Clough Myths Explored #1 - "Negative Nige"

[Geordie Blade]

Apologies for the pompous and nerdy nature of this, but...
Aims and objectives
To test the commonly held hypothesis that Nigel Clough's tactics aim to establish 1-0 lead and then sit back, inviting the opposition to attack and come back into the game.
Methods
Assessed all league and cup games this season in which United scored first. Recorded the opposition, whether the game was at home or away, minute of the first goal, which team scored the next goal and the final result.
Results
United scored first in 30 games out of 63 (47.6%) and conceded first in 32 games (50.8%), with only one 0-0 draw. In the 30 games in which United scored first, they went on to win 22 of those games (73.3%), losing 3 (10.0%) and drawing 5 (16.7%).
After going 1-0 up, United scored the next goal 11 times (36.7%) and conceded the next goal 12 times (40.0%). No further goals were scored on 7 occasions (23.3%).
When only home games (N=18) were considered, United won on 12 occasions (66.7%), drew 3 times (16.7%) and lost 3 times (16.7%).
In away games where United scored first (N=12), United went on to win 10 times (83.3%), drew twice (16.7%) and did not lose any games (0.0%).
Conclusion
There is some evidence that United seem to conceded a disproportionality high number of ‘second’ goals after going 1-0 up. In away games, the tactic appears to be valid, but a return of 66.7% of wins at home after leading 1-0 is lower than would be expected for a team finishing fifth in the division.

 

[Torrix1889]

So.....Negative or not?

 

[Geordie Blade]

I'd say 'not', overall. Only one 0-0 draw out of 63 games this season. And winning 22 of the 30 games where we score first seems like a decent return. The only disappointment is that in the 30 games where we score first, we only go on to get the next goal in 11 of them. If we are going to aim for automatic promotion next season, that rate has to be converted to something like 60-70%.

 

[Mustela Putorius Furo]

Appreciate the effort - and this is not a criticism of your methodology - just a point or too on scope:

Don't think you can draw many conclusions from the stats alone - the same figures could apply to a really entertaining team that batters opponents for 30 minutes, goes one up, but because of a crap defence ends up drawing/losing games because they aren't that good.

Are we really talking about Cloughy being negative, or simply that his teams aren't good enough, or that while his teams may be "almost" good enough the football itself simply isn't entertaining (and how on earth do you measure that)?

Although in all walks of life, perception often doesn't match reality, especially with small samples, but perception doesn't arise out of nowhere.

The perception of Cloughy and his tactics is widely held - it's not just a local, recent idea. To overturn the perception, it's not only necessary to expand the comparisons, but attempt to explain why the perception arises in the first place, identify what it is about his teams that is "negative", and decide what people really mean by "negative".

And also, is "negative" such a bad thing? Is it not the case that what we call negative might still be successful. Italian football prior to the building of Arrigo Sacchi's Milan side in the 90s was considered dull, tedious, negative.... but it didn't stop Italian sides winning European trophies, and Italy winning the World Cup many times. (I watch European football that even now has more goals than it used to have 20,30 years ago, but I'm utterly bored by it).

Still, it would be interesting to see a direct comparisons of each stat compared with other clubs historically that a) finished in the same position, b) succeeded in achieving their target objective (promotion)? And also some figures on reversing 1-0 deficits too.

 

[Mustela Putorius Furo]

And for what it's worth, my subjective qualitative analysis (which means "it's a feeling, not a fact") is that we seem to play home games like an away team, and away games like an away team, but I can't put my finger on why that means we didn't get promoted other than "we aren't good enough".

We won fewer points at home than Barnsley and Gillingham, who finished 11th and 12th respectively, and have an identical away record to Doncaster who finished 13th.

 

[Geordie Blade]

I agree with all of that. The main thing that I was wondering was whether our style of play seems to change after we go 1-0 up. Before the first goal, our record is pretty even (scored first 30 times, conceded first 32 times). In games after we go 1-0, we have scored 21 goals (i.e. excluding the first goal) and conceded 19, which is also pretty even. You could argue that, in theory, the games where we score first are more likely to be against weaker opposition, so our post-one-nil record should be better than 21-19, but my view is that there isn't any noticable difference in how we play before the first goal and after we go 1-0 up.

You're quite right that it would be interesting to repeat this for games where we concede first, but that wasn't my original question (I was just testing the common perception that we get too negative after going 1-0 up).

Whilst I wouldn't ever draw conclusions from stats alone, it's frustarting when people make sweeping statements about something without bothering to check whether there is any evidence to back up their claims.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Interestingly (or not), the average time of our first goal in each game was 41 minutes. This was the latest of any side in League 1. So I guess that add evidence to the 'cagey start' idea.

http://www.soccerstats.com/table.asp?league=england3&tid=2

Also, for the record: In the 25 (league) games where the opposition scored first, we won 4, drew 9 and lost 12. This is the third best record in the league (behind Bristol City and MK Dons), so it seems that we are a bit better when we're chasing a game.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I'd say 'not', overall. Only one 0-0 draw out of 63 games this season. And winning 22 of the 30 games where we score first seems like a decent return. The only disappointment is that in the 30 games where we score first, we only go on to get the next goal in 11 of them. If we are going to aim for automatic promotion next season, that rate has to be converted to something like 60-70%.

A useful start to a debate hopefully. Thanks.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Appreciate the effort - and this is not a criticism of your methodology - just a point or too on scope:

Don't think you can draw many conclusions from the stats alone - the same figures could apply to a really entertaining team that batters opponents for 30 minutes, goes one up, but because of a crap defence ends up drawing/losing games because they aren't that good.

Are we really talking about Cloughy being negative, or simply that his teams aren't good enough, or that while his teams may be "almost" good enough the football itself simply isn't entertaining (and how on earth do you measure that)?

Although in all walks of life, perception often doesn't match reality, especially with small samples, but perception doesn't arise out of nowhere.

The perception of Cloughy and his tactics is widely held - it's not just a local, recent idea. To overturn the perception, it's not only necessary to expand the comparisons, but attempt to explain why the perception arises in the first place, identify what it is about his teams that is "negative", and decide what people really mean by "negative".

And also, is "negative" such a bad thing? Is it not the case that what we call negative might still be successful. Italian football prior to the building of Arrigo Sacchi's Milan side in the 90s was considered dull, tedious, negative.... but it didn't stop Italian sides winning European trophies, and Italy winning the World Cup many times. (I watch European football that even now has more goals than it used to have 20,30 years ago, but I'm utterly bored by it).

Still, it would be interesting to see a direct comparisons of each stat compared with other clubs historically that a) finished in the same position, b) succeeded in achieving their target objective (promotion)? And also some figures on reversing 1-0 deficits too.

Shankly:

"A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. In my time at Liverpool we always said we had the best two teams on Merseyside, Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves."

 

[BushBlade]

I watched Burton quite a few times on Setanta during their promotion to the league. They didn't strike me as negative, in fact they were very dominant, as far as I can recall.
I think we're just not good enough yet.
When we went down there was a lot of noise on chat rooms and at the forums about changing our style of play and,to paraphrase, 'doing a Swansea' ie playing possession based passing football. And lots of talk about signing good young prospects and bringing through youth players.

Critics said, 'the Blades don't have the patience for the rebuilding necessary and will get bored with the slower build up'.

Now our rebuilding didn't really start until after Wilson, with a few notable exceptions. We had a season playing well using Championship and PL level players and then a season of nothing. In the pre-Clough period we managed to find two good players and then sell them.

So really we've had two seasons of rebuilding, the first being hampered by a poor choice of manager. The process of playing passing football and developing players only began in earnest when Clough took over.

We're eighteen months in and I don't think we're that far off. At times, some of our play is great, other times it's appalling. Whilst Clough has to take responsibilty for this, we've had our fair share of injuries and bad luck. Get the recruitment right in the close season and we should look a lot better, be that under Clough or his replacement.

What concerns me is a lot of the comments about our lack of height, strength etc. and our negativity. I appreciate we've been as soft as shit defending set pieces and we need someone who is good in the air to organise our defence and someone up front with the strength to play lone striker but do we really need to fill the midfield with giants?

As a majority, are we the type of club that wants to win at any cost? Would we be happier with a Bassett/Allardyce/Pulis type manager who'll just get his team to get it forward quickly and make sure we stop the opposition from playing.
Or are we more aspirational?
Basically, do we want to be Swansea or Stoke?
Or do we have a split fanbase, due to us being a stylish 'passing' club in the 70s and a successful long ball team in the late 80s/early 90s?

 

[UnitedBlade]

Interestingly (or not), the average time of our first goal in each game was 41 minutes. This was the latest of any side in League 1. So I guess that add evidence to the 'cagey start' idea.

http://www.soccerstats.com/table.asp?league=england3&tid=2

Also, for the record: In the 25 (league) games where the opposition scored first, we won 4, drew 9 and lost 12. This is the third best record in the league (behind Bristol City and MK Dons), so it seems that we are a bit better when we're chasing a game.

21 points from 25 games is relegation form however, so being third best in the league at "recovering" is not much of an endorsement for letting the opposition score first.

The average time of our first goal at 41 minutes kind of gets to the nub of the problem - we are sluggish starters. Some of this is the cautious build up and recycling the ball across the half way line etc etc. We've all seen this with our own eyes this season.

You might have noticed how Swindon tear-arsed at our defence from the start on Monday and due to the clowns we were fielding in defence they were 3-0 in 18 minutes.

A bit like when Adams came on, he had them on the back foot.

This is what I want to see from us, plus improving our delivery into the box and our woeful dead ball delivery.

If we get a lead, we seem quite good at holding on to it.

So let's get an early lead and go at sides. Do we really have many sides in this division that we should fear ?