Jump to content

2021/22 expectations


Jareth
 Share

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, pas5898 said:

8-10th for me. 

If we sign a class 40m + central midfielder then 6th. 

Sanson struggling with injury. Luiz played copa America and Olympics. Look a little weak there. 

Nakamba and Traoré (Trezeguet?) at the AFCON for about a month in Jan-Feb.

Edited by sne
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Posted (edited)

Interesting article in the Athletic by Matt Slater this week about data and analytics in modern football. They refer to 'Data Analytics' a private company that goes beyond individual analysis by running models based on data plus current club statistic around playing style, tactics etc to predict the table. They model each club over 1m fixtures for an average and previously correctly predicted that Leicester would win the title in 2016 and Chelsea by 7 points in 2017, that Arsenal would finish outside the top 4 for the first time last season, Liverpool finishing 3rd after VVD's injury. They even suggest how many points individual players will contribute to a team's season. Apparently they are commissioned by many top clubs for this reason when looking at the impact of recruitment.

Anyway, they have the following predictions for next season here (note this was run LAST WEEK and based on current [predominantly end of last season's] player personnel prior to most current new signings, so this will change. Not sure if Buendia was included for us, but maybe):

 

Here's the table, plus chance of winning the title, avg points, top-4 chance & relegation chance

1. Man City, 70.2% chance of winning, 84.5 avg pts, 99.2% top 4, 0% relegation
2. Liverpool, 19.6%, 77.2pts, 92.4%, 0%
3. Chelsea, 7.2%, 72.6pts, 78.7%, 0%
4. United, 1.2%, 65.8pts, 42.6%, 0%
5. Spurs, 0.9%, 64.5pts, 35.3%, 0%
6. Arsenal, 0.7%, 63.5pts, 31.4%, 0%
7. Leicester, 0.2%, 59.7pts, 14.9%, 0.1%
8. Brighton, 0%, 50.7pts, 1.5%, 2%
9. Wolves, 0%, 50.6pts, 1.5%, 2.2%
10. Leeds, 0%, 49.1pts, 0.9%, 3.3%
11. West Ham, 0%, 48.7pts, 0.8%, 3.6%
12. Villa, 0%, 46.2pts, 0.3%, 7.1%
13. Everton, 0%, 45.1pts, 0.2%, 9.3%
14. Palace, 0%, 44pts, 0.1%, 11.8%
15. Brentford, 0%, 43.6pts, 0.1%, 13%
16. Watford, 0%, 37.7pts, 0%, 38.9%
17. Southampton, 0%, 37.2pts, 0%, 40.7%
18. Newcastle, 0%, 35.6pts, 0%, 50.9%
19. Burnley, 0%, 35.3pts, 0%, 52.1%
20. Norwich, 0%, 33.3pts, 0%, 65.2%

 

We need new signings! (Wolves is interesting??). We are only 3 points better off than Brentford! Matt Slater suggests that Villa is a surprise, especially as we have fewer points than last season.

For me though what it might suggest is that even if Grealish goes, we might add new player(s) whose attributes improve the formula and it benefits the team. Thats my [desperate] silver lining anyway...

Edited by thunderball
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thunderball said:

Interesting article in the Athletic by Matt Slater this week about data and analytics in modern football. They refer to 'Data Analytics' a private company that goes beyond individual analysis by running models based on data plus current club statistic around playing style, tactics etc to predict the table. They model each club over 1m fixtures for an average and previously correctly predicted that Leicester would win the title in 2016 and Chelsea by 7 points in 2017, that Arsenal would finish outside the top 4 for the first time last season, Liverpool finishing 3rd after VVD's injury. They even suggest how many points individual players will contribute to a team's season. Apparently they are commissioned by many top clubs for this reason when looking at the impact of recruitment.

Anyway, they have the following predictions for next season here (note based on predominantly end of last season's player personnel prior to most current new signings, so this will change):

 

Here's the table, plus chance of winning the title, avg points, top-4 chance & relegation chance

1. Man City, 70.2% chance of winning, 84.5 avg pts, 99.2% top 4, 0% relegation
2. Liverpool, 19.6%, 77.2pts, 92.4%, 0%
3. Chelsea, 7.2%, 72.6pts, 78.7%, 0%
4. United, 1.2%, 65.8pts, 42.6%, 0%
5. Spurs, 0.9%, 64.5pts, 35.3%, 0%
6. Arsenal, 0.7%, 63.5pts, 31.4%, 0%
7. Leicester, 0.2%, 59.7pts, 14.9%, 0.1%
8. Brighton, 0%, 50.7pts, 1.5%, 2%
9. Wolves, 0%, 50.6pts, 1.5%, 2.2%
10. Leeds, 0%, 49.1pts, 0.9%, 3.3%
11. West Ham, 0%, 48.7pts, 0.8%, 3.6%
12. Villa, 0%, 46.2pts, 0.3%, 7.1%
13. Everton, 0%, 45.1pts, 0.2%, 9.3%
14. Palace, 0%, 44pts, 0.1%, 11.8%
15. Brentford, 0%, 43.6pts, 0.1%, 13%
16. Watford, 0%, 37.7pts, 0%, 38.9%
17. Southampton, 0%, 37.2pts, 0%, 40.7%
18. Newcastle, 0%, 35.6pts, 0%, 50.9%
19. Burnley, 0%, 35.3pts, 0%, 52.1%
20. Norwich, 0%, 33.3pts, 0%, 65.2%

 

We need new signings! (Wolves is interesting??). We are only 3 points better off than Brentford!

For me though what it might suggest is that even if Grealish goes, we might add new player(s) whose attributes improve the formula. Thats my silver lining anyway...

Not a chance in hell did they predict Leicester would win the title before that season started. 

Would love to also see a list of their failures. 

That list looks like total bollocks to me in various respects. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Condimentalist said:

Not a chance in hell did they predict Leicester would win the title before that season started. 

Would love to also see a list of their failures. 

That list looks like total bollocks to me in various respects. 

It doesnt say that nor do I, the article states that they were the first analytics firm to identify that Leicester would be champions. As the prediction about Liverpool finishing 3rd was AFTER VVD's injury, but it was correct none the less.

The table looks entirely plausible at the moment? The only raised eyebrow for me is Wolves. Brighton had poor results for their endeavours and statistically their finishing position looked an anomoly. Like us every team will rue missed chances, bad results and bad luck when think about where they could have finished.

Are you seeking confirmation bias given its not what you want to read?

Edited by thunderball
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the article, I am only relying on your summary. 

My issues with that table are not only associated with Villa. 

I obviously don't know their methods and inputs but would be very surprised if the table looks like that by the end of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 minutes ago, thunderball said:

It doesnt say that nor do I, the article states that they were the first analytics firm to identify that Leicester would be champions. As the prediction about Liverpool finishing 3rd was AFTER VVD's injury, but it was correct none the less.

Are you seeking confirmation bias given its not what you want to read?

"and previously correctly predicted that Leicester would win the title in 2016"...when talking about a pre season prediction table definitely implies that they did it pre season. I made the same inference as @Condimentalist.

Still, shocked they think we'll finish so low,  unless they're predicting a very likely Jack injury lay off and are assuming some issues with Buendia settling in... or did the calcs before we got him

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To contradict my previous post, the likelihood of relegation may be fairly accurate... we've only been back 2 seasons. There are stats floating around that you massively reduce the likelihood of relegation after your third session surviving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
1 minute ago, MrBlack said:

"and previously correctly predicted that Leicester would win the title in 2016"...when talking about a pre season prediction table definitely implies that they did it pre season. I made the same inference as @Condimentalist.

Still, shocked they think we'll finish so low,  unless they're predicting a very likely Jack injury lay off and are assuming some issues with Buendia settling in... or did the calcs before we got him

 

Clearly my abridged version of a long and detailed article wasn't perfect but the upshot is they have integrity and form on accuracy. Interestingly Matt Slater chose not to include this table in the article for precisely the reason it would be full of disgruntled comments. He added it in the comments section as so many asked for it. Clearly lots will change between last week and the start of the season, the club will know what needs to be done!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, thunderball said:

Interesting article in the Athletic by Matt Slater this week about data and analytics in modern football. They refer to 'Data Analytics' a private company that goes beyond individual analysis by running models based on data plus current club statistic around playing style, tactics etc to predict the table. They model each club over 1m fixtures for an average and previously correctly predicted that Leicester would win the title in 2016 and Chelsea by 7 points in 2017, that Arsenal would finish outside the top 4 for the first time last season, Liverpool finishing 3rd after VVD's injury. They even suggest how many points individual players will contribute to a team's season. Apparently they are commissioned by many top clubs for this reason when looking at the impact of recruitment.

Anyway, they have the following predictions for next season here (note this was run LAST WEEK and based on current [predominantly end of last season's] player personnel prior to most current new signings, so this will change. Not sure if Buendia was included for us, but maybe):

 

Here's the table, plus chance of winning the title, avg points, top-4 chance & relegation chance

1. Man City, 70.2% chance of winning, 84.5 avg pts, 99.2% top 4, 0% relegation
2. Liverpool, 19.6%, 77.2pts, 92.4%, 0%
3. Chelsea, 7.2%, 72.6pts, 78.7%, 0%
4. United, 1.2%, 65.8pts, 42.6%, 0%
5. Spurs, 0.9%, 64.5pts, 35.3%, 0%
6. Arsenal, 0.7%, 63.5pts, 31.4%, 0%
7. Leicester, 0.2%, 59.7pts, 14.9%, 0.1%
8. Brighton, 0%, 50.7pts, 1.5%, 2%
9. Wolves, 0%, 50.6pts, 1.5%, 2.2%
10. Leeds, 0%, 49.1pts, 0.9%, 3.3%
11. West Ham, 0%, 48.7pts, 0.8%, 3.6%
12. Villa, 0%, 46.2pts, 0.3%, 7.1%
13. Everton, 0%, 45.1pts, 0.2%, 9.3%
14. Palace, 0%, 44pts, 0.1%, 11.8%
15. Brentford, 0%, 43.6pts, 0.1%, 13%
16. Watford, 0%, 37.7pts, 0%, 38.9%
17. Southampton, 0%, 37.2pts, 0%, 40.7%
18. Newcastle, 0%, 35.6pts, 0%, 50.9%
19. Burnley, 0%, 35.3pts, 0%, 52.1%
20. Norwich, 0%, 33.3pts, 0%, 65.2%

 

We need new signings! (Wolves is interesting??). We are only 3 points better off than Brentford! Matt Slater suggests that Villa is a surprise, especially as we have fewer points than last season.

For me though what it might suggest is that even if Grealish goes, we might add new player(s) whose attributes improve the formula and it benefits the team. Thats my [desperate] silver lining anyway...

I predict that prediction is nonsense 😀

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Condimentalist said:

I haven't read the article, I am only relying on your summary. 

My issues with that table are not only associated with Villa. 

I obviously don't know their methods and inputs but would be very surprised if the table looks like that by the end of the season.

It wont be, thats a guarantee - its a snapshot as of last week, the transfer window will affect it, as will injuries. 

The question we ask ourselves is: "Are we better over a season than Spurs, Arsenal, Leicester, Everton, WHU and Leeds" because thats the group we are amongst. By resource I say we are in the middle of that group so it depends on momentum and in season narrative, we could finish above them all but conceivabley if they all improve, we might be bottom of that group.

Edited by thunderball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Until we finalise our signings, i dont think we can realistically assess where we "might" finish.

However, with the squad as it currently is, i honestly think a top half finish would be decent, realistically we have only made one genuine signing that is an improvement to the first 11, factor in some chance and unknowns we may be roughly in the same place as we were last season.

Hopefully we will add 1-2 more high quality players.

Edited by MaVilla
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


We've got:

The best Gk in the league (Emi)

2 of the 3 best playmakers/creators in the league (Jack/Buendia)

A 20 goal a season capable england international striker (Ollie)

A solid back 4 that conceded less than Leicester and a Moyes coached West Ham

An ambitious ownership that expect success and no doubt more quality to come in to the team

If we're not in the top 8 next season and pushing the top 6, I'd be both disappointed and surprised.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, VillaJay said:

We've got:

The best Gk in the league (Emi)

2 of the 3 best playmakers/creators in the league (Jack/Buendia)

A 20 goal a season capable england international striker (Ollie)

A solid back 4 that conceded less than Leicester and a Moyes coached West Ham

An ambitious ownership that expect success and no doubt more quality to come in to the team

If we're not in the top 8 next season and pushing the top 6, I'd be both disappointed and surprised.

moist GIF by gifnews

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, VillaJay said:

We've got:

The best Gk in the league (Emi)

2 of the 3 best playmakers/creators in the league (Jack/Buendia)

A 20 goal a season capable england international striker (Ollie)

A solid back 4 that conceded less than Leicester and a Moyes coached West Ham

An ambitious ownership that expect success and no doubt more quality to come in to the team

If we're not in the top 8 next season and pushing the top 6, I'd be both disappointed and surprised.

We still have some large gaps to fill and squad depth is a worry

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

If we qualify for Europe - we'll need depth. Better to integrate players over two seasons than need to parachute in starters next season.

I personally don't care if our billionaire owners are paying over the odds, you want 50 mill for Tammy, fine. It's not my money and it hasn't been set aside for sending Jack into orbit in a phallic shaped tube. Will we get ripped off? So what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ccfcman said:

personally don't care if our billionaire owners are paying over the odds, you want 50 mill for Tammy, fine. It's not my money and it hasn't been set aside for sending Jack into orbit in a phallic shaped tube. Will we get ripped off? So what.

If money grew on trees and FFP didn't exist i could agree with your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • VT Supporter
1 hour ago, Czarnikjak said:

If money grew on trees and FFP didn't exist i could agree with your statement.

Increase commercial revenues in as many streams as possible. Which I imagine is exactly what is occurring in the background.

I look forward to learning about our official Vietnamese tyre partners!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pissflaps said:

We still have some large gaps to fill and squad depth is a worry

I believe we'll make 2 more first 11 quality signings and maybe one more who can provide cover.

We finished 11th last season, behind Everton, Leeds, West Ham who I think we'll be stronger than all next season, particularly west ham who have Europe to contend with. Arsenal and Spurs are also as weak as they've ever been in recent times and 2 sides we comfortably beat past season. The buendia signing is huge, a significant upgrade and a new wide forward of similar quality will push us on another level.

Whilst our midfield options appear weakest, there's still decent options there and even Liverpool's midfield 3 are a great example of finding an unspectacular midfield 3 that work hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â