A few observations from the stats (Brizzle):

[Barmyblade]

From coolblade

A few observations from the stats:

- we had our weakest defensive back 4 for a fair while, and chose to protect it with just one ‘defensive midfielder” (if Peck can be called that) resulting in a totally unbalanced team, whereby we looked very dangerous going forward (BBC said “scintillating”) whilst throughout the whole game our defence was repeatedly exposed. So the team stats look very strong but can’t disguise the fundamental flaw in how we were set up. We won the xG battle 2.3 to 1.3, had 74% possession, more than twice as many shots (20 v 9) won most aerial duels (54%) and most corners by far (14 v 3)

- Bristol primarily out scored their xG as a result of two fantastic strikes from Twine & McCrorie (0.099 & 0.073), which they won’t replicate too often, whereas Cooper made just one save all game (not that he was generally at fault). That level of anomaly is unlikely to continue; Campbells goal was 0.369.

- in terms of individual statistical performances, RND came out bottom. With Campbell top.

- defensively, it was a car crash. Neither RND nor Robbo won a single tackle. Binden scored well with 12 successful defensive contributions, compared to RND with 1 and Robbo with 3. He also had 2 shots and a pass completion rate of 93%. A pretty good game in a catastrophic defensive team performance.

- creatively, Burrows had most key passes and joint most successful crosses, alongside Hamer who had second most key passes along with O’Hare who also had an assist. These are all good players, with solid stats but they need a system to work in which gives a solid platform

- attacking, Peck (with some fantastic chances with an xG of 1.08) and Barry had most shots (4). We really should have scored more.

It has been in many ways a disastrous start. But the key weakness in our team has been known about since Boxing Day so it is staggering we don’t seem closer to resolving it. But if we do, there are plenty of aspects of our team which actually did ok today

Chin up!

 

[BladeByChoice]

We had 14 corners .

 

[Deadbat]

From coolblade

A few observations from the stats:

- we had our weakest defensive back 4 for a fair while, and chose to protect it with just one ‘defensive midfielder” (if Peck can be called that) resulting in a totally unbalanced team, whereby we looked very dangerous going forward (BBC said “scintillating”) whilst throughout the whole game our defence was repeatedly exposed. So the team stats look very strong but can’t disguise the fundamental flaw in how we were set up. We won the xG battle 2.3 to 1.3, had 74% possession, more than twice as many shots (20 v 9) won most aerial duels (54%) and most corners by far (14 v 3)

- Bristol primarily out scored their xG as a result of two fantastic strikes from Twine & McCrorie (0.099 & 0.073), which they won’t replicate too often, whereas Cooper made just one save all game (not that he was generally at fault). That level of anomaly is unlikely to continue; Campbells goal was 0.369.

- in terms of individual statistical performances, RND came out bottom. With Campbell top.

- defensively, it was a car crash. Neither RND nor Robbo won a single tackle. Binden scored well with 12 successful defensive contributions, compared to RND with 1 and Robbo with 3. He also had 2 shots and a pass completion rate of 93%. A pretty good game in a catastrophic defensive team performance.

- creatively, Burrows had most key passes and joint most successful crosses, alongside Hamer who had second most key passes along with O’Hare who also had an assist. These are all good players, with solid stats but they need a system to work in which gives a solid platform

- attacking, Peck (with some fantastic chances with an xG of 1.08) and Barry had most shots (4). We really should have scored more.

It has been in many ways a disastrous start. But the key weakness in our team has been known about since Boxing Day so it is staggering we don’t seem closer to resolving it. But if we do, there are plenty of aspects of our team which actually did ok today

Chin up!

Like the stats and enjoy these round ups but today shows that XG and possession can be misleading. We had as many if not more shots but other the last chances I cannot think of many sitters we missed - the keeper made some good saves but most were long range efforts. Their goals outside of the 1st were all inside the box so not speculative efforts - all were close in.

Also the stats on Bindon might make it look like he had a good game but he culpable on two goals, did not make any tackles of note and looked slow and weak. Those 12 contributions must have been relatively inconsiquential as cant recall a block/tackle/covering piece of play at all.

Burrows is another that defensively was wretched regardless of the stats IMHO.

 

[Coolblade]

Thanks Deadbat

I always accept stats never paint a full picture, and that context must be added for a complete and fair analysis. But they do offer an objective measure unaffected by confirmation bias.

Binden was far from perfect, and has significant areas for improvement. But the fact he made three times more successful defensive contributions than RND and Robbo put together suggest he had a more impactful game than his team mates.

I also agree Burrow’s defensive game was weak (and the stats suggest just that) but it’s still worth noting his creative stats showed he added some value.

 

[Frank the tank]

Bindon giving a couple of yards but still getting beat to the ball by target man riis was a bit worrying if he is going to be a mainstay

How's he going to get on against someone quick ?

 

[Gavlar]

We had 14 corners .

And no one to cross to.

 

[blade67]

Thanks Deadbat

I always accept stats never paint a full picture, and that context must be added for a complete and fair analysis. But they do offer an objective measure unaffected by confirmation bias.

Binden was far from perfect, and has significant areas for improvement. But the fact he made three times more successful defensive contributions than RND and Robbo put together suggest he had a more impactful game than his team mates.

I also agree Burrow’s defensive game was weak (and the stats suggest just that) but it’s still worth noting his creative stats showed he added some value.

Stats are useful and it's good to see this take on things.

Burrows in attack minded full back as is Seriki. To then play two attack minded players in front of a makeshift centre back pairing is where the manager has right royally fucked up in my opinion.

It's the kind of bat shit crazy decision I made running my lads U8 team.

It is troubling that a professional manager made this mistake in his first match in charge.

 

[XADE]

And no one to cross to.

Didn't a stat pop up on Sky saying we'd had something like 256 corners last season and scored about 9? Not sure what the general rate is but that seems low.

 

[Tarqs]

Didn't a stat pop up on Sky saying we'd had something like 256 corners last season and scored about 9? Not sure what the general rate is but that seems low.

We dont win headers in either box and havent for years.

 

[Grappler]

We dont win headers in either box and havent for years.

I said, yesterday, that it's a bit of a concern (for me) that Sydie was one of our taller lads on the pitch, at about 5ft 10!

I am not saying that we need a Kieffer Moore type giant, but we need a few more 6 footers.

Without sounding awful, we won't win many headers with Gus and Callum in the middle.

 

[Working Class Hero]

Our xG is a bit misleading, as we had one very good chance excellently blocked by the defender, and another good one from the resulting corner. It's impossible for both of those to result in goals yet both count towards xG, which is a big flaw of xG generally.

I can't remember the other chances well enough, but a similar thing may well have happened in the first half as well, as all our chances fell in that strong 10-15 minute spell.

 

[MiserableBlader]

From coolblade

A few observations from the stats:

- we had our weakest defensive back 4 for a fair while, and chose to protect it with just one ‘defensive midfielder” (if Peck can be called that) resulting in a totally unbalanced team, whereby we looked very dangerous going forward (BBC said “scintillating”) whilst throughout the whole game our defence was repeatedly exposed. So the team stats look very strong but can’t disguise the fundamental flaw in how we were set up. We won the xG battle 2.3 to 1.3, had 74% possession, more than twice as many shots (20 v 9) won most aerial duels (54%) and most corners by far (14 v 3)

- Bristol primarily out scored their xG as a result of two fantastic strikes from Twine & McCrorie (0.099 & 0.073), which they won’t replicate too often, whereas Cooper made just one save all game (not that he was generally at fault). That level of anomaly is unlikely to continue; Campbells goal was 0.369.

- in terms of individual statistical performances, RND came out bottom. With Campbell top.

- defensively, it was a car crash. Neither RND nor Robbo won a single tackle. Binden scored well with 12 successful defensive contributions, compared to RND with 1 and Robbo with 3. He also had 2 shots and a pass completion rate of 93%. A pretty good game in a catastrophic defensive team performance.

- creatively, Burrows had most key passes and joint most successful crosses, alongside Hamer who had second most key passes along with O’Hare who also had an assist. These are all good players, with solid stats but they need a system to work in which gives a solid platform

- attacking, Peck (with some fantastic chances with an xG of 1.08) and Barry had most shots (4). We really should have scored more.

It has been in many ways a disastrous start. But the key weakness in our team has been known about since Boxing Day so it is staggering we don’t seem closer to resolving it. But if we do, there are plenty of aspects of our team which actually did ok today

Chin up!

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

Do the statistics explain why people like me (ie knowledgeable) were pointing out for weeks that a disastrous midfield of three with Harmer and O'Hare in it would lose by three against Bristol City opening day?

Do the statistics explain why people like me were pushing for three at the back because all the full backs are wing backs?

Do the statistics explain why people like me were pushing for three at the back because there are not two big centre backs let alone left and right footed ones? We don't have one now Anel has gone.

Do the statistics explain why people like me were pointing out the criminal waste of a top player like Brooks stuck on the wrong wing?

Do the statistics explain how comically bad it was playing McCallum on the wrong side?
ps that did shed any light to you lot on this reverse 'wingers' bollocks re Brooks Hamer et al?

Do the statistics explain why a team whose main tactic is claimed to be a 'high press' never get the ball high up the field to implement the fore said 'high press'?

Do the statistics explain why a team whose main tactic is claimed to be a 'high press' presumably to exploit the insanity of peeing about at the back, pees about at the back so much and so predictable leading to their destruction at the start of the second half.
Were they trying to lose?

Lets face it.
If you could not see this coming all preseason you are an idiot when it comes to football basics.
(step forward Oxley on last nights Praise or Grumble who thought this WAS a midfield 3. ALL the local press is absolute shite)
Sadly it seems to be a pre-requisite for being #sufc manager, hence the demise of the club despite the best crop of young talent definitely since the (19) sixties that maintained us in the top flight - without a single signing for 4 years as reported elsewhere and watched by me.

ps. FOOTballers are SUPPOSED to be able to strike the ball.
It is their raison d'etre.
Particularly a stationary ball.
It should be a big thing when they CANNOT, not when they do it for once or twice as in this match.

 

[KMC-1889]

Stats are useful and it's good to see this take on things.

Burrows in attack minded full back as is Seriki. To then play two attack minded players in front of a makeshift centre back pairing is where the manager has right royally fucked up in my opinion.

It's the kind of bat shit crazy decision I made running my lads U8 team.

It is troubling that a professional manager made this mistake in his first match in charge.

You can see why top clubs use one attacking full back and the other slides across to make a back three. I’d have thought that role would have been perfect for someone like Gilchrist when Burrows is on the pitch and then have McCallum doing it when Seriki is playing.

Clearly can’t have such an unbalanced team with only two defensive players in it.

 

[Bladesthorpe]

We dont win headers in either box and havent for years.

Souttar, Moore, Mcburnie, Egan ect.

 

[Matlock Blade]

Towards the end of the first half when we had a lot of possession in their box, my son and I both said the attack was much better than under the previous manager. None of this rubbish spending ages just passing it around the outside of their box and then eventually back to Cooper like we saw last season.

We need to sort out the defense, probably need at least 3 quality defenders. If the owners do that, I think we'll be a very good team.

 

[Coolblade]

Lies, damned lies and statistics?

Do the statistics explain why people like me (ie knowledgeable) were pointing out for weeks that a disastrous midfield of three with Harmer and O'Hare in it would lose by three against Bristol City opening day?

Do the statistics explain why people like me were pushing for three at the back because all the full backs are wing backs?

Do the statistics explain why people like me were pushing for three at the back because there are not two big centre backs let alone left and right footed ones? We don't have one now Anel has gone.

Do the statistics explain why people like me were pointing out the criminal waste of a top player like Brooks stuck on the wrong wing?

Do the statistics explain how comically bad it was playing McCallum on the wrong side?
ps that did shed any light to you lot on this reverse 'wingers' bollocks re Brooks Hamer et al?

Do the statistics explain why a team whose main tactic is claimed to be a 'high press' never get the ball high up the field to implement the fore said 'high press'?

Do the statistics explain why a team whose main tactic is claimed to be a 'high press' presumably to exploit the insanity of peeing about at the back, pees about at the back so much and so predictable leading to their destruction at the start of the second half.
Were they trying to lose?
.

Yes, they do…..

 

[ThirdGenBlade]

We dont win headers in either box and havent for years.

Apart from short-lived Souttar-time!