Points lost from a winning position

[dylanisabaddog 6,143]

Our inability to hold on to a lead cost us more points than any other team

[canarybubbles 2,199]

Yes, but we also came from behind more times than most teams, I believe.

This probably just reflects Wagner's tendency to go negative once we had a lead and the contrasting need for us to attack once we went behind. I learned not to get too excited if we scored an early goal because that almost became a burden for the team.

[dylanisabaddog 6,143]

Yes, I think it's the reason Wagner has lost his job. 

The simple fact is that the team that scores first goes on to win in 70% of matches. We were absolutely awful and that must have been down to Wagner's approach. 

[Fen Canary 1,456]

3 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Yes, I think it's the reason Wagner has lost his job. 

The simple fact is that the team that scores first goes on to win in 70% of matches. We were absolutely awful and that must have been down to Wagner's approach. 

Now post the equivalent of points gained from losing positions as one is pointless without the other 

[dylanisabaddog 6,143]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Now post the equivalent of points gained from losing positions as one is pointless without the other 

No, not really. 70% of games are eventually won by the team that scores first. 

[S_81 1,101]

Anyone defending Wagner throwing points away from winning positions with his back to wall tactics that included having no DCM and a largely rubbish defence, really does need to give their head a wobble. 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,616]

1 hour ago, canarybubbles said:

Yes, but we also came from behind more times than most teams, I believe.

This probably just reflects Wagner's tendency to go negative once we had a lead and the contrasting need for us to attack once we went behind. I learned not to get too excited if we scored an early goal because that almost became a burden for the team.

Yep, we had this discussion a week or so ago, and that was the conclusion. We lost more points than anyone from a winning position, but only Ipswich and Leeds gained more from a losing one.

When you've got a strong attack and an iffy defence with goals flying in at both ends, it's to be expected.

[dylanisabaddog 6,143]

Just now, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Yep, we had this discussion a week or so ago, and that was the conclusion. We lost more points than anyone from a winning position, but only Ipswich and Leeds gained more from a losing one.

When you've got a strong attack and an iffy defence with goals flying in at both ends, it's to be expected.

The QPR and Blackburn away games spring to mind. Inviting teams like that to attract us was a recipe for disaster. 

[Nuff Said 5,961]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The QPR and Blackburn away games spring to mind. Inviting teams like that to attract us was a recipe for disaster. 

How did we do that?

“Pout your lips and show us a bit of leg please”?

🤣😉

[Fen Canary 1,456]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

No, not really. 70% of games are eventually won by the team that scores first. 

Then we bucked the trend this season, both for losing the lead and winning it back. The fact we finished in 6th implies we did more of the latter than the former.

Would you have taken 6th place if it was offered at the start of the season? I would have and so would 90% of the support I imagine so stop complaining.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,215]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Yes, I think it's the reason Wagner has lost his job. 

The simple fact is that the team that scores first goes on to win in 70% of matches. We were absolutely awful and that must have been down to Wagner's approach. 

Sorry Dylan, but that's a totally spurious 'statistic'. (At least it is the way that you've written it). The correct way of stating it is this:

70% of games which are won, are won by the team which scores first.

(27% of all games are draws.) 

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Then we bucked the trend this season, both for losing the lead and winning it back. The fact we finished in 6th implies we did more of the latter than the former.

Would you have taken 6th place if it was offered at the start of the season? I would have and so would 90% of the support I imagine so stop complaining.

No! Add and 23 points behind ITFC despite us having a squad costing millions and demanding one of the highest wage levels in the league, several of them with PL experience and many full internationals.

Wagner was relieved for various reasons, it seems, but he hardly over-achieved. 

Edited May 20 by BroadstairsR

[Capt. Pants 5,008]

This statistic will have been high up on the reasons why Wagner was binned. You can't really blame it on injuries to Sarge, Barnes and Rowe either.

It was mentioned countless in matchthreads how we would sit back once a lead had been obtained to allow the opposition back in the game.

[Ulfotto 798]

I think it’s more that Wagner team had two modes full throttle and the lowest block imaginable. Little in between. I always worried about us if we scored too early in games as the team was unable or unwilling to play a full 90 minutes at full throttle.

[Google Bot 3,933]

Only Saints and Leicester better us in the ability to score first which makes this even more disappointing.

The amount of times we've gifted possession was awful this season, it's especially harder to recover from this turnovers due to how dynamic the position changing was when we transitioned.  Many goals conceded involved players being out of position.

 

[canarydan23 4,762]

2 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Now post the equivalent of points gained from losing positions as one is pointless without the other 

I think you're right, assessing this alongside the points gained from a losing position is important and actually results in a more damning conclusion.

When you go behind, it's not really rocket science what you do. You gamble, take more chances, commit your full-backs further up the pitch and open the game up in the hope you can land the next blow. Given the fact that we were evidently so successful at this makes the whole negative approach to games when level or when we're ahead all the more illogical. We clearly had the players to make a more open, risky style of play not only work, but excel. However, we constrained them in Wagner's pretty turgid style of play and when we doubled-down on this negativity (when leading) it clearly rarely worked.

Again, it shows that this team had significantly more potential than the heights we reached under Wagner. Being 23 points of the automatics with the players we had and the wages we paid is a pretty poor states of affairs.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 4,616]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The QPR and Blackburn away games spring to mind. Inviting teams like that to attract us was a recipe for disaster. 

Agreed, it does look bad when it happens so often in games against weaker teams, and it's very frustrating. 

But you have to take the rough with the smooth and it's not like we narrowly missed out on automatic promotion because of it. 

Wagner was going to leave anyway, regardless of this stat which reflects badly on him.

[BigFish 2,282]

The OP makes the mistake of confusing a stat with something useful. Fans who don't understand data often make this mistake. It doesn't explain why this is the case or even if it really matters. It is utterly useless, except to start a chat on here. All posters do is take the stat and then hang their pre-existing opinions on it, they learn nothing.

[Ernie Wise 112]

Please correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the Webber/Wagner decision last summer to add experience, know how into the squad meant to stop folding and lose points?

Along with having a strong first eleven but weak backup in terms of quality and then in January replacing Idah, who despite his limitations and mismanagement scored a few goals, with a player not deemed good enough were factors.

[canarydan23 4,762]

3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

The OP makes the mistake of confusing a stat with something useful. Fans who don't understand data often make this mistake. It doesn't explain why this is the case or even if it really matters. It is utterly useless, except to start a chat on here. All posters do is take the stat and then hang their pre-existing opinions on it, they learn nothing.

Whereas other fans who don't understand data will arbitrarily dismiss what is presented because they are unable to hang their pre-existing opinions on it.

[Fen Canary 1,456]

5 minutes ago, Ernie Wise said:

Please correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the Webber/Wagner decision last summer to add experience, know how into the squad meant to stop folding and lose points?

Along with having a strong first eleven but weak backup in terms of quality and then in January replacing Idah, who despite his limitations and mismanagement scored a few goals, with a player not deemed good enough were factors.

You could argue it worked as we managed to fight our way back into games from a number of losing positions.

Ultimately the order the goals are scored is utterly irrelevant, the only thing that matters is the full time whistle and on that statistic we did enough to make the playoffs after a mid table finish the season before.

[Fen Canary 1,456]

29 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I think you're right, assessing this alongside the points gained from a losing position is important and actually results in a more damning conclusion.

When you go behind, it's not really rocket science what you do. You gamble, take more chances, commit your full-backs further up the pitch and open the game up in the hope you can land the next blow. Given the fact that we were evidently so successful at this makes the whole negative approach to games when level or when we're ahead all the more illogical. We clearly had the players to make a more open, risky style of play not only work, but excel. However, we constrained them in Wagner's pretty turgid style of play and when we doubled-down on this negativity (when leading) it clearly rarely worked.

Again, it shows that this team had significantly more potential than the heights we reached under Wagner. Being 23 points of the automatics with the players we had and the wages we paid is a pretty poor states of affairs.

But you can also argue the opposite. Going in front meant the opposition has to attack more and as we were rather defensively frail this led to us conceding more goals. It’s all utterly irrelevant, the full time score and final league position is the only thing that matters 

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 606]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

How did we do that?

“Pout your lips and show us a bit of leg please”?

🤣😉

No, I think it was more to do with letting them intercept our "out balls".

[canarydan23 4,762]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Going in front meant the opposition has to attack more and as we were rather defensively frail this led to us conceding more goals

Exactly, which indicates that a backs against the wall approach might not have been all that sensible. And I'm assuming you've watched plenty of games this season, so you're well aware that we regularly tried to sit back a defend single goal leads. It was a silly thing to do as evidenced by the fact that we struggled more than EVERY SINGLE OTHER TEAM to hold on to a lead. Yet we repeated our approach time and time again. Wagner's biggest flaw was a failure to learn from his mistakes which led to him repeating them again and again.

[king canary 8,757]

1 minute ago, canarydan23 said:

Exactly, which indicates that a backs against the wall approach might not have been all that sensible. And I'm assuming you've watched plenty of games this season, so you're well aware that we regularly tried to sit back a defend single goal leads. It was a silly thing to do as evidenced by the fact that we struggled more than EVERY SINGLE OTHER TEAM to hold on to a lead. Yet we repeated our approach time and time again. Wagner's biggest flaw was a failure to learn from his mistakes which led to him repeating them again and again.

Totally agree. It is a good example of where you need to take a stat like this and combine it with what we actually saw on the pitch to draw conclusions. What I would add though is I don't think Wagner was helped in this regard by the general lack of squad depth, particularly up front. There were quite a few games where Sargent was clearly knackered and struggling to hold the ball up to relieve pressure but we didn't have an option to bring on for him. Part of this sits with Wagner (he clearly could have done more to keep Idah happy and he should have taken some risks with Aboh if he really didn't rate SVH) but it isn't all him.

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

This is all irrelevant, we have hardly ever looked convincing when performing for two seasons now. Even those moments when we were fully staffed, playing at our best, winning and on a run were overwhelmed by those periods of dross and even when we were winning, it was often far from 'nice' winning, especially under Smith.

I just want to forget the whole of the last two seasons (considering them opportunities lost,) not diagnose them to death.

[Fen Canary 1,456]

Just now, canarydan23 said:

Exactly, which indicates that a backs against the wall approach might not have been all that sensible. And I'm assuming you've watched plenty of games this season, so you're well aware that we regularly tried to sit back a defend single goal leads. It was a silly thing to do as evidenced by the fact that we struggled more than EVERY SINGLE OTHER TEAM to hold on to a lead. Yet we repeated our approach time and time again. Wagner's biggest flaw was a failure to learn from his mistakes which led to him repeating them again and again.

You talk as if there are only Norwich players on the pitch and everything they do is through their choice alone. The opposition can influence a game just as much as we can, if they decide to start bombing forward then tactics will change accordingly.

I’ll happily admit watching players sit back trying to protect a one goal lead was infuriating, especially when it didn’t come off. But the amount of whining that’s happening on here when we finished in the playoffs I find rather pathetic to be honest

[BigFish 2,282]

25 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Whereas other fans who don't understand data will arbitrarily dismiss what is presented because they are unable to hang their pre-existing opinions on it.

Didn't understand it did you @CanaryDan.? There is a difference between data and opinion. This is pure opinion, you can infer nothing from it. All opinions are valid of course, I think you are a stupid ****. My opinion is valid on your thinking, but I can't back it up with data.

Edited May 20 by BigFish

[canarydan23 4,762]

2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

you can infer nothing from it

No, YOU can infer nothing from it. Your limitations are not mine.

No one on this thread has conflated data and opinion; some people are using data to form an opinion. It's not an unusual thing to happen on an internet forum, believe it or not.

I will admit that my opinion before I even read this thread was that Wagner was frequently too negative, particularly when leading matches. So you are right in the regard that I haven't actually learnt anything new from this data, but it has given further weight to my existing opinion.

And you're even off the mark with your final sentence. You almost certainly can back up your opinion that I am a stupid *insert-whatever-word-the-PinkUn-filters-censored*; it seems there are 8,191 posts that I have contributed over the years. The idea that there isn't some data in there that backs up the opinion that I am a stupid *expletive-deleted* is as dense as saying that Wagner consistently got his tactics correct when leading a match after analysing the data presented in the OP of this thread.

[dylanisabaddog 6,143]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

Then we bucked the trend this season, both for losing the lead and winning it back. The fact we finished in 6th implies we did more of the latter than the former.

Would you have taken 6th place if it was offered at the start of the season? I would have and so would 90% of the support I imagine so stop complaining.

Stop complaining! If people didn't complain we wouldn't have a message board😂

Where we finished isn't really relevant, except that if we hadn't thrown so many leads away we could have gone up automatically.

What is relevant is that we gained fewest points from winning positions in our division. That can't be a coincidence, it's either a problem with the players or management or both. And in my opinion, to a large degree a complete lack of leadership on the pitch