Player and team statistics (and analysis)

[Con]

It beggars belief that this information is at hand for everyone to see on the internet, if you know where to look, as I do too.

So why can we see whats going on that a Premier League Football Manager can't or does'nt want to acknowlege??

Perhaps the defenders are a bit headstrong and aren't doing what they're told?

Who is going to replace Clark or Baker if they are dropped (Dunne, Vlaar injured)?

Who is going to replace Lowton if he is dropped?

All the discussion has been about Bennett keeping his place. The spotlight needs to be on these guys too.

They're undroppable. They think they're undroppable, and their egos have taken over the team.

They want to fix everything themselves with attacking passes, which should be the midfield's job.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Con

[PompeyVillan]

Con, interesting debate, but I fundamentally disagree.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Midfield is far too dynamic a role to simply say, stats win all. It says nothing of positioning or movement on and off the ball, how often players lose their markers in dangerous areas (offensive or defensive). It also disregards the idea of a midfield dynamic, and what role each player has in that dynamic.

Stats can help to see where a team or player are going right or wrong in an individual discipline (ie Aerial duels won, possession stats etc) but not an entire position (midfield).

I think our defence play too many long balls, but it isn't enough to simply say they need to pass to the midfield more. There is more going on than that. I'm not a football coach, or analyst, so I can't say what we need to do, but I do know from watching the game that we're often out-thought in midfield.

The stats lie, our midfield is poor, but I think our defence is worse and our defending from set pieces possibly the reason why we are in so much trouble. That would be an area to research!

[Con]

Statistics don't have to lie, politicians give them a bad name. If statistics always lied you wouldn't know Van Persie was an awesome striker. It is ridiculous to rubbish statistics because they are statistics.

name='PompeyVillan' timestamp='1358945261' post='859042'] There is more going on than that. I'm not a football coach, or analyst, so I can't say what we need to do, but I do know from watching the game that we're often out-thought in midfield.

How do you know that is not an unfounded bias? Do statistics say we are "out-thought" in midfield?

No.

They show we don't have enough possession, which is primarily the fault of the defence for hogging the ball and then kicking it nowhere.

The stats lie, our midfield is poor, but I think our defence is worse and our defending from set pieces possibly the reason why we are in so much trouble. That would be an area to research!

The two are linked. The defence does its own thing. It lacks discipline. This affects our defending and our attacks.

[Daniel1Avfc]

So the stats say in descending order that Delph, Westwood and Bannan are all capable of passing the ball. We need a strong defensive mid capable of tackling to make a duo with either of them, this would surely sort out the midfields defensive problems, then the next problem to sort out would be attacking mid but N'Zogbia's looked great the last couple of games so this problem might go away on it's own.

[Con]

So the stats say in descending order that Delph, Westwood and Bannan are all capable of passing the ball. We need a strong defensive mid capable of tackling to make a duo with either of them, this would surely sort out the midfields defensive problems, then the next problem to sort out would be attacking mid but N'Zogbia's looked great the last couple of games so this problem might go away on it's own.

Absolutely. The great thing about the three of them is they provide variation.

Bannan is great at crossing. Delph keeps the passing neat. Westwood's an all-rounder.

They could all get into another Premiership squad higher up the table, if not the first XI (please refer to individual player threads to debate my opinion on this).

What they need is, like you say, a strong, experienced, defensive capable midfielder to play with - and the defenders to pass the ball to them.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Con

[mikeyp102]

Statistics don't have to lie, politicians give them a bad name. If statistics always lied you wouldn't know Van Persie was an awesome striker. It is ridiculous to rubbish statistics because they are statistics.

I don't need statistics to know that Van Persie is a quality player. I can watch him play and know that he scores on regular basis.

Stats don't prove everything and can easily be manipulated to provide a back up to any argument.

The fact of the matter is our midfield is appalling, and that is one of the main reasons that we are languishing near the bottem of the league.

I asked earlier which you avoided, do you genuinely watch games are just run an analysis of performance on stats?

[GingerCollins29]

Thanks for that. Statistical proof that we are shite.

[Con]

I don't need statistics to know that Van Persie is a quality player. I can watch him play and know that he scores on regular basis.

This you doing statistical analysis. You are adding up the number of goals he is scoring, comparing them to how many other strikers score, and concluding because he scores more he's better.

Stats don't prove everything and can easily be manipulated to provide a back up to any argument.

Ah, well I can say that Van Persie is rubbish. Your stupid goals per game statistic doesn't mean shit.

Obviously I don't believe that because I believe statistics are useful.

The fact of the matter is our midfield is appalling, and that is one of the main reasons that we are languishing near the bottem of the league.

That is an assertion that I am attempting to debunk with statistics.

You are reasserting this claim without referring to new statistics or a reinterpretation of my own statistics... so I do not want to change my mind to your view.

I asked earlier which you avoided, do you genuinely watch games are just run an analysis of performance on stats?

Yes I watch games.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Con

[flashingqwerty]

have to say youve convinced me now if only we could convince lambert... assuming hes still got a job

[Woodytom]

Con, Im really not sure what all this points other than your a mad man but fair play for putting it together. 

 

I think your probably overthinking it. We are not down the bottom because our defenders hit it long. We are down the bottom because our defenders are shit. As a result of this, they hit it long. Tell them to play it short, and we wont improve. Buy better players however. We will. Its as simple as that.

[mikeyp102]

This you doing statistical analysis. You are adding up the number of goals he is scoring, comparing them to how many other strikers score, and concluding because he scores more he's better.

Ah, well I can say that Van Persie is rubbish. Your stupid goals per game statistic doesn't mean shit.

Obviously I don't believe that because I believe statistics are useful.

That is an assertion that I am attempting to debunk with statistics.

You are reasserting this claim without referring to new statistics or a reinterpretation of my own statistics... so I do not want to change my mind to your view.

Yes I watch games.

------------------------------------------------------------------

(quote has gone strange apologies)

I can see Van Persie is class, not just from his goals. His touch is first class, his awareness and movement are incredible. He can finish numerous different ways and has one of the best techniques in world football.. No stats are required to prove or collate any of that...

I'm sure there will be some stats somewhere that show Van Persie has missed from a certain angle more than others (just as an example) which could be interpreted tht he is the worse player.. Ergo people manipulating stats to back up their own opinion..

Whilst you have tried to point out that some of our midfielders have great stats and therefore are not weak, the stats don't take into account the entire performance..

How many goals and assists have our midfielders got? How many times have they outperformed the opposition? How many times have they dominated games?

We have the lowest scoring and worst defensive record in the league, if the midfielders are so good why are those stats so low?

Fair enough that you watch the games, just seemed that you were just basing your decision on stats alone.

Edited January 23, 2013 by mikeyp102

[Con]

Con, Im really not sure what all this points other than your a mad man but fair play for putting it together. 

Nothing wrong with being mad is there? Prejudiced?

I think your probably overthinking it. We are not down the bottom because our defenders hit it long. We are down the bottom because our defenders are shit. As a result of this, they hit it long. Tell them to play it short, and we wont improve. Buy better players however. We will. Its as simple as that.

True-ish. Buy better players, things would be a lot easier.

 

But there are always things you can do to make good players play better. 

 

And winning is not just about great individual performances, it's team effort. Swansea are the epitome of that. Even their ballboys take one for the team.

 

BTW if that wasn't true you couldn't improve players, you wouldn't need football managers.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

I can see Van Persie is class, not just from his goals. His touch is first class, his awareness and movement are incredible. He can finish numerous different ways and has one of the best techniques in world football.. No stats are required to prove or collate any of that...

If he didn't score any goals despite having all of that... he would be a bad striker. Ultimately statistics are the baseline for judging players.

 

What other baseline is there? Astrological sign? There was once a French national football coach who picked teams based on star signs. Maybe there is something to it.

 

I'm sure there will be some stats somewhere that show Van Persie has missed from a certain angle more than others (just as an example) which could be interpreted tht he is the worse player.. Ergo people manipulating stats to back up their own opinion..

Whilst you have tried to point out that some of our midfielders have great stats and therefore are not weak, the stats don't take into account the entire performance..

You can widen the goalposts.

 

You can keep increasing the number of areas the players need to perform in until they fail and you are proved right because in the end none of them are Steven Gerrard.

 

We don't have Ultimate Midfielders. Uber CMs. No we don't. Not claiming they are and not saying I wouldn't want to buy them.

 

My point was simply that they are Premiership level players.

 

How many goals and assists have our midfielders got? How many times have they outperformed the opposition? How many times have they dominated games?

We have the lowest scoring and worst defensive record in the league, if the midfielders are so good why are those stats so low?

Fair enough that you watch the games, just seemed that you were just basing your decision on stats alone.

Domination - how meaningful is this concept if you don't refer to a statistic? I would call high possession % "domination" but as I've said, if your defenders waste possession by hoofing it long over the midfield, there's not much the midfield can do about it.

 

I've attempted to provide an explanation for our bad scoring and defending statistics. It's the defence.

 

They have been trying to take over the responsibility to attack with their bad skills from our more skillful midfielders, and do not concentrate enough on their primary job in defence, such as at set pieces.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Con

[villianusa]

Con,

 

What is the precentage of freekicks and corners against us scored compared to lets say WBA? 

What is the average shots per game against us compared to lets say WBA?

 

What I'm getting at is that it isn't so much what we do when we have with the ball more to do with what we don't do when we try and defend. I believe this is more where the problem lies.

[Con]

Con,

 

What is the precentage of freekicks and corners against us scored compared to lets say WBA? 

Don't have that data.

 

I can tell you we have conceded 18% (8) of our goals to headers, whereas WBA have conceded 9.4% (3) to headers.

 

For comparison, Swansea have conceded 37%, (10) and Newcastle 29% (12) of their goals to headers, so we are not the worst at defending high balls into the box.

 

Surprisingly set piece specialists Stoke have conceded 26% (7) of their goals to headers. 

 

So maybe our set piece defending, although dire, is not actually the most pressing aspect of our defending to work on at this time? There are gaps everywhere...

 

What is the average shots per game against us compared to lets say WBA

Don't know.

 

What I'm getting at is that it isn't so much what we do when we have with the ball more to do with what we don't do when we try and defend. I believe this is more where the problem lies.

I don't understand you... could you explain this? 

[villianusa]

From whoscore

 

1. Lowest number of cross per game with 18, next teams are WBA, Swansea and Sunderland on 21.

2. Joint 3rd long balls per game.

3. 5th lowest short passes per game.

 

They are probably more of a reason why we don't score many goals and lose possession so much.

[villianusa]

Con, what I mean is how many shots do other teams take against us per game compared to how many shots WBA conceded each game.

 

Most teams shot at our goal I would say on average over 10 times a game. I don't think it would be so high for WBA.

 

Above you mention the goals to headers precentage but I am guessing they aren't specific to set plays or not? I would guess that if it did I believe our precentage would be higher than most teams.

 

Teams don't have to cross the ball in the air in open play to score against as they can just walk through our defense.

[Con]

From whoscore

 

1. Lowest number of cross per game with 18, next teams are WBA, Swansea and Sunderland on 21.

2. Joint 3rd long balls per game.

3. 5th lowest short passes per game.

 

They are probably more of a reason why we don't score many goals and lose possession so much.

 

1. We have low crosses per game because we have low possession, low advanced possession in the final third. 

 

One reason for that is the defenders keep losing the ball before our midfield can build up a patient attacking move.

 

2. Exactly what I said. Our defenders. They hit 52% of them. View table at start of thread.  Midfielders only hit 27% of them.

 

3. If the defence passed short into midfield more often, and were more disciplined and kicked the ball long less, that would be a start. 

 

These reasons support my arguments the defence is to blame for the defence and especially the attack.

[Con]

Con, what I mean is how many shots do other teams take against us per game compared to how many shots WBA conceded each game.

 

Very interesting question.

 

Don't have that stat directly.

 

Closest we could get to it could be number of defensive blocks plus goals conceded. What do the defenders do when "blocking", if not blocking a shot on goal?

 

Villa have made 104 blocks, over 23 games, and conceded 44 goals.  That's 6.4 shots per game.

 

WBA 94 blocks and conceded 32 goals over same period. That's 5.5 shots per game.

 

To take another team at random, Tottenham 55 blocks and 28 shots, 3.6 shots per game.

 

http://www.squawka.com/teams/aston-villa/stats

 

What are your thoughts on this?

 

 

 

Most teams shot at our goal I would say on average over 10 times a game. I don't think it would be so high for WBA.

 

Above you mention the goals to headers precentage but I am guessing they aren't specific to set plays or not? I would guess that if it did I believe our precentage would be higher than most teams.

 

Teams don't have to cross the ball in the air in open play to score against as they can just walk through our defense.

 

 

I will make a table out of this "shots" data.

[VILLAMARV]

This all leaves me wondering what the stats looked like from the first few games compared to the last few. Seems to me that we're getting longer and longer with our passing every game (though thats an opinion i got no stats to back it up!

 

I dont buy the defence giving it to the midfield argument though - Holman is the worst passer of the ball we've seen for a long time bannan and delph both seem to come deep to collect the ball off the back 3/4/5 all the time then guess what.... hoof it forward and we lose possession. Nzogbia is always good for getting his head down and running into the opposition to give the ball away without trying to ever pass. Also with Lambert playing wingbacks it puts the onus on Lowton and bennett to get more involved but the woeful movement from our midfield constantly leaves them with no other option than to hit it long. 

 

But like you say stats are always able to back up your point - whatever it may be. with that in mind remember villa park is 68m wide and an average pass length of 21m is shorter than a corner to the near post. 

 

Too much is made of this "long ball" theory in this country, When the long ball is on - spot it and hit it long, when it's not - keep possession, play it short. The first one is easier. The second one requires a team that plays for each other moving into space, dragging defenders out of position which makes the short passing game look easy when it's done well. Passing is the half of it. movement (and shape) is what we're lacking and apart from distance run i dont think there are any stats for that. 

[kurtsimonw]

Those stats suggest we're decent on the ball and I think at times we are exactly that. Problem is the midfield isn't a huge problem on the ball, it's off it they're complete shite, no protection for the defence at all.