Stats under Tim and Andre

[only1waddle]

Agree with much of this, but Newcastle provided an easy contrast. Despite making the most saves in an EPL game and many rebounding off, not one went our way in that home game - remember one in particular where a deflected shot still gets saved with his boot then rebounds for what we thought would be a tap in for one of our CB's (if I remember rightly) only to ricochet out off their defender or something. In the away game our first three goals all come from rebounds from their keeper bouncing perfectly to where our players are stood, the third even being miss hit and bouncing over the keeper. Both were good performances. One featured way more fortune though.




Of course the sequence of scoring effects the pattern of play, but the point is surely, that you don't throw caution to the wind when you don't have to ? When we had to we did, that's pretty right isn't it ?

It's not like we have thrown caution to the wind under Sherwood either every phase of every game - or many for that matter. West Brom, Hull, Palace, Everton etc etc.

There is a huge difference between throwing caution to the wind and showing more attacking intent in games, i feel we should have played like this far more, taken the game to teams like Newcastle rather than shunt it about at snails pace and hope for a mistake, it's a great foundation to build a team on not a great long term game plan.

The point still remains that you hold this game up time and again as a beacon of our wonderful attacking play, yet you now admit the scoring sequence affects the pattern of play, thereby making your own argument about how much of an attacking threat we were in this game null and void, as it was merely a consequence of the sequence in which the teams scored.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Not going to comment on most of that as really there's no point.

Taking just the point you picked me up on, if we did get 6 in the box from open pay at home to Newcastle which i seriously doubt (but maybe you can prove?) it would only have been in frantic desperation to find an equaliser. That is very different to getting 6 or 5 or regularly 3 and 4 in there when you are either level or winning a game such as we were at Newcastle and other games recently. When we were level or winning under AVB we hardly ever saw more than 2 in there and in the main poor old Soldado on his own sniffing round at scraps!

There are reasons that we we managed 12 goals (non pens) in 16 under AVB and have 21 in just 10 under Sherwood, none of the reasons are in the article, that makes the article a complete load of shit!

Haha that's one hell of a swing of 'luck', have to laugh as that's just what it is, laughable!

That article may be at worst a woefully incomplete piece of analysis, but it's not entirely shit, because not every goal and point Sherwood has gained is through tactical excellence, and not every lack of goal and lack of points AVB failed to achieve was tactical failure.

Sherwood picked up 3 points from the Everton game and I certainly don't remember us getting 4 men in the box too often that day. Same Palace at home.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

There is a huge difference between throwing caution to the wind and showing more attacking intent in games, i feel we should have played like this far more, taken the game to teams like Newcastle rather than shunt it about at snails pace and hope for a mistake, it's a great foundation to build a team on not a great long term game plan.

The point still remains that you hold this game up time and again as a beacon of our wonderful attacking play, yet you now admit the scoring sequence affects the pattern of play, thereby making your own argument about how much of an attacking threat we were in this game null and void, as it was merely a consequence of the sequence in which the teams scored.

Don't be so dramatic, it wasn't merely a consequence or the only game where we were the team trying to press the play and there were others where we were trying to score the first goal. We weren't 1-0 down to Cardiff away when we battered their goal (setting the previous record for saves made) and we wren't losing at Sunderland when we carried on creating chances even though we were winning.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

@chris_theo

I can't quote your post for some reason but it's not like there was 5 or 6 players for those first three rebounds to fall to. Yes, it's good play for an attacker to get himself into the zone in the hope of picking up some scraps, but there is definitely an element of luck when not 1 but 3 all fall to those attackers and one of them gets miss-hit and still ends up in the net, no ?

 

[only1waddle]

Don't be so dramatic, it wasn't merely a consequence or the only game where we were the team trying to press the play or score the first goal. We weren't 1-0 down to Cardiff away when we battered their goal (setting the previous record for saves made) and we wren't losing at Sunderland when we carried on creating chances even though we were winning.

I have a love of the dramatic BC. By the time we got to Sunderland i think Bobby Fischer knew, and indeed said to the press we had to take more risks, i am guessing by the end even he knew our play was incredibly dull and something needed to change, it was all a bit too late by then though.

 

[SlickMongoose]

By the time we got to Sunderland i think Bobby Fischer knew, and indeed said to the press we had to take more risks

Did he suggest playing the king's gambit?

 

[only1waddle]

@chris_theo

I can't quote your post for some reason but it's not like there was 5 or 6 players for those first three rebounds to fall to. Yes, it's good play for an attacker to get himself into the zone in the hope of picking up some scraps, but there is definitely an element of luck when not 1 but 3 all fall to those attackers and one of them gets miss-hit and still ends up in the net, no ?

There was an intensity about our play for those chances though, i can't explain it in stats or percentages BC, the players look like they want to play now, confidence can create chances as you well know, that's the thing with team sport, you can suffocate the opposition with confidence, and generally you get the rub of the green until you face a more organised, technically gifted team, if Sherwood has the tekkers to instil confidence and structure then i look forward to the rest of our season.

 

[only1waddle]

Did he suggest playing the king's gambit?

Had to ask about castling.. fucking amateur.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I have a love of the dramatic BC. By the time we got to Sunderland i think Bobby Fischer knew, and indeed said to the press we had to take more risks, i am guessing by the end even he knew our play was incredibly dull and something needed to change, it was all a bit too late by then though.

Cardiff ? Norwich, Villa away, European games, Last year ? There was plenty of evidence that AVB wasn't all about boring the crap out of everyone. And Sherwood has in ten games evolved into playing a much more pragmatic style already.

Does any great manager have overt risk as their raison d'être ? Possession based football is fundamentally a risk averse strategy and every major sustainably successful club is playing that way - so either Sherwood is talking shit when he says he wants us to be a possession side or he hasn't grasped the the amount of coaching, discipline and physical conditioning that goes with it and means you can impose it at will, not she you're allowed.

It's not good getting more bodies in the box if the team doesn't have a strategy to compensate or those bodies don't sprint as fast backwards as they do forwards. This is what the best teams do collectively.


The stats in the OP are alluding to this and pointing out that there has been a little luck involved, we are conceding one more close range chance per game but the conversion ratio has gone down, we aren't actually having more close range chances but our conversion rate has gone up - and the two Newcastle games are reasonable examples of this, not just at the attacking end but the defending end too. Different games, different pattern of scoring, but even before we scored Lloris had made a world class save.

And then you have the Adebayor factor. The guy isn't being played in any way that he hasn't ever before. We've changed the team all around him almost every game, yet he's banging in goals from all angles. Is that tactical genius from Sherwood or as much as he deserves credit for picking Adebayor, is there an element of luck in quite how prolifically he's been repaid and how would our goals/points tally look without him - would Sherwood's tactical nous compensate ? etc etc.

I know that OP was not a complete analysis by a long distance, but there was an element of truth in it IMO.

And that isn't me wanting Sherwood sacked, if we start playing more like Wednesday most weeks I'll be very happy. In fact that was tactically the best we've set up all season IMO, so all of a sudden I'm more optimistic than this time last week. The proverbial long time in football eh ?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Did he suggest playing the king's gambit?

He did, but his knee wasn't up to it unfortunately.

 

[only1waddle]

Cardiff ? Norwich, Villa away, European games, Last year ? There was plenty of evidence that AVB wasn't all about boring the crap out of everyone. And Sherwood has in ten games evolved into playing a much more pragmatic style already.

Does any great manager have overt risk as their raison d'être ? Possession based football is fundamentally a risk averse strategy and every major sustainably successful club is playing that way - so either Sherwood is talking shit when he says he wants us to be a possession side or he hasn't grasped the the amount of coaching, discipline and physical conditioning that goes with it and means you can impose it at will, not she you're allowed.

It's not good getting more bodies in the box if the team doesn't have a strategy to compensate or those bodies don't sprint as fast backwards as they do forwards. This is what the best teams do collectively.


The stats in the OP are alluding to this and pointing out that there has been a little luck involved, we are conceding one more close range chance per game but the conversion ratio has gone down, we aren't actually having more close range chances but our conversion rate has gone up - and the two Newcastle games are reasonable examples of this, not just at the attacking end but the defending end too. Different games, different pattern of scoring, but even before we scored Lloris had made a world class save.

And then you have the Adebayor factor. The guy isn't being played in any way that he hasn't ever before. We've changed the team all around him almost every game, yet he's banging in goals from all angles. Is that tactical genius from Sherwood or as much as he deserves credit for picking Adebayor, is there an element of luck in quite how prolifically he's been repaid and how would our goals/points tally look without him - would Sherwood's tactical nous compensate ? etc etc.

I know that OP was not a complete analysis by a long distance, but there was an element of truth in it IMO.

And that isn't me wanting Sherwood sacked, if we start playing more like Wednesday most weeks I'll be very happy. In fact that was tactically the best we've set up all season IMO, so all of a sudden I'm more optimistic than this time last week. The proverbial long time in football eh ?

Did you honestly enjoy our European games this year BC?
I couldn't get overly excited by them to be honest, we had more ball against 2nd division Norweigan teams, and more ball against 2nd division Russian teams, and more ball against a team from somewhere else really cold and miserable (hurrah), but i found it all rather turgid, i love a bit of structure and possession, shape and work rate, but for the love of god we needed some bum off seat action, not the Townsend blind alley variety either.

 

[jurgen]

Perhaps the point about Adebayor aptly proves one of the problems with this article and some of the shortcomings with statistics as an abstract tool. Seemingly BC is happy to ascribe Adebayor's improved hit rate this season to luck, which is strange for someone who likes quantifiables to their football - it may also be correct that Adebayor is not being used in some kind of revolutionary role, but there is a clear correlation between this footballer and the confidence his manager gives him - of course it seems like a cliche to dig at AVB's man management and Adebayor is clearly a very testing character, but there is a clear correlation between his performances and the managers in charge. I don't think its luck, it's a player who we know is very good, playing on form because whatever 'arm around the shoulder' he's getting is helping him play with confidence, as Kaboul pointed out in the paper.. this isn't something statistically quantifiable, but in dealing with human beings, the clubs asset, must be rather important.

 

[guy]

@chris_theo

I can't quote your post for some reason but it's not like there was 5 or 6 players for those first three rebounds to fall to. Yes, it's good play for an attacker to get himself into the zone in the hope of picking up some scraps, but there is definitely an element of luck when not 1 but 3 all fall to those attackers and one of them gets miss-hit and still ends up in the net, no ?

A very small element of luck maybe, but 98% of it is due to confidence, attacking intent and players taking the risk of pushing into the box in order to get the rebound.

All these things come from tactics and the confidence given to the players and team as a whole by the management team.

edit beaten to it by @only1waddle

 

[Mr Pink]

The wheels on the bus go round and round lol

 

[Legend10]

So there it is, excluding penalties the difference between scoring:

12 goals in 16 games
Or
21 goals in 10 games

Can be summed up in one word:

LUCK!

Amazing really, all the tactical super brain analysis, all the great coaching, all the great pressing, all the team selections, all the DM or no DM, all the wearing of beanies in team meetings, all the preparation, all the talk of tempo, all the 'dominating' the ball and on and on. At the end of the day none of it matters a jot, because all you need is luck!

 

[Spurz]

Cardiff ? Norwich, Villa away, European games, Last year ? There was plenty of evidence that AVB wasn't all about boring the crap out of everyone. And Sherwood has in ten games evolved into playing a much more pragmatic style already.

Does any great manager have overt risk as their raison d'être ? Possession based football is fundamentally a risk averse strategy and every major sustainably successful club is playing that way - so either Sherwood is talking shit when he says he wants us to be a possession side or he hasn't grasped the the amount of coaching, discipline and physical conditioning that goes with it and means you can impose it at will, not she you're allowed.

It's not good getting more bodies in the box if the team doesn't have a strategy to compensate or those bodies don't sprint as fast backwards as they do forwards. This is what the best teams do collectively.


The stats in the OP are alluding to this and pointing out that there has been a little luck involved, we are conceding one more close range chance per game but the conversion ratio has gone down, we aren't actually having more close range chances but our conversion rate has gone up - and the two Newcastle games are reasonable examples of this, not just at the attacking end but the defending end too. Different games, different pattern of scoring, but even before we scored Lloris had made a world class save.

And then you have the Adebayor factor. The guy isn't being played in any way that he hasn't ever before. We've changed the team all around him almost every game, yet he's banging in goals from all angles. Is that tactical genius from Sherwood or as much as he deserves credit for picking Adebayor, is there an element of luck in quite how prolifically he's been repaid and how would our goals/points tally look without him - would Sherwood's tactical nous compensate ? etc etc.

I know that OP was not a complete analysis by a long distance, but there was an element of truth in it IMO.

And that isn't me wanting Sherwood sacked, if we start playing more like Wednesday most weeks I'll be very happy. In fact that was tactically the best we've set up all season IMO, so all of a sudden I'm more optimistic than this time last week. The proverbial long time in football eh ?

It has dawned on me that you are as clueless as AVB. Looks good in theory, doesn't understand why it doesn't work in the real world, but sticks to it because in theory it works so sooner or later it will work. Very much like the academics trying to solve the financial crisis

 

[Legend10]

Here's a stat not in the ill informed piece of drivel, seeing as he excluded pens and stuck to the league this season so will we.


Under AVB

1 goal every 120 minutes

Under Sherwood

1 goal every 43 minutes


The difference so far is unbelievable, we are scoring nearly 3 times as often! No doubt it will be very difficult to keep up our current rate but the change is very impressive. One ratio is bottom 3 and the other is top 3.

 

[Spurs_Bear]

Still people are missing the main point.

"Very poor locations."

 

[chris_theo]

@chris_theo

I can't quote your post for some reason but it's not like there was 5 or 6 players for those first three rebounds to fall to. Yes, it's good play for an attacker to get himself into the zone in the hope of picking up some scraps, but there is definitely an element of luck when not 1 but 3 all fall to those attackers and one of them gets miss-hit and still ends up in the net, no ?

Messed up my post so just deleted it instead. See, I would've said the opposite, it's luck if it happens once but three times?? Lightning never strikes.... It's harder to do something three times than once if it's luck surely!?

 

[dudu]

Cardiff ? Norwich, Villa away, European games, Last year ? There was plenty of evidence that AVB wasn't all about boring the crap out of everyone. And Sherwood has in ten games evolved into playing a much more pragmatic style already.

Does any great manager have overt risk as their raison d'être ? Possession based football is fundamentally a risk averse strategy and every major sustainably successful club is playing that way - so either Sherwood is talking shit when he says he wants us to be a possession side or he hasn't grasped the the amount of coaching, discipline and physical conditioning that goes with it and means you can impose it at will, not she you're allowed.

It's not good getting more bodies in the box if the team doesn't have a strategy to compensate or those bodies don't sprint as fast backwards as they do forwards. This is what the best teams do collectively.


The stats in the OP are alluding to this and pointing out that there has been a little luck involved, we are conceding one more close range chance per game but the conversion ratio has gone down, we aren't actually having more close range chances but our conversion rate has gone up - and the two Newcastle games are reasonable examples of this, not just at the attacking end but the defending end too. Different games, different pattern of scoring, but even before we scored Lloris had made a world class save.

And then you have the Adebayor factor. The guy isn't being played in any way that he hasn't ever before. We've changed the team all around him almost every game, yet he's banging in goals from all angles. Is that tactical genius from Sherwood or as much as he deserves credit for picking Adebayor, is there an element of luck in quite how prolifically he's been repaid and how would our goals/points tally look without him - would Sherwood's tactical nous compensate ? etc etc.

I know that OP was not a complete analysis by a long distance, but there was an element of truth in it IMO.

And that isn't me wanting Sherwood sacked, if we start playing more like Wednesday most weeks I'll be very happy. In fact that was tactically the best we've set up all season IMO, so all of a sudden I'm more optimistic than this time last week. The proverbial long time in football eh ?

Indeed, long may the progression continue.

In terms of Ade's form being lucky amongst other things you say have the element of fortune in them..... would you say it was unlucky for Tim that Soldado was poor on the ball vs Hull? it was unlucky for Soldado he was poor on the ball? it was lucky for Hull he was poor on the ball? or just that he was poor on the ball and it attributed to our inability to score.

Luck is just an emotional response using hindsight to attribute reasoning to a situation where one defies the odds one way or another.

Someone missing a penalty is considered good luck for the team who benefit from the miss because the odds are against them, yet bad luck isn't attributed to the penalty misser because they did not have what it took to score.

Either both are 'luck' or neither. Either everything is 'luck' or nothing is.