the same against us. In each of those games it was our fault for not breaking them down (for a variety of reasons) yet when a team can't break us down (as xG and xA shows along with having watched the game) it's down to their own inability.

[king canary 7,607]

9 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

It “chimes” with the current way the pinkun is reporting on NCFC, that is the precise point.  The final comment in the piece said everything anyone needs to know.

 

This is my point though.

You don't like the tone of the pinkun's current reporting so it must all be rubbish. In the last few weeks you've criticised the quality of three separate pinkun journalists, never with anything substantive just basically 'I don't like it so it must be ****.'

To be blunt it is the height of 'pot calling the kettle black'' to have you throwing around accusations of bias when your own might as well be tattooed on your forehead it is so obvious.

[king canary 7,607]

9 hours ago, hogesar said:

I thought I'd been totally fair in there being very little statistical difference between some of our losses via not breaking teams down vs Hull not being able to do the same against us. In each of those games it was our fault for not breaking them down (for a variety of reasons) yet when a team can't break us down (as xG and xA shows along with having watched the game) it's down to their own inability.

But this isn't substantive- do you have examples from the game? When do you think we successfully shut Hull off and forced them into long shots? 

I'm largely going to side with the person who has clearly spent significant time watching and (I'm assuming) rewatching the game and does this for a living vs a guy spending some time on sofascore. 

[Branston Pickle 3,660]

20 minutes ago, king canary said:

This is my point though.

You don't like the tone of the pinkun's current reporting so it must all be rubbish. In the last few weeks you've criticised the quality of three separate pinkun journalists, never with anything substantive just basically 'I don't like it so it must be ****.'

To be blunt it is the height of 'pot calling the kettle black'' to have you throwing around accusations of bias when your own might as well be tattooed on your forehead it is so obvious.

Oh, so a game where we created the best chances, won 2-1 and this was backed up by xg, is regarded as ‘lucky’ and tactically inept? Ok. Yes, of course that’s totally fair if it backs up a negative starting point.  But isn’t backed up by facts. By all means carry on thinking this is ‘down the line’ reporting if you want.  It isn’t.

And as for the lst piece of bull you’ve written, I’ve been critical and said we’ve been poor in plenty of games this season.  Wagner is most certainly not producing what we expected and we need to be far better, not pedestrian and predictable.  If he got the boot I don’t think there could be too many complaints, but whilst he’s there he deserves support.  My only bias is that I support my team and want it to do as well as it can.  

Edited January 16 by Branston Pickle

[hogesar 9,676]

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

But this isn't substantive- do you have examples from the game? When do you think we successfully shut Hull off and forced them into long shots? 

I'm largely going to side with the person who has clearly spent significant time watching and (I'm assuming) rewatching the game and does this for a living vs a guy spending some time on sofascore. 

Love the sofascore jab but how about the fact that we also watched the game? He doesn't do it for a living, he's studying.

Even on the highlights, since it's apparent you didn't watch the match, there's loads of examples where our low block forced Hull repeatedly out wide - they ended up crossing something like 20 times as a result - playing right into Duffy's hands hence him having a good game. They didn't have particular strength in height either, and without being able to create clear chances in the penalty area they resorted to either long shots or shifting out wide to cross.

One of the Hull fan accounts mentioned it was the most crosses they'd attempted in 15 odd games and went against how they'd typically been able to score their goals.

From what I can gather, you've not watched the game, you've decided anyone who's raised points having watched the game is wrong because someone who's studying and posts stuff on twitter must be right? Yet you're one of the first to disagree if someone points out the manager of the club knows better than fans...

 

[king canary 7,607]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Love the sofascore jab but how about the fact that we also watched the game? He doesn't do it for a living, he's studying.

Even on the highlights, since it's apparent you didn't watch the match, there's loads of examples where our low block forced Hull repeatedly out wide - they ended up crossing something like 20 times as a result - playing right into Duffy's hands hence him having a good game. They didn't have particular strength in height either, and without being able to create clear chances in the penalty area they resorted to either long shots or shifting out wide to cross.

One of the Hull fan accounts mentioned it was the most crosses they'd attempted in 15 odd games and went against how they'd typically been able to score their goals.

From what I can gather, you've not watched the game, you've decided anyone who's raised points having watched the game is wrong because someone who's studying and posts stuff on twitter must be right? Yet you're one of the first to disagree if someone points out the manager of the club knows better than fans...

 

I watched the game thanks. Sofascore wasn't meant as a jab, I thought you maybe had slightly thicker skin than that but there we go.

I've bolded that bit because my entire point on this thread was- until your post- nobody had actually raised any points. It was all accusations of bias with the odd mention of XG. There is a good discussion to be had around Ben's points and where people disagree, it just wasn't happening in this thread because too many people were basically saying 'we won so it can't have been bad' or 'the nasty student man was MEAN AND BIASED WAH WAH.'

[Branston Pickle 3,660]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

I watched the game thanks. Sofascore wasn't meant as a jab, I thought you maybe had slightly thicker skin than that but there we go.

I've bolded that bit because my entire point on this thread was- until your post- nobody had actually raised any points. It was all accusations of bias with the odd mention of XG. There is a good discussion to be had around Ben's points and where people disagree, it just wasn't happening in this thread because too many people were basically saying 'we won so it can't have been bad' or 'the nasty student man was MEAN AND BIASED WAH WAH.'

Hadn’t you best be off to school?  What a childish reply.

You love this analysis as it backs up your view - that’s very obvious.  I don’t, but obviously saying its garbage was too strong. I pointed out that the last comment was unnecessary and suggested bias.  It’s quite simple and you ought to be able to understand.

Edited January 16 by Branston Pickle

[hogesar 9,676]

Just now, king canary said:

I watched the game thanks. Sofascore wasn't meant as a jab, I thought you maybe had slightly thicker skin than that but there we go.

I've bolded that bit because my entire point on this thread was- until your post- nobody had actually raised any points. It was all accusations of bias with the odd mention of XG. There is a good discussion to be had around Ben's points and where people disagree, it just wasn't happening in this thread because too many people were basically saying 'we won so it can't have been bad' or 'the nasty student man was MEAN AND BIASED WAH WAH.'

Maybe you're throwing me in with everyone else? I said I agreed with much of what Ben said, I've agreed with much of his analysis and the only caveat I had with it recently was an assumption of possession = control.

And then I just saw nothing constructive that demonstrated how Hull taking long shots and crossing from wide (against their typical style and playing into our hands) was down to their own failures and not anything to do with our defending. Especially when the same doesn't apply if we end up in an identical reverse situation. 

[Google Bot 3,278]

14 hours ago, Monty13 said:

I think the difference with Pukki and Buendia is we had a system designed around getting the best out of them, not sure the same can be said about the current system.

Could it not be argued that the current 'system' has came around because of inconsistencies in squad availability?

At the start of the season we had an identity and we had a lot of drive and aggression, Wagner's had to deal with a lot of unavailability of key players which totally killed the momentum and also lost a lot of fans.

The question is now that players are back, will he start to claw back to where he was, or is this who we are for the season?  Personally, I can't see himself craving this style of play, and neither can I see Knapper wanting it. 

Trouble is, while we continue to pick up points in this fashion, do you change it?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

3 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Could it not be argued that the current 'system' has came around because of inconsistencies in squad availability?

At the start of the season we had an identity and we had a lot of drive and aggression, Wagner's had to deal with a lot of unavailability of key players which totally killed the momentum and also lost a lot of fans.

The question is now that players are back, will he start to claw back to where he was, or is this who we are for the season?  Personally, I can't see himself craving this style of play, and neither can I see Knapper wanting it. 

Trouble is, while we continue to pick up points in this fashion, do you change it?

He's got a Plan B that's not doing too badly. And if the opposition are reduced to snap-shots from distance or lobbing high balls in when they've not too much height in attack and we've got Duffy and/or Hanley in there who will win the overwhelming majority of aerial battles then it's a sign that we're forcing them to attack in a way they don't do as well as usual.

This is what appears to be missing in Lee's analysis.

[BigFish 1,987]

There is a lot going on in this thread, with a lot of threads at cross purposes. So few thoughts, which you may or may not agree to depending on your perspective.

1) Ben's analysis is an excellent academic attempt to be objective about what is happening in games;

2) @hogesar's use of stats is another useful data point

3) Some posters don't like either, preferring a highly subjective opinion based on little evidence at all e.g. what they see.

4) Both pro and anti posters contain a large group of the results are king types. Winning and losing alone makes their point, or so they think.

5) The PinkUn journos are highly subjective, there is little in the way of objective analysis from any of them. Although Connor does occasionally try.

6) The journos have to reflect their market or readers go else where. They are very negative, but that is a reflection of a significant section of the fanbase.

 

[king canary 7,607]

9 minutes ago, BigFish said:

There is a lot going on in this thread, with a lot of threads at cross purposes. So few thoughts, which you may or may not agree to depending on your perspective.

1) Ben's analysis is an excellent academic attempt to be objective about what is happening in games;

2) @hogesar's use of stats is another useful data point

3) Some posters don't like either, preferring a highly subjective opinion based on little evidence at all e.g. what they see.

4) Both pro and anti posters contain a large group of the results are king types. Winning and losing alone makes their point, or so they think.

5) The PinkUn journos are highly subjective, there is little in the way of objective analysis from any of them. Although Connor does occasionally try.

6) The journos have to reflect their market or readers go else where. They are very negative, but that is a reflection of a significant section of the fanbase.

 

I think that is a fair assessment.

I can agree the pinkun slant is a bit more negative than in the past but this negativity isn't happening in a vacuum- they are negative in part because the fans are negative but also because, fundamentally, there is a lot to be negative about in our current set up.

[shefcanary 2,409]

The real conclusion of Lee's analysis is that the current tactical set-up is not sustainable.

I was there and our players had to work so hard, they were out on their feet long before the end of the match; to back this up it was the most recent subs on who created and scored what turned out to be the winner, from technically a tired lob up the pitch - classic lower league stuff. Three minutes later and none of our players had the energy to track the Hull player for his consolation goal - if there had been only a couple more minutes of injury time I'm sure Hull would have equalised, so knackered and brain dead were our players.

Playing the way we are we are open to players running out of energy and risk burn-out and mental switch off's in game. Sure Lee would prefer more possession and control of the ball in our tactics, but not necessarily for aesthetic reasons but just that it means our players are more likely to last 90 (or 110) minutes more easily. They will also be able to play more games at a consistently higher level of fitness and mental awareness.

I agree we out worked Hull, who in the end were either lazy, complacent or just poor quality players. And it is just like Norwich to be hanging on in injury time to hold out for a win when it could be so much easier if tactically we set up better.

[Cowboy 197]

20 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

...Firstly, we don't keep possession too well after we get it. I accept there's a lot to be said for letting the other team have possession, gum up the works and challenge them to play their way through. ...

I accept what you're saying given the abilities of the current players and the construction of the 'team', but boy is it a depressing realisation that such is seen as necessary in a mid-table Championship match. There's the long term implications on player and club morale to think of too, which are much more important than a dour, negative struggle for a hopeful point (or somehow three) away to Hull.

[Google Bot 3,278]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

The real conclusion of Lee's analysis is that the current tactical set-up is not sustainable.

Depends from which perspective you're looking at things from though.  In regards to players like Duffy, Gibson and Batth if the ball is being played in front of them we've got a far better chance of not conceding.

I don't think relying on our creatives to produce in that environment is unsustainable in itself, The bigger concern for me comes down the work rate and effort our creative players are having to put in.   It increases the chance of over-stretching and sustaining more injuries as we've done first half of season.

Teams who allow the ball to do the work suffer with less injuries.

[king canary 7,607]

12 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Depends from which perspective you're looking at things from though.  In regards to players like Duffy, Gibson and Batth if the ball is being played in front of them we've got a far better chance of not conceding.

I don't think relying on our creatives to produce in that environment is unsustainable in itself, The bigger concern for me comes down the work rate and effort our creative players are having to put in.   It increases the chance of over-stretching and sustaining more injuries as we've done first half of season.

Teams who allow the ball to do the work suffer with less injuries.

I do struggle to see how this gameplan is sustainable to be honest.

According to Whoscored 42% of the Hull game was played in our final third while 19% took place in theirs, while vs Southampton a staggering 47% took part in our final third, 14% in theirs. 

You might get away with it for a game or two but eventually putting your defence under such constant pressure will tell, as will relying on your players to score lots of low % chances.

[Google Bot 3,278]

26 minutes ago, king canary said:

You might get away with it for a game or two but eventually putting your defence under such constant pressure will tell, as will relying on your players to score lots of low % chances.

Think you need to rewatch those matches if you think we're only scoring low % chances as some of the play we put together was well deserving of a goal and we've had plenty of misses in both those games.   You're making it sound as though we have one shot on goal and run off like it's a robbery, but it's nothing like that.

4 Points from those two games is what matters, and developing a plan B is very important if we're able to dominate the mid-lower position teams now that players are back to fitness.   So I think it is sustainable from a tactical perspective, providing we're not pushing players to the point of injury.

IMO Sainz, Rowe and Sarge will all create chances in this environment.  It's not a fluke that Sarge is pulling wide allowing Rowe the space to run into the Hull box, neither was it a fluke that Onel put the legwork in to win the ball and cross for Fasi, and nor was it a fluke when Sarge made his diagonal run for Rowe to find him for the Saints goal either.

Think people need to start assessing these "low %" chances and appreciating the movements as a whole.  But it seems like too many are willing a negative view on any positive result right now.   Stats only back up the point that we're allowing teams to play in front of us, and it's proved effective in terms of results.

Edited January 16 by Google Bot

[king canary 7,607]

7 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Think you need to rewatch those matches if you think we're only scoring low % chances as some of the play we put together was well deserving of a goal and we've had plenty of misses in both those games.   You're making it sound as though we have one shot on goal and run off like it's a robbery, but it's nothing like that.

4 Points from those two games is what matters, and developing a plan B is very important if we're able to dominate the mid-lower position teams now that players are back to fitness.   So I think it is sustainable from a tactical perspective, providing we're not pushing players to the point of injury.

IMO Sainz, Rowe and Sarge will all create chances in this environment.  It's not a fluke that Sarge is pulling wide allowing Rowe the space to run into the Hull box, neither was it a fluke that Onel put the legwork in to win the ball and cross for Fasi, and nor was it a fluke when Sarge made his diagonal run for Rowe to find him for the Saints goal either.

Think people need to start assessing these "low %" chances and appreciating the movements as a whole.  But it seems like too many are willing a negative view on any positive result right now.   Stats only back up the point that we're allowing teams to play in front of us, and it's proved effective in terms of results.

Statistically we are creating low % chances though- vs Southampton we had 7 shots for an XG of 0.83, vs Hull 9 for 1.4. So combined we've had 16 chances for a total XG of 2.43, an average of 0.15 per chance. That is a pretty low %. The Rowe goal is almost the definition of a low % chance. I think the Sargent one may be similar as that had to go through a players legs. 

Certainly I didn't come away from the Hull game thinking we'd created anything much. 

[Google Bot 3,278]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

Statistically we are creating low % chances though- vs Southampton we had 7 shots for an XG of 0.83, vs Hull 9 for 1.4.

You don't run statistical analysis on a sample size of 2 games and come to a conclusion.  It has to be done across a much wider threshold. 

If you do that, it's clear that our deficiencies lay in xGA (Expected against) and the tactics employed against the higher performing teams are an attempt fill that gap.  Beyond these past 2 league matches we have to see what pans out now we have players fit and available.

Personally, I've seen so much improvement in regards to our off the ball movement and taking of chances since having the likes of Rowe, Sainz and Sarge in the team.

Holding the Rowe goal as to suggest that's the only way we can score is misleading, if we're to only study the past 2 league games there's been 3 goals and i'd say the majority (2) have been well worked.   But again, it's such a small sample size, we just have to see how the next few weeks go.

[king canary 7,607]

4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

You don't run statistical analysis on a sample size of 2 games and come to a conclusion.  It has to be done across a much wider threshold. 

If you do that, it's clear that our deficiencies lay in xGA (Expected against) and the tactics employed against the higher performing teams are an attempt fill that gap.  Beyond these past 2 league matches we have to see what pans out now we have players fit and available.

Personally, I've seen so much improvement in regards to our off the ball movement and taking of chances since having the likes of Rowe, Sainz and Sarge in the team.

Holding the Rowe goal as to suggest that's the only way we can score is misleading, if we're to only study the past 2 league games there's been 3 goals and i'd say the majority (2) have been well worked.   But again, it's such a small sample size, we just have to see how the next few weeks go.

Yes but we're speculating aren't we? We've only played this extremely low block, low possession style for the last two games so I can only speculate on what it looks like further forward and my speculation is simply that I don't think it'll prove to be sustainable.

[Move Klose 303]

On 15/01/2024 at 11:46, Branston Pickle said:

I’ve read it sometimes, I don’t have to agree. Vs Hull imo we got more right than wrong: that is evidenced by the win that I saw with my own eyes, despite Seaman claiming it somehow relied on huge amounts of luck.

 

It's probably more along the lines of you didn't understand the points he was making than anything else. 

Having the opinion that oh well we won is like having a 7 year old giving their opinion on a match.

[Google Bot 3,278]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

We've only played this extremely low block, low possession style for the last two games so I can only speculate on what it looks like further forward and my speculation is simply that I don't think it'll prove to be sustainable.

Well, we'll likely find out vs WBA and Leeds as I can't see us adopting back to the more aggressive front foot approach as per start of season, not until we're clear of those games anyway.

Personally, Until that point I can't see any benefit in expanding out statistics based only on a few games against our tougher opponents and claiming it's unsustainable.

[Branston Pickle 3,660]

15 minutes ago, Move Klose said:

It's probably more along the lines of you didn't understand the points he was making than anything else. 

Having the opinion that oh well we won is like having a 7 year old giving their opinion on a match.

Wow. That’s clever.

 

 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

16 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

It “chimes” with the current way the pinkun is reporting on NCFC, that is the precise point.  The final comment in the piece said everything anyone needs to know.

The Pinkun’s been proven right though. Wagner’s record at the end of last season was poor, the Pinkun boys pointed out how streaky his record is as a manager and that’s proven to be the case here as well. They’ve criticised his lack of playing style this season, evidenced by the lack of any consistent chances being created. He’s been criticised for our defensive coaching, evidenced by our awful GC record.

Sure, we’re scraping the odd win by a single goal, but we’re still not playing well, the squad age is too old, we still have no consistent playing style and the talented players we do have are being stifled by an overly-pragmatic approach.

The PinkUn reporting reflects fan opinion, the majority of fans I know want him gone but are resigned to him not being given the boot unless things get dangerously bad, which they probably won’t because we have players who can get results through moments of individual brilliance, which is what we’re seeing.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

1 hour ago, Google Bot said:

You don't run statistical analysis on a sample size of 2 games and come to a conclusion.  It has to be done across a much wider threshold. 

If you do that, it's clear that our deficiencies lay in xGA (Expected against) and the tactics employed against the higher performing teams are an attempt fill that gap.  Beyond these past 2 league matches we have to see what pans out now we have players fit and available.

Personally, I've seen so much improvement in regards to our off the ball movement and taking of chances since having the likes of Rowe, Sainz and Sarge in the team.

Holding the Rowe goal as to suggest that's the only way we can score is misleading, if we're to only study the past 2 league games there's been 3 goals and i'd say the majority (2) have been well worked.   But again, it's such a small sample size, we just have to see how the next few weeks go.

I don’t know what their XG was but Southampton had 21 shots against us, of which 15 were in our penalty area. They had a 19% shooting accuracy. So this notion that we held them at arms length or restricted them to shooting from distance is not correct.

West Brom had 21 shots against us also of which they only managed to get 3 on target. 12 of those were inside the box.

Millwall had 11, 10 of which were inside our box. 

In our last 4 games, the opposition have had 74 shots at our goal. We’ve had 34 shots at goal.

it was a huge theme in the games leading up to our slump earlier in the season that teams were having circa 20 shots against us per match. We have not addressed that and until we do, good results will not be sustainable. We may be getting more bodies in the way by sticking 10 men behind the ball at times and Gunn is saving more shots than Long did because he’s a much better keeper but we are still easy to play through and present teams with a lot of decent opportunities. 

 

 

 

 

[BigFish 1,987]

8 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I don’t know what their XG

Hull 0.97

Southampton 2.5

Millwall 2.26

West Brom 2.06

 

[Ulfotto 635]

On 15/01/2024 at 10:45, CANARYKING said:

a head coach who is stifling the development of this club and its individual prospects.

I don’t mind the Xg stuff but the OP is maybe right to call out the line that is quoted. It is actually quite a shocking line and not very in keeping with local journalism who are supposed to tow the club line to a greater or lesser extent.

You might say they right to be making the call out but my point is that we were minced in the premier league, then had a desperately disappointing mid table finish in the championship last year arguably the talent on the field is ever diminishing yet the line suggests to me anyway that by simply employing a different style on the team with a different manager that results and performances would improve significantly. I personally don’t see any evidence to suggest this.