Ratings & Reactions: Villa v Norwich

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, romavillan said:

wow, comparing goal difference per game to possession per game with respect to points? 

That's like comparing the effectiveness of shots that go in against shots that go wide and concluding it would be better for a coach to get his players to get their shots to go in than go wide.

Possession is important in and of itself, if only because if you have it they cannot score. Being better at keeping the ball would stop us going so deep and inviting on pressure when defending a lead. It's clearly not the only stat that counts but all the great sides have been good at keeping the ball, seems like a non argument to me.

Is it the most important thing for us now? No, points are until we are mathematically out of the chase. Then we should experiment a bit and use the remaining games to play a bit better regardless of result. 

Woah horsey, hold on a second. 

'Possession is important in and of itself, if only because if you have it they cannot score'

This would be true, if one team could achieve 100% possession, but that's not a thing that actually happens. What you mean is that for a handful of seconds the other team cannot score, though that handful of seconds may be absolutely trivial in the grand scheme of the game. We can see - from many actual examples, not the least of which is ourselves last season - that teams can have large amounts of possession and still concede huge numbers of goals. 

Brighton are, I think we can all agree, a good side in this division. They average 2% more possession per game than we do. What that figure actually means is that they have the ball for 2 minutes plus a handful of seconds more than we do during the course of a game. Actually, it doesn't mean that, because the clock continues ticking while people line up throw ins and corners, so they may 'have the ball' in an utterly meaningless sense when it's not even in play. The difference involved in having the ball for 2 minutes and 7 or 8 seconds more per game is not particularly meaningful. It's not totally useless - it decreases by 4 or 5% the time the opposition have to score in, and increases the time you have to score by the same amount - but it's clearly massively less useful than creating better chances, converting more shots into goals, getting better defensive blocks or tackles in or basically almost anything else that the manager can train the players in over the course of the week. 

[romavillan]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Woah horsey, hold on a second. 

'Possession is important in and of itself, if only because if you have it they cannot score'

This would be true, if one team could achieve 100% possession, but that's not a thing that actually happens. What you mean is that for a handful of seconds the other team cannot score, though that handful of seconds may be absolutely trivial in the grand scheme of the game. We can see - from many actual examples, not the least of which is ourselves last season - that teams can have large amounts of possession and still concede huge numbers of goals. 

Brighton are, I think we can all agree, a good side in this division. They average 2% more possession per game than we do. What that figure actually means is that they have the ball for 2 minutes plus a handful of seconds more than we do during the course of a game. Actually, it doesn't mean that, because the clock continues ticking while people line up throw ins and corners, so they may 'have the ball' in an utterly meaningless sense when it's not even in play. The difference involved in having the ball for 2 minutes and 7 or 8 seconds more per game is not particularly meaningful. It's not totally useless - it decreases by 4 or 5% the time the opposition have to score in, and increases the time you have to score by the same amount - but it's clearly massively less useful than creating better chances, converting more shots into goals, getting better defensive blocks or tackles in or basically almost anything else that the manager can train the players in over the course of the week. 

Neigh, or nay, or no, i don't agree, it's not clearly massively less useful than creating better chances, converting more shots into goals. It is the necessary precursor to the ability to do those very things, as you can't do any of that without the ball can you? The minimum that having the ball gives you is that the other team cannot do those things. Having the ball and actually doing something is the best possible case, but for you to do something with it, you need to have it.

We've lost a lot of points this year in essentially close run things, that 4 or 5% decrease in the time the opposition have had to score might have turned a few 1-1s or 0-1s into wins or draws, and more points on the board. The fact that having the ball is important in and of itself means the opponent cannot score is not only useful in a game where the other team never have the ball, that 4 or 5% of the time Brighton have had without the threat of an opposition attempt on their goal they've used very well. Without the need of 100% possession.

[a m ole]

A more important factor in possession stats is the area of the pitch that possession is maintained in.

For example - if Team A has 75% possession, and 10% of that is in the last third of the pitch, they spend a split second over 5 minutes around the opponents area. If Team B has 25% possession, but spends 33% of that in the last third, they have the ball for 7m30s around Team A's area.

As we saw ourselves last season and under Lambert for a while, often teams trying to play with more possession just means more meaningless passes between and to the back line which can be more dangerous than getting the ball up top as if you lose the ball you're in a more dangerous position.

Posession can be weakly correlated to winning matches, but is certainly not a cause.

Edited April 2, 2017 by a m ole

[OutByEaster?]

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

Didn't see the game. 

But I'm assuming, if the only thing people can moan about after it is the lack of possession, that it went well.

I think the possession thing is a bit people grasping for an explanation of us - we weren't good on Saturday, our passing was appalling and a better side would have buried us - the thing is, we've done that a few times of late and it's starting to look like it's not a fluke - but if it's not a fluke, what is it?

We're not great to watch, not because we're defensive, but because we just loop balls forward; passing between our midfielders is simply dreadful - we've all seen good teams play football and the way in which they control and win games, we've seen average teams try to break teams down - we don't do any of the things you'd expect - we look clueless at times - but we win - and not only that, we're starting to look like we expect to win. 

The weird thing is that the expectancy is one of a very limited number of reasons you can give as to why we are actually winning - we do three things - moments of individual brilliance, picking up on the errors of our opponents and believing we'll win. What we don't do is play much football - I've watched the game for a long, long time, and what we do isn't supposed to work - it definitely isn't supposed to work over seven game runs.

I think people look to our lack of possession in order to support that point, or explain the unexplainable voodoo we're currently putting on the championship. 

 

 

[BigJim]

37 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

our passing was appalling and a better side would have buried us

Perhaps this is the essence of it?

To take it to the absurd, if you were playing a team of 11 year olds, you could kick the ball to them 99% of the time, and still probably win the game. 

Do the same against a top team and more often than not you will end up losing. Possession would therefore seem to be increasingly important as the standard of the opposition rises.

So while it may be right to dismiss it as a factor when the opposition is only semi competent, we need to vastly improve our passing and teamwork with the ball if we want to stake a claim to being a top team in the division. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[briny_ear]

12 minutes ago, BigJim said:

Perhaps this is the essence of it?

To take it to the absurd, if you were playing a team of 11 year olds, you could kick the ball to them 99% of the time, and still probably win the game. 

Do the same against a top team and more often than not you will end up losing. Possession would therefore seem to be increasingly important as the standard of the opposition rises.

So while it may be right to dismiss it as a factor when the opposition is only semi competent, we need to vastly improve our passing and teamwork with the ball if we want to stake a claim to being a top team in the division. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only problem with this line of argument is that by all objective measures Norwich are a better side than us. They have won more games, scored vastly more goals and have a better goal difference and points total. So the drift into an argument that says, "thank heavens we were playing such a poor side" doesn't really wash.

It's also worth mentioning that Norwich dominated possession, in the way that a few vociferous posters have been calling for over the last few pages as the way to win matches.

And yet they lost.

Odd, isn't it?

[TRO]

What we were doing when we was losing is gifting goals to the opposition.

We are not so benevolent of late......The opposition  are having to work for their goals now and it ain't so easy for them.

Edited April 3, 2017 by TRO

[Grasshopper]

7 hours ago, TRO said:

What we were doing when we was losing is gifting goals to the opposition.

We are not so benevolent of late......The opposition  are having to work for their goals now and it ain't so easy.

Well this seems to be the only change, good job this league is full of shite

[dAVe80]

On ‎01‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 21:07, Xela said:

Another 3 points 

That's exactly how I celebrated the second goal! I'm not even joking!!

[BigJim]

16 hours ago, briny_ear said:

The only problem with this line of argument is that by all objective measures Norwich are a better side than us. They have won more games, scored vastly more goals and have a better goal difference and points total. So the drift into an argument that says, "thank heavens we were playing such a poor side" doesn't really wash.

It's also worth mentioning that Norwich dominated possession, in the way that a few vociferous posters have been calling for over the last few pages as the way to win matches.

And yet they lost.

Odd, isn't it?

Not odd at all. Norwich lost on this occasion, but are still above Villa in the table. This, by your own admission, is because they are a better footballing side who have won more matches. Yet you still seem unwilling to concede that, to do better in the long run, we need to be playing better football.

[rodders0223]

On 02/04/2017 at 08:39, Nigel said:

Tbh i couldn't see Norwich scoring yesterday. All this talk of spending a lot of time in our half and dominating possession yet I can't remember a single time they looked properly threatening. We had them at arms length!

We looked dangerous on the break yesterday, with kodge adoma and amavi playing really well.

 

 

It was another bizarre game, they had a few good chances, the last minute block and the Jerome chance spring to mind...but for some odd reason I never thought they were going to score and was never really discouraged or anxious - again. We have had quite a few of those games in recent times, I think the positive vibes and karma are actually having an effect.

[rodders0223]

18 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think the possession thing is a bit people grasping for an explanation of us - we weren't good on Saturday, our passing was appalling and a better side would have buried us - the thing is, we've done that a few times of late and it's starting to look like it's not a fluke - but if it's not a fluke, what is it?

 

I would also like an answer to this, quite a few games on this run we have had l

 

18 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think the possession thing is a bit people grasping for an explanation of us - we weren't good on Saturday, our passing was appalling and a better side would have buried us - the thing is, we've done that a few times of late and it's starting to look like it's not a fluke - but if it's not a fluke, what is it?

 

 

If I was analysing each game individually, I would say it was a fluke., "we got away with that today." but when it has been 6 or so games within a month, it can't be, can it?

[BOF]

We don't do well with possession.  It tends to mean the other team are sitting back, and we struggle against that.

We've only 14pts from the 14 games where we've out-possessed our opponents this season (1.00ppg), scoring on average 0.93 goals and conceding 1.21.

In contrast, in the 25 games where we've had less possession than our opponent, we have 40pts (1.6ppg) and have averaged 1.12 goals and 0.88 conceded.

[TRO]

9 hours ago, Grasshopper said:

Well this seems to be the only change, good job this league is full of shite

I don't believe it is GH.

I think that is a bit harsh,

Its not as good as the prem in general, naturally......but I would be tempted to say the top of the Championship is on par with the lower echelons of the Prem

 

[TRO]

21 minutes ago, BOF said:

We don't do well with possession.  It tends to mean the other team are sitting back, and we struggle against that.

We've only 14pts from the 14 games where we've out-possessed our opponents this season (1.00ppg), scoring on average 0.93 goals and conceding 1.21.

In contrast, in the 25 games where we've had less possession than our opponent, we have 40pts (1.6ppg) and have averaged 1.12 goals and 0.88 conceded.

I don't think our players have the ball control to profit with it.

We have to play to our strengths for now.

[TRO]

26 minutes ago, rodders0223 said:

I would also like an answer to this, quite a few games on this run we have had l

 

If I was analysing each game individually, I would say it was a fluke., "we got away with that today." but when it has been 6 or so games within a month, it can't be, can it?

No,Its not.

[TRO]

58 minutes ago, BigJim said:

Not odd at all. Norwich lost on this occasion, but are still above Villa in the table. This, by your own admission, is because they are a better footballing side who have won more matches. Yet you still seem unwilling to concede that, to do better in the long run, we need to be playing better football.

I am not opposed to the general point that we need to be playing better football.....I think that will come.

However, I would wager that there was more of and inquest in Norwich's dressing room after the game than Villa's.

I do sometimes think we are quick to criticise our own team and slow to see fault in the opposition.

It does not matter, how it is dressed up......Norwich Lost.

Edited April 3, 2017 by TRO

[TRO]

19 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

I think the possession thing is a bit people grasping for an explanation of us - we weren't good on Saturday, our passing was appalling and a better side would have buried us - the thing is, we've done that a few times of late and it's starting to look like it's not a fluke - but if it's not a fluke, what is it?

We're not great to watch, not because we're defensive, but because we just loop balls forward; passing between our midfielders is simply dreadful - we've all seen good teams play football and the way in which they control and win games, we've seen average teams try to break teams down - we don't do any of the things you'd expect - we look clueless at times - but we win - and not only that, we're starting to look like we expect to win. 

The weird thing is that the expectancy is one of a very limited number of reasons you can give as to why we are actually winning - we do three things - moments of individual brilliance, picking up on the errors of our opponents and believing we'll win. What we don't do is play much football - I've watched the game for a long, long time, and what we do isn't supposed to work - it definitely isn't supposed to work over seven game runs.

I think people look to our lack of possession in order to support that point, or explain the unexplainable voodoo we're currently putting on the championship. 

 

 

Equally,

I wonder if there was a debate between 2 Norwich fans with one saying .......

If they could pass and move like us.....we would have been of the end of a drubbing today, we was lucky.

 

Edited April 3, 2017 by TRO

[a m ole]

1 hour ago, BOF said:

We don't do well with possession.  It tends to mean the other team are sitting back, and we struggle against that.

We've only 14pts from the 14 games where we've out-possessed our opponents this season (1.00ppg), scoring on average 0.93 goals and conceding 1.21.

In contrast, in the 25 games where we've had less possession than our opponent, we have 40pts (1.6ppg) and have averaged 1.12 goals and 0.88 conceded.

I'd also be interested to see our shots/on target for those games if you have it available? Could be quite telling about our teams use of that possession.

[BigJim]

2 hours ago, BOF said:

We don't do well with possession.  It tends to mean the other team are sitting back, and we struggle against that.

We've only 14pts from the 14 games where we've out-possessed our opponents this season (1.00ppg), scoring on average 0.93 goals and conceding 1.21.

In contrast, in the 25 games where we've had less possession than our opponent, we have 40pts (1.6ppg) and have averaged 1.12 goals and 0.88 conceded.

Thanks for the research BOF, very revealing.  Almost makes it seems like we have sussed out what we need to do:  "Give 'em the ball lads, bring them out, then we'll get them on the counter"