The elephant in the room remains how bad our defence looks

[Virtual reality 716]

6 hours ago, hogesar said:

Gibson has been our best central defender. 

As for the game, realistically Plymouth were never going to score 3 or 4, they had an XG marginally above 1.

Ultimately Sorensen isn't a CB, demonstrated by, and disproving your point above, Gibson winning a higher % of both aerial and ground duels, interceptions, tackles...

Did the person running the Xg stats fall asleep? I’m struggling with how they have come up with that stat when off the top of my head they have scored an unmarked header from 10yards out, missed an open goal and missed a one on one. I’m sure there were other decent chances as well. 

Edited March 30 by Virtual reality

[Fen Canary 861]

30 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

Did the person running the Xg stats fall asleep? I’m struggling with how they have come up with that stat when off the top of my head they have scored an unmarked header from 10yards out, missed an open goal and missed a one on one. I’m sure there were other decent chances as well. 

They’re just meaningless stats cooked up for those not bright enough to comprehend what they’ve just seen with their own eyes 

[Virtual reality 716]

10 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

They’re just meaningless stats cooked up for those not bright enough to comprehend what they’ve just seen with their own eyes 

It’s a weird one as I quite like a footy statistic but the 3 chances I’ve mentioned must realistically all have had favourable outcomes to score. On any given day you’d have expected a minimum of 2 of those chances to be taken and disappointed that all 3 weren’t. How an Xg of 1.20 Comes from that is baffling 

[Fen Canary 861]

1 minute ago, Virtual reality said:

It’s a weird one as I quite like a footy statistic but the 3 chances I’ve mentioned must realistically all have had favourable outcomes to score. On any given day you’d have expected a minimum of 2 of those chances to be taken and disappointed that all 3 weren’t. How an Xg of 1.20 Comes from that is baffling 

I enjoy stats when there’s a point to them and you know how they were calculated.

For instance if you can see that your team had 80% possession but barely left their own half then you’d know you need to sacrifice some of that to play riskier passes to try and create chances. If you’ve had 40 shots but not 1 on target you probably need to buy some decent strikers. Xg just seems to be plucked out of the air by an algorithm that’s being fed numbers that are clearly so open to interpretation that it’s largely meaningless.

[nutty nigel 7,586]

Don’t fall for this tuskless elephant. Our defending has improved as our form has improved. In the 15 games up Bonfire Night we’d conceded 30 goals. Since Bonfire Night we’ve conceded 25 in 24 games. Hence the current +16 goal difference.

[hogesar 9,722]

1 hour ago, Virtual reality said:

Did the person running the Xg stats fall asleep? I’m struggling with how they have come up with that stat when off the top of my head they have scored an unmarked header from 10yards out, missed an open goal and missed a one on one. I’m sure there were other decent chances as well. 

A one on one isn't scored every time, is it? And are they on their weak or strong foot? And how is the goalkeepers positioning?

We had double their xG which follows the trend of their game.

[hogesar 9,722]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

That is not saying much because defensively Gibson is hopeless. 

No, he's not.

[Virtual reality 716]

13 minutes ago, hogesar said:

A one on one isn't scored every time, is it? And are they on their weak or strong foot? And how is the goalkeepers positioning?

We had double their xG which follows the trend of their game.

No obviously not but realistically you’d have to say it’s a minimum of 60% chance of a goal. The attacker has to have more chance than the keeper in that situation. The open goal has to be 80% chance and their goal is the hardest chance of the three so 50/50.
In actual terms I’d have expected two goals from those chances and be disappointed all 3 weren’t taken

Edited March 30 by Virtual reality

[ron obvious 1,514]

8 hours ago, hogesar said:

Gibson has been our best central defender. 

As for the game, realistically Plymouth were never going to score 3 or 4, they had an XG marginally above 1.

Ultimately Sorensen isn't a CB, demonstrated by, and disproving your point above, Gibson winning a higher % of both aerial and ground duels, interceptions, tackles...

Unfortunately he also makes the most appalling c0ck ups. Unforgivable in a CD.

[Fen Canary 861]

51 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Don’t fall for this tuskless elephant. Our defending has improved as our form has improved. In the 15 games up Bonfire Night we’d conceded 30 goals. Since Bonfire Night we’ve conceded 25 in 24 games. Hence the current +16 goal difference.

That’s a handy stat, although I think it can mask the abilities of the defenders themselves.

Under Farkes second promotion we didn’t concede that many goals, but I still feel the defending was incredibly shoddy at times and I sh@t myself every time the opposition had the ball. The reason (in my opinion) we didn’t actually concede that many over the season is because for large periods we dominated possession and the opposition didn’t have the ball, so the defenders themselves didn’t have to do too much actual defending. Whenever they did have it however they had a nasty habit of waltzing through the lot of them and we’d be reliant on Kruls heroics.

Whilst I think it’s slightly better, I’d still love to see a solid centre half pairing in the mould of Fleming and Malky, who can actually organise a back 4 and snuff out attacks 

[repman 635]

1 hour ago, Virtual reality said:

Did the person running the Xg stats fall asleep? I’m struggling with how they have come up with that stat when off the top of my head they have scored an unmarked header from 10yards out, missed an open goal and missed a one on one. I’m sure there were other decent chances as well. 

In general xG rates chances a bit lower than you'd expect, it's something you sort of adjust to. For example Sargent's goal vs Stoke came in at 0.85xG, even though it feels like a complete certainty.

For what it's worth the chances you mentioned came in at 0.06, 0.52 and 0.2. (Sometimes the stats get updates a day or two later so they could change yet). The post-shot value of their goal was 0.55, which suggests that the chance itself wasn't great (a header from the pen spot generally isn't a huge chance) but the finish meant it was more likely to go in. 

[Virtual reality 716]

1 minute ago, repman said:

In general xG rates chances a bit lower than you'd expect, it's something you sort of adjust to. For example Sargent's goal vs Stoke came in at 0.85xG, even though it feels like a complete certainty.

For what it's worth the chances you mentioned came in at 0.06, 0.52 and 0.2. (Sometimes the stats get updates a day or two later so they could change yet). The post-shot value of their goal was 0.55, which suggests that the chance itself wasn't great (a header from the pen spot generally isn't a huge chance) but the finish meant it was more likely to go in. 

Thanks. These stats are obviously calculated very differently to what I would imagine. As I’ve replied elsewhere on this I would expect the one on one to be scored 6 times out of 10 ( 60%) the open goal 8/10 (80%) and their goal 5/10 (50%)

[nutty nigel 7,586]

People like seeing different attributes in defenders. It's a personal choice I guess. I would say Duffy is the best we have in defending our box. I personally liked his partnership with Kenny but we often need Kenny in midfield.

Whether we have full backs stopping crosses or central defenders defending their box the ultimate measure is goals conceded or goal difference. I prefer the latter as a stat for the whole team and our ability to defend effectively.

Edited March 30 by nutty nigel

[hogesar 9,722]

3 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

Thanks. These stats are obviously calculated very differently to what I would imagine. As I’ve replied elsewhere on this I would expect the one on one to be scored 6 times out of 10 ( 60%) the open goal 8/10 (80%) and their goal 5/10 (50%)

Yeah, I get where you're coming from but the reality is those shots aren't scored 8 out of 10 times when the gk is in the same position and the same angle etc.

[hogesar 9,722]

16 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

That’s a handy stat, although I think it can mask the abilities of the defenders themselves.

Under Farkes second promotion we didn’t concede that many goals, but I still feel the defending was incredibly shoddy at times and I sh@t myself every time the opposition had the ball. The reason (in my opinion) we didn’t actually concede that many over the season is because for large periods we dominated possession and the opposition didn’t have the ball, so the defenders themselves didn’t have to do too much actual defending. Whenever they did have it however they had a nasty habit of waltzing through the lot of them and we’d be reliant on Kruls heroics.

Whilst I think it’s slightly better, I’d still love to see a solid centre half pairing in the mould of Fleming and Malky, who can actually organise a back 4 and snuff out attacks 

Yeah we weren't great defensively that Farke season. The reality is the only thing that made it look different was Krul had an extraordinary season in xG saved. I dont think it's been beaten in championship history.

[Virtual reality 716]

Just now, hogesar said:

Yeah, I get where you're coming from but the reality is those shots aren't scored 8 out of 10 times when the gk is in the same position and the same angle etc.

It’s a tricky one as we can never know. In my mind though I’d like to think a professional footballer at championship level is hitting the back of an empty net more often than not in those situations. Maybe the problem is everything is over analysed today. If anyone has the Fassnacht chance Xg I’d love to know what that was calculated at!? 

[Haus 259]

15 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

I realise that he's more than a decent utility man at this level, but I do not consider central defence is Sorensen's best position. He's just not commanding enough and along with Gibson who is the same, it makes the defence shaky, especially with high balls into the area.

I assume Duffy will be back for Leicester and him alongside Gibson will have to do, especially with doubts over Hanley's fitness.

We have a stable of young centre-halves getting good reviews from their loans who soon might be up to it.

Yesterday's duo will be overrun in the PL, should we get there, so apart from big signings which we do not have the cash to indulge in, one of these youth might be ready to step-up. A big ask, but as with Omo it could be the making of them.

If we remain in the Chumps I believe we will have no choice as it might be considered that, due to financial restrictions, both Gibson and Sorensen may not have their contracts renewed. Especially the former.

If we are on a budget I'd prioritise resigning Sorenson.  He provides cover for multiple positions 

[Ian 1,136]

3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I enjoy stats when there’s a point to them and you know how they were calculated.

For instance if you can see that your team had 80% possession but barely left their own half then you’d know you need to sacrifice some of that to play riskier passes to try and create chances. If you’ve had 40 shots but not 1 on target you probably need to buy some decent strikers. Xg just seems to be plucked out of the air by an algorithm that’s being fed numbers that are clearly so open to interpretation that it’s largely meaningless.

One interpretation is that xG is just another useful statistic, the importance of which is hugely overstated by some people who see it as the gospel truth.

The other interpretation is that Gunn is actually a very good goalkeeper.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 451]

23 hours ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Even though Sorensen has done OK since his introduction, I'd feel more comfortable with Duffy in there ahead of him over the next two games. It would sacrifice quality on the ball, but we're likely to be tested more defensively by higher quality teams so probably need the defensive security and leadership that Duffy would provide.

Ipswich are good, and they have Kieffer Moore.

Duffy is much better equipped to defend against Kieffer Moore. It is that simple to me.

Leicester though are not playing at all well, I'd possibly stick with the same line up and just take the game to them!

[Keith Scott 245]

We haven't had a decent centre back pairing since Malkay and Fleming.

Since then our centre back duos have been calamitous.

Hanley/Gibson have given Martin/Bassong a run for their money when it comes to almost weekly defensive **** ups.

All the best.

Big Keith Scott.

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,261]

15 minutes ago, Keith Scott said:

We haven't had a decent centre back pairing since Malkay and Fleming.

Since then our centre back duos have been calamitous.

Hanley/Gibson have given Martin/Bassong a run for their money when it comes to almost weekly defensive **** ups.

All the best.

Big Keith Scott.

 

Malkay Macky?? 

[Conrad 178]

10 hours ago, Virtual reality said:

No obviously not but realistically you’d have to say it’s a minimum of 60% chance of a goal. The attacker has to have more chance than the keeper in that situation. The open goal has to be 80% chance and their goal is the hardest chance of the three so 50/50.
In actual terms I’d have expected two goals from those chances and be disappointed all 3 weren’t taken

If it had been Pukki, In his prime, I would have been very confident that both would have been scored. Even now I would favour him.

[hogesar 9,722]

12 hours ago, Virtual reality said:

It’s a tricky one as we can never know. In my mind though I’d like to think a professional footballer at championship level is hitting the back of an empty net more often than not in those situations. Maybe the problem is everything is over analysed today. If anyone has the Fassnacht chance Xg I’d love to know what that was calculated at!? 

Yeah, it's worth noting xG uses data of 100s of thousands of shots. So let's say they might only have 100 shots that match the exact situation we are talking about. Beyond if its their strong or weak foot, the rest is purely based on the "average footballer" - so not even the average striker!

I've always thought that unusual because you'd think a Pukki would be very different to an Idah. But actually, across football the stat has "proven itself" in that only one player in world football has regularly exceeded their xG (i.e beyond a freak season) and that's Messi.

[Mello Yello 2,302]

A mammoth task for next season to have a strong and stable defence....whichever league we find ourselves in....

'Build from the back' is the old adage....

[jonnyace1 27]

Would swap Sorensen and McLean around. McLean and Gibson would be.a good combo. Wouldn’t rush to bring Duffy back. Why change a winning team ?.

As for yesterday, Plymouth created little but what they did create were good chances. On the other hand  we could have scored five on another day .

[yellowrider120 777]

16 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Ipswich are good, and they have Kieffer Moore.

Duffy is much better equipped to defend against Kieffer Moore. It is that simple to me.

Leicester though are not playing at all well, I'd possibly stick with the same line up and just take the game to them!

Correct - it is that simple IMO. Sorenson v KM would be a disaster for us when high crosses get whipped in next Saturday.

[Mr Angry 1,570]

Strange title for the thread-the ‘elephant in the room’ is something that everyone is afraid to mention.

This season there’s been a thread after every match about how cack our defence is-mind you, there’s been almost as many comments about how cack our midfield and attack is. Really makes you wonder how we’re in the playoff positions 🤔

[chicken 2,640]

I would say that this is about as far from the elephant in the room as you can get. Ever since Farke and Webber arrived, people have pointed out how defensively, as a team, not just the back four, we have and can be.

Many people have said the best we have looked, defensively, was with Skipp in the team covering the back four and giving them some good shielding. It's one of the reasons a good number of folks feel we still need a decent defensive midfielder (please no more saying CDM, it's a FIFA game made up thing, defensive midfielders are always deployed as central midfielders, it's not CAM either, pet hate rant over).

I think it is also fair to say, though, that injury has generally robbed us of a consistent centre back pairing for some time. We had a good run with Godfrey and Zimmermann, but even then we were not defensively tight as a team - though Farke ball hardly set us up to be really. That was also down to injury to Klose and Hanley. Then Zimmermann had his horrific injury. Godfrey was sold, we added Gibson and then Kabak. The latter of those two was a loan and only impressed in moments as a raw-ish youngster.

This season is no different. Omobamidele sold, Duffy and Batth signed. Hanley was forecast to be out for most of the season, it would appear he was rushed back a bit soon so that original prediction seems about right. Gibson has been injured, Duffy has been injured. All four of our CB's are over 30.

Outside of Stacey, who has been a great addition, and Giannoulis who I feel has been consistent, Fisher is young and raw, McCallum is promising. Giannoulis is now injured again having had niggles earlier in the season.

Someone else has started a thread on the CB situation but I suspect the defence may well be where Knapper focuses this summer. Which ever division we are in, we cannot wish to keep four pro's who are on decent wages and arguably in the last few years of their careers as a professional footballer and expect to be able to keep two of them fit for the majority of the season and starting consistently. It needs another mid 20's CB and a youngster to step up to offer pacier alternatives either to sit alongside a Duffy or Hanley etc or even push to build a partnership themselves as Zimbo and Godfrey did. Right back I think is probably the least of the worries but left back could become an issue.

Either way, it's not an elephant in the room situation. Though in fairness, IMHO, good defenders, and defensive midfielders, are actually harder to come by these days. As if to underline this, with teams on 38-39 games in the championship, only three teams have conceded less than one goal per game. Leeds on 30, Leicester on 34, and WBA on 37. In fact, they are the only teams to have conceded less than 40, the next lowest being 44 and two others on 45.

For comparisons sake, we conceded 39 goals in 46 games under Worthington on the way to promotion. 36 goals in the 2nd Farke led Promotion, though Watford, who finished 2nd, conceded just 30. Last season Burnley conceded just 35 with Shef Utd and Luton conceding 39.

As things stand, I think it's only Leeds that stand a realistic chance of conceding less than 40 goals this season. Leicester have one more game left to play on 38 rather than 39 played so far. WBA on 37 goals against with 7 games left to play.

Again, the table says it all, we have scored one less goal than Leeds, but have conceded more goals than any other top six side with 55. Ipswich are 2nd to us in that regard, on 49, but they have scored 10 more goals. Some may say fine margins, but concede ten less goals and I suspect we would be challenging for the auto's, so in that regard, it's most certainly not an Elephant in the room.

[Ken Hairy 3,779]

It doesn't matter what league we're in next season, the whole back 4 needs rebuilding, don't think I'd keep any of them 

[rock bus 854]

19 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

It doesn't matter what league we're in next season, the whole back 4 needs rebuilding, don't think I'd keep any of them 

You wouldn’t keep Stacey? Thats ridiculous, he’s excellent