GoalWatch - Summary so far

[Bergen Blade]

First of all, the point of the GoalWatch threads is not to find culprits. It is a video analysis of what happens when we concede goals, and an attempt to see if there’s anything we should be doing differently. Most posts have been followed by good football debates, where the level of detail may have showed what a bunch of geeks we really are!

To make the posts slightly more interesting I’ve also highlighted individual players’ mistakes. This is not always the same as blaming a goal on a player. Sometimes it’s only minor mistakes that’s been mentioned, and I’ve tried to differentiate between

• He should have done better – 1 point
• He could have done better – 0,5 point

Two things to consider:

• This is subjective, and carried out by an amateur, though you’ve all had your chance to influence him
• How to interpret the stats is up to you

Points so far:

Montgomery 8 points
Morgan 7 p
Bunn 5,5 p
Walker 5 p
Kilgallon 4,5 p
Harper 4 p
Fortune 3,5 p
Quinn 3,5 p
Taylor 3,5 p
Davies 3 p
Henderson 2,5 p
Nosworthy 2 p
Stewart 2 p
Little 1,5 p
Cresswell 1 p
Geary 1 p
France 0,5 p​

Type of goals conceded:
Set piece goals: 26 – 60 %
Open Play: 11 – 26%
Breaks: 6 – 14%


Any comments?

 

[DuncDisorderly]

This is very interesting Bergen, though for balance, I think you'd also have to look at the goals in the context of how well we defend the whole game. It is quite easy to make the mistake that leads to a goal, but if you made ten good tackles and interceptions around the penalty area in the same game then it is less damning than if you made mistakes all game long that came to nothing.

Be interesting to see the percentages for other teams in your type of goals analysis...

 

[JohnDenver]

I'm just fascinated to know how Ryan France made the list. Did he lend someone his lucky socks?

 

[cooperblade]

Have you tried to make any differentiation between a 'mistake' and a player following instructions which you believe to be incorrect?

It's probably impossible but often you attribute goals against to the defensive system we employ rather than an individual.

Looking at that list, things should improve now Walker and Killa have gone

 

[alcoblade]

Good stuff bergen - But if I'm reading it correctly then the best way to score fewest points is to either not get picked very much, or if you do, shy away from the ball. Wouldn't a points per game ratio be an improvement?

UTB

 

[Bergen Blade]

This is very interesting Bergen, though for balance, I think you'd also have to look at the goals in the context of how well we defend the whole game. It is quite easy to make the mistake that leads to a goal, but if you made ten good tackles and interceptions around the penalty area in the same game then it is less damning than if you made mistakes all game long that came to nothing.

Be interesting to see the percentages for other teams in your type of goals analysis...

Absolutely, this is all taken out of context, and only the situations where we conceded goals are analysed. All the good things a player does may well weigh up for his mistakes.


I thought the percentage of goals conceded from set pieces is high. Between 30-60 % of all goals are said to be scored following a set piece. Some teams are really good at it and work very hard at them, others see set pieces as just a way of getting the game to start again.


Part of the high set piece percentage may be due to my definition of it. For example I've included Coventry's first goal against us as a set piece goal. It happened following a short throw which they then crossed into the box. We were lined up as to defend that set piece like we've agreed and worked on in training.

In any case, for a team that's said to be strong and physical I do think we are conceding too many from set pieces, and I've often questioned why we don't use a zone man , a player with no marking responsibilities and who can attack the ball at defensive set pieces.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I'm just fascinated to know how Ryan France made the list. Did he lend someone his lucky socks?

He got half a point for the mix up with Monty that let McIndoe set up Coventry's second.

 

[Tihane]

I'm also requesting a 'mistakes per match' stats.

Bunn for example is third in the list at the moment, but as he plays almost every game (and is mixed up in every goal-scoring situation) then I believe his mistakes per match stats are not bad at all.

also one could use a coefficient for players position. I'd say an attackers mistake, which costs us a goal, is a bigger mistake than defenders mistake (due to lower probability in getting to a 'mistake making position').

 

[Bergen Blade]

Have you tried to make any differentiation between a 'mistake' and a player following instructions which you believe to be incorrect?

It's probably impossible but often you attribute goals against to the defensive system we employ rather than an individual.

Looking at that list, things should improve now Walker and Killa have gone

It's very difficult because we don't know for certain what the management's instructions are. When Blackwell's staff conduct their post match analyses it's probably easier because they probably know exactly what Blackwell thinks they should do.

An example which was much debated at the time was Ipswich's second goal at the Lane. Monty overcomitted himself, leaving Leadbitter to run in behind him and nobody was covering. Was Blackwell's instructions to Harper to cover behind Monty or should he just concentrate on "his" man?

The highlighting of individual players is very much the short, simplistic version of the GoalWatch posts, and these stats are indeed a summary of just that. As you say I've often been critical of our organisation, but it's hard to implement that in this summary, other than maybe giving only half points when a player's error can be "excused".

 

[Bergen Blade]

I'm also requesting a 'mistakes per match' stats.

Bunn for example is third in the list at the moment, but as he plays almost every game (and is mixed up in every goal-scoring situation) then I believe his mistakes per match stats are not bad at all.

also one could use a coefficient for players position. I'd say an attackers mistake, which costs us a goal, is a bigger mistake than defenders mistake (due to lower probability in getting to a 'mistake making position').

Is there a website that shows the total minutes on the pitch? If not a sub appearance will count as much as a full game.

Regarding attackers' mistakes, remember that all Henderson and Cresswell's points came when they were back in our box trying to defend a set piece.

 

[judge]

just as i suspected ,mongy is our worst player and ryan france is our best player

 

[Bergen Blade]

UPDATE - ERROR POINTS PER MATCH STATS

Fortune 1
Nosworthy 0,5
Stewart 0,47
Davies 0,41
Little 0,40
Monty 0,32
Morgan 0,26
Bunn 0,22
Kilgallon 0,21
Taylor 0,21
Harper 0,20
Walker 0,19
Geary 0,18
France 0,11
Henderson 0,11
Quinn 0,12
Cresswell 0,07​

Did that make more sense? One thing to note may be the numbers of those who have stepped in for our original first choice centre backs.

 

[Tihane]

UPDATE - ERROR POINTS PER MATCH STATS


Did that make more sense? One thing to note may be the numbers of those who have stepped in for our original first choice centre backs.

much better, thank you. Interesting to note that Nosworthy has skyrocketed, while Kallio (who gets criticized a lot) hasn't made a big mistake yet.

 

[Foxy]

In the interests of fairness, can we have a successful happenings per match and a breaking up a dangerous move count?

You're just lazy concentrating on one area Bergen!

 

[Bergen Blade]

In the interests of fairness, can we have a successful happenings per match and a breaking up a dangerous move count?

You're just lazy concentrating on one area Bergen!

I did that once on BU, giving players 'pluses' or 'minuses' for each involvement in a match (lazily I skipped the 'neutrals') in a game I recorded. The goalwatch is just one of several studies of key situations that the management should be carrying out.

For example, from an attacking perspective I would have liked our staff to pay special attention to what we do when we win the ball, and have the chance to catch teams on the break. Do our forward make runs in behind defences; do they start their runs quick enough; do they have the pace to run onto through balls; do our midfielders aim to play through balls; do they have the skill and vision to do it, etc. This is just one more area that they should focus on.


Back to the GoalWatch results though. Your comments Foxy may indicate that you think too harsh conclusions would be drawn from them. That hasn't happened though, in fact nobody have tried to use the stats to back up their knocking of a player.

As I said interpretation of the stats can be several. Take Monty for instance:

a) He must be benched, he's supposed to be protecting our defence, yet he's made a lot of mistakes this season that's made us concede.
b) Monty just needs to calm down a bit when inside our box
c) Monty shouldn't calm down at all, his all action approach is what makes him so effective defensively
d) For a defensive midfielder his stats aren't that high​

 

[Grecian2000]

As I said interpretation of the stats can be several. Take Monty for instance:

a) He must be benched, he's supposed to be protecting our defence, yet he's made a lot of mistakes this season that's made us concede.
b) Monty just needs to calm down a bit when inside our box
c) Monty shouldn't calm down at all, his all action approach is what makes him so effective defensively
d) For a defensive midfielder his stats aren't that high​

NOOOOOOOOO!

Take a) out now, or take someone else altogether.

The only time you ever get any stick Bergs is when you try and say Monty isn't the best defensive midfield player on the planet. No-one bothers to defend any of the others.

 

[Revolution]

The fact that Monty's record is worse than anyone who has played more than a handful of games (which may in part be due to small sample size), including all the first choice defence, does not reflect well on him...

 

[Ollessendro]

This is an interesting thread Bergen. I was saying earlier in the year that one of the reasons why we were faring worse than last year was because of silly individual mistakes. Uncharacteristic mistakes by usually solid palyers, such as Monty and Morgan, were costing us. This merley backs that up.

Of course too much shouldn't be read into this and I no that wasn't your intention when you posted this. It's nice to see that the replies have been fairly intelligent and people have just used this for their own agenda (for example Monty knocking).

 

[anglian blade]

The analysis is interesting but does not take account of how often a player gets involved in the game, eg if a midfielder does not track back and someone else has to cover for him and then that one makes a mistake, I think the goal should be put down to the one who failed to track back, but unless it was glaringly obvious I don't see how your system would pick that up. It therefore favours the lazy players over the hard working ones

 

[Elsecar_Blade]

Your next update to this should be interesting considering the comedy of errors surrounding the Argyle goals yesterday!

Bunn top of the list?!!!!

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

The analysis is interesting but does not take account of how often a player gets involved in the game, eg if a midfielder does not track back and someone else has to cover for him and then that one makes a mistake, I think the goal should be put down to the one who failed to track back, but unless it was glaringly obvious I don't see how your system would pick that up. It therefore favours the lazy players over the hard working ones

Which is why Monty's figure is twice the size of Harpers?

 

[Ollessendro]

The analysis is interesting but does not take account of how often a player gets involved in the game, eg if a midfielder does not track back and someone else has to cover for him and then that one makes a mistake, I think the goal should be put down to the one who failed to track back, but unless it was glaringly obvious I don't see how your system would pick that up. It therefore favours the lazy players over the hard working ones

I'm pretty sure Bergen picks this stuf up. In his goal watch threads he usually looks the opposition move from early on and picks out the Blades culprits. for example if Harper was not tracking back and this pulled Monty out of position and opened up space for the attack Harper would get a -0.5.

Is this correct Bergen? Whenever I have posted on your goal wtach threads I always point out this kind of thing and I seem to remember you doing so.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

'It therefore favours the lazy players over the hard working ones'

I was picking up on the sentence above; hence Harper only getting half as many points as Monty.

Overall though the thread is very interesting.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I'm pretty sure Bergen picks this stuf up. In his goal watch threads he usually looks the opposition move from early on and picks out the Blades culprits. for example if Harper was not tracking back and this pulled Monty out of position and opened up space for the attack Harper would get a -0.5.

Is this correct Bergen? Whenever I have posted on your goal wtach threads I always point out this kind of thing and I seem to remember you doing so.

Yes, I try to. Sometimes it is difficult to say exactly what Blackwell's instructions are though, i.e. does he want Harper to cover behind Monty, or does he want him to keep track of his own man? On other occasions the highlights may be zoomed a bit much, making it difficult to see enough of what's happened.

If people feel that that I'm being unfair I think it's better to have their say in each GoalWatch thread when it's fresh and new, rather than thinking of possible scenarios that I may miss in theory. For example, maybe someone can expand a bit on the situation leading up to Plymouth's second on Saturday?

 

[Bergen Blade]

The analysis is interesting but does not take account of how often a player gets involved in the game, eg if a midfielder does not track back and someone else has to cover for him and then that one makes a mistake, I think the goal should be put down to the one who failed to track back, but unless it was glaringly obvious I don't see how your system would pick that up. It therefore favours the lazy players over the hard working ones

Which is why Monty's figure is twice the size of Harpers?

It is definitely a valid and relevant point that Monty's all action approach makes him more involved in defensive situations than Harper, who to me doesn't seem to have the energy or determination to chase opposition players around similarly.

Maybe Monty could cool down a bit in our box though. Without the three penalties, his score would have been the same as Harper's. Harper's been highlighted six times, but only got a full point twice.