The "Wilder was more attacking last season" Myth

[CentralQuay]

The reason this side sits 20th, currently the worst side at this stage in PL history, is not because of VAR/Referees/The FA/Covid etc etc.

What I want to look at, is the claim from a few on here that the difference between last season and this is that SUFC 'Played attacking football'.
Lets have a look -

This season.

Goals Scored - 8 (20th in the League)
Shots Per game - 8.4 (19th in the League)
Shots on Target Per game - 2.8 (19th in the League)
Average Possession - 42.4% (18th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 75.8% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 7.1 (20th in the League)
Fouled per game - 7.4 (20th in the League)

It's fair to say that the above is exactly what you would expect, for a side that sits 20th with just 2 points after 17 games.
So let's compare that with last season, where a few on here suggested SUFC 'Played attacking football'.


Last season

Goals Scored - 39 (15th in the League)
Shots Per game - 9.3 (20th in the League)
Shots on Target per game - 3 (20th in the League)
Average Possession - 44.4% (17th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 74.4% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 9.1 (16th in the League)
Fouled per game - 8.1 (18th in the League)


The small differences, highlighted by the fact that the side last season was perhaps slightly more confident in their ability to try and take the ball and beat a man, represented by the increased number of dribbles, are nothing in comparison to the glaringly obvious similarities.

This side, both last season and this, does not have the attacking quality for this league.
The key difference, which made the side appear more 'attacking' last season, was the ability to defend better, to stay in games longer and concede less. Which meant that every created chance, despite being the worst 'attacking side' in the league, had more value.

 

[Gavlar]

The reason this side sits 20th, currently the worst side at this stage in PL history, is not because of VAR/Referees/The FA/Covid etc etc.

What I want to look at, is the claim from a few on here that the difference between last season and this is that SUFC 'Played attacking football'.
Lets have a look -

This season.

Goals Scored - 8 (20th in the League)
Shots Per game - 8.4 (19th in the League)
Shots on Target Per game - 2.8 (19th in the League)
Average Possession - 42.4% (18th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 75.8% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 7.1 (20th in the League)
Fouled per game - 7.4 (20th in the League)

It's fair to say that the above is exactly what you would expect, for a side that sits 20th with just 2 points after 17 games.
So let's compare that with last season, where a few on here suggested SUFC 'Played attacking football'.


Last season

Goals Scored - 39 (15th in the League)
Shots Per game - 9.3 (20th in the League)
Shots on Target per game - 3 (20th in the League)
Average Possession - 44.4% (17th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 74.4% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 9.1 (16th in the League)
Fouled per game - 8.1 (18th in the League)


The small differences, highlighted by the fact that the side last season was perhaps slightly more confident in their ability to try and take the ball and beat a man, represented by the increased number of dribbles, are nothing in comparison to the glaringly obvious similarities.

This side, both last season and this, does not have the attacking quality for this league.
The key difference, which made the side appear more 'attacking' last season, was the ability to defend better, to stay in games longer and concede less. Which meant that every created chance, despite being the worst 'attacking side' in the league, had more value.

GOod stuff mate.

It's fine margins isnt it. Last year we won by the odd goal, this season we are losing by the odd goal. The problem is we are scoring less and conceding more which makes our results and points look horrendous, when we arent that bad.

It's going to carry on though unless we either buy some more players or some how have an amazing cup run that increases our confidence.

Onwards and upwards.

 

[Foody]

Imho, there's a few flaws in the metrics you're using to measure attacking output. Shots and shots on target isn't really an accurate measure of how 'attacking' a team is. We know, even in our promotion seasons that we will only shoot from strong positions, which is a tactical decision. Other teams will happily shoot from range and encourage players to do so. We didn't have a high conversion rate because of world class strikers, it was due to these tactical decisions.

Even if you take the passing and possession matrix, again this ignores game state and defensive tactics. Last season we were solid enough defensively to allow teams greater possession when we were leading.

If you look at players average positions, xg and our statistics in the first half of games (when the score is still 0-0), there has been a definite regression.

I do agree that by far the biggest issue has been the change in our defensive ability. But, we have committed fewer men forward, have a less aggressive initial press and generally created less when the score is level. No surprise that this is largely due to our issues on the left side, where we were most creative last season. I'd personally argue that is due to not committing to overloads in the same way and noticeably less movement off the ball.

 

[S40BLADE]

The reason this side sits 20th, currently the worst side at this stage in PL history, is not because of VAR/Referees/The FA/Covid etc etc.

What I want to look at, is the claim from a few on here that the difference between last season and this is that SUFC 'Played attacking football'.
Lets have a look -

This season.

Goals Scored - 8 (20th in the League)
Shots Per game - 8.4 (19th in the League)
Shots on Target Per game - 2.8 (19th in the League)
Average Possession - 42.4% (18th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 75.8% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 7.1 (20th in the League)
Fouled per game - 7.4 (20th in the League)

It's fair to say that the above is exactly what you would expect, for a side that sits 20th with just 2 points after 17 games.
So let's compare that with last season, where a few on here suggested SUFC 'Played attacking football'.


Last season

Goals Scored - 39 (15th in the League)
Shots Per game - 9.3 (20th in the League)
Shots on Target per game - 3 (20th in the League)
Average Possession - 44.4% (17th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 74.4% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 9.1 (16th in the League)
Fouled per game - 8.1 (18th in the League)


The small differences, highlighted by the fact that the side last season was perhaps slightly more confident in their ability to try and take the ball and beat a man, represented by the increased number of dribbles, are nothing in comparison to the glaringly obvious similarities.

This side, both last season and this, does not have the attacking quality for this league.
The key difference, which made the side appear more 'attacking' last season, was the ability to defend better, to stay in games longer and concede less. Which meant that every created chance, despite being the worst 'attacking side' in the league, had more value.

Be wary most people are still ignorant to the awfully boring football we played through out 2020 as a whole. We we're only confident and looked capable of scoring during a run of form with Mousset and Didsy with everyone settled and riding momentum, After Brighton away however the style soon turned to shit. As you have said our defence carried us in alot of our positive results and outside of Chelsea and Spurs there was very few encouraging performances the entire year.

 

[Geordie Blade]

Two things I’d be interested in seeing:

1. The % attacks left vs right. We were a lot more balanced last season.

2. Instead of ‘this season’ vs ‘last season’, it would be better to look at ‘pre-covid’ and ‘post-covid’ because that’s where we see the cut-off in style/approach. I imagine the stats would show a clearer difference then.

 

[ATL Recs]

Two things I’d be interested in seeing:

1. The % attacks left vs right. We were a lot more balanced last season.

2. Instead of ‘this season’ vs ‘last season’, it would be better to look at ‘pre-covid’ and ‘post-covid’ because that’s where we see the cut-off in style/approach. I imagine the stats would show a clearer difference then.

Disagree mate our style started dipping at Christmas and results were being ground out with good defending and lots of luck - stuck out a mile at Palace

 

[CentralQuay]

Two things I’d be interested in seeing:

1. The % attacks left vs right. We were a lot more balanced last season.

2. Instead of ‘this season’ vs ‘last season’, it would be better to look at ‘pre-covid’ and ‘post-covid’ because that’s where we see the cut-off in style/approach. I imagine the stats would show a clearer difference then.

Firstly, lets ignore the argument of whether or not the side was more/less attacking after covid, neither of us have posted any evidence of that.


What is the relevancy?
Surely worse results since the Covid restart, suggest this side is severely limited in terms of quality, and is massively over reliant on momentum?

 

[Houston_Blade]

It's fine margins isnt it.

Chris, is that you? You missed out "we need to be better in both boxes" so it can't be

 

[Houston_Blade]

The reason this side sits 20th, currently the worst side at this stage in PL history, is not because of VAR/Referees/The FA/Covid etc etc.

What I want to look at, is the claim from a few on here that the difference between last season and this is that SUFC 'Played attacking football'.
Lets have a look -

This season.

Goals Scored - 8 (20th in the League)
Shots Per game - 8.4 (19th in the League)
Shots on Target Per game - 2.8 (19th in the League)
Average Possession - 42.4% (18th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 75.8% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 7.1 (20th in the League)
Fouled per game - 7.4 (20th in the League)

It's fair to say that the above is exactly what you would expect, for a side that sits 20th with just 2 points after 17 games.
So let's compare that with last season, where a few on here suggested SUFC 'Played attacking football'.


Last season

Goals Scored - 39 (15th in the League)
Shots Per game - 9.3 (20th in the League)
Shots on Target per game - 3 (20th in the League)
Average Possession - 44.4% (17th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 74.4% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 9.1 (16th in the League)
Fouled per game - 8.1 (18th in the League)


The small differences, highlighted by the fact that the side last season was perhaps slightly more confident in their ability to try and take the ball and beat a man, represented by the increased number of dribbles, are nothing in comparison to the glaringly obvious similarities.

This side, both last season and this, does not have the attacking quality for this league.
The key difference, which made the side appear more 'attacking' last season, was the ability to defend better, to stay in games longer and concede less. Which meant that every created chance, despite being the worst 'attacking side' in the league, had more value.

I wouldn't say we were more 'attacking' last season, I would say that we were more 'aggressive' though. We pressed harder and higher than we are this season.

 

[South stand tut]

The reason this side sits 20th, currently the worst side at this stage in PL history, is not because of VAR/Referees/The FA/Covid etc etc.

What I want to look at, is the claim from a few on here that the difference between last season and this is that SUFC 'Played attacking football'.
Lets have a look -

This season.

Goals Scored - 8 (20th in the League)
Shots Per game - 8.4 (19th in the League)
Shots on Target Per game - 2.8 (19th in the League)
Average Possession - 42.4% (18th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 75.8% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 7.1 (20th in the League)
Fouled per game - 7.4 (20th in the League)

It's fair to say that the above is exactly what you would expect, for a side that sits 20th with just 2 points after 17 games.
So let's compare that with last season, where a few on here suggested SUFC 'Played attacking football'.


Last season

Goals Scored - 39 (15th in the League)
Shots Per game - 9.3 (20th in the League)
Shots on Target per game - 3 (20th in the League)
Average Possession - 44.4% (17th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 74.4% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 9.1 (16th in the League)
Fouled per game - 8.1 (18th in the League)


The small differences, highlighted by the fact that the side last season was perhaps slightly more confident in their ability to try and take the ball and beat a man, represented by the increased number of dribbles, are nothing in comparison to the glaringly obvious similarities.

This side, both last season and this, does not have the attacking quality for this league.
The key difference, which made the side appear more 'attacking' last season, was the ability to defend better, to stay in games longer and concede less. Which meant that every created chance, despite being the worst 'attacking side' in the league, had more value.

Scored more , conceded less......who knew

 

[Jan Age]

The reason this side sits 20th, currently the worst side at this stage in PL history, is not because of VAR/Referees/The FA/Covid etc etc.

What I want to look at, is the claim from a few on here that the difference between last season and this is that SUFC 'Played attacking football'.
Lets have a look -

This season.

Goals Scored - 8 (20th in the League)
Shots Per game - 8.4 (19th in the League)
Shots on Target Per game - 2.8 (19th in the League)
Average Possession - 42.4% (18th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 75.8% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 7.1 (20th in the League)
Fouled per game - 7.4 (20th in the League)

It's fair to say that the above is exactly what you would expect, for a side that sits 20th with just 2 points after 17 games.
So let's compare that with last season, where a few on here suggested SUFC 'Played attacking football'.


Last season

Goals Scored - 39 (15th in the League)
Shots Per game - 9.3 (20th in the League)
Shots on Target per game - 3 (20th in the League)
Average Possession - 44.4% (17th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 74.4% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 9.1 (16th in the League)
Fouled per game - 8.1 (18th in the League)


The small differences, highlighted by the fact that the side last season was perhaps slightly more confident in their ability to try and take the ball and beat a man, represented by the increased number of dribbles, are nothing in comparison to the glaringly obvious similarities.

This side, both last season and this, does not have the attacking quality for this league.
The key difference, which made the side appear more 'attacking' last season, was the ability to defend better, to stay in games longer and concede less. Which meant that every created chance, despite being the worst 'attacking side' in the league, had more value.

Serves to highlight that something should have been done tactically to rectify these poor attacking stats.

 

[BlairBlade]

Disagree mate our style started dipping at Christmas and results were being ground out with good defending and lots of luck - stuck out a mile at Palace

Agree about the game at Palace.

 

[CornwallBlade]

Firstly, lets ignore the argument of whether or not the side was more/less attacking after covid, neither of us have posted any evidence of that.


What is the relevancy?
Surely worse results since the Covid restart, suggest this side is severely limited in terms of quality, and is massively over reliant on momentum?

Thanks for the effort in putting this together, it makes for interesting reading and a good discussion. I will say again that I’m deeply sceptical about the worth of the plethora of stats that are being thrown up these days because there are just too many nuances that aren’t included in the analysis. Let’s take a few
Passes completed - in which areas of the pitch?
Shots - from where?
Crosses into the box - again from where? 1 yard from the goal line is a lot different from 10 yards into the opposition half
Number of crosses won in the box
Number of attackers in the box when crosses are made?

I reckon it would be very easy to build a set of stats for us that look very similar to a team in the top 5 places - it’s the detail that matters.
Only two stats matter at the end of the day - goals for and goals against. Everything else just relates to the style in which those stats are formed. Obviously that will often reveal whether we are watching a Wenger team or an Allardyce one, but that is a separate argument.

 

[Working Class Hero]

I don't think most people would say we were much more attacking last season, although we were a bit. When people reference our old attacking style, the vast majority are talking about the three years previous to that when we played a number 10, in what was effectively a 3-4-3 formation.

 

[Wards]

We pressed about 20 yards higher up the pitch last season - have a look a the Burnley game at home for evidence. This season we have no confidence in the back 3 and as a result we've dropped back further and don't press with the same numbers or as high up the field.

 

[Badger Blade]

Big ones in our favour from last season were the fact that we earned 14 points from losing positions and kept 13 clean sheets. Take out Henderson and O'Connell and the goals started flowing.

Obviously now, once we concede, heads drop and the towel gets thrown in, the opposition only need to score one and they can go full Dyche/Mourinho on us and can defend all night and know we can't get near them. Hopefully the bit of fight we showed at the weekend and goals we scored can breed a bit of confidence

 

[Stretch]

Can't disagree with the numbers, but it's the change in tone and (presumably) mindset that has stood out for many of us.

Last season's message was that we aren't here to make up the numbers and that we shouldn't fear anyone.

This season's message seems to be that we can't go toe to toe with these bigger and better teams, and we should understand our place in the pecking order.

 

[Geordie Blade]

What is the relevancy?
Surely worse results since the Covid restart, suggest this side is severely limited in terms of quality, and is massively over reliant on momentum?

I wouldn't say "surely". That could be an explanation, but it could be any combination of:

• Loss of momentum
• New players not fitting the system
• New players not being as good as those that they replaced
• Ageing squad members
• Injuries
• Other team changing their tactics against us
• Subtle changes in our approach to games

So definitely not "surely" just down to momentum.

 

[Gimli]

Firstly, lets ignore the argument of whether or not the side was more/less attacking after covid, neither of us have posted any evidence of that.


What is the relevancy?
Surely worse results since the Covid restart, suggest this side is severely limited in terms of quality, and is massively over reliant on momentum?

I wouldn’t say it’s that bad, you’re only one point off the top of the premier league.

 

[CentralQuay]

I wouldn’t say it’s that bad, you’re only one point off the top of the premier league.

Were you the guy who last season told me the team that now sits 20th did not 'overachieve', and the side which now sits 2nd 'overachieved'?

 

[Champagneblade]

The reason this side sits 20th, currently the worst side at this stage in PL history, is not because of VAR/Referees/The FA/Covid etc etc.

What I want to look at, is the claim from a few on here that the difference between last season and this is that SUFC 'Played attacking football'.
Lets have a look -

This season.

Goals Scored - 8 (20th in the League)
Shots Per game - 8.4 (19th in the League)
Shots on Target Per game - 2.8 (19th in the League)
Average Possession - 42.4% (18th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 75.8% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 7.1 (20th in the League)
Fouled per game - 7.4 (20th in the League)

It's fair to say that the above is exactly what you would expect, for a side that sits 20th with just 2 points after 17 games.
So let's compare that with last season, where a few on here suggested SUFC 'Played attacking football'.


Last season

Goals Scored - 39 (15th in the League)
Shots Per game - 9.3 (20th in the League)
Shots on Target per game - 3 (20th in the League)
Average Possession - 44.4% (17th in the League)
Passing Accuracy - 74.4% (17th in the League)
Dribbles per game - 9.1 (16th in the League)
Fouled per game - 8.1 (18th in the League)


The small differences, highlighted by the fact that the side last season was perhaps slightly more confident in their ability to try and take the ball and beat a man, represented by the increased number of dribbles, are nothing in comparison to the glaringly obvious similarities.

This side, both last season and this, does not have the attacking quality for this league.
The key difference, which made the side appear more 'attacking' last season, was the ability to defend better, to stay in games longer and concede less. Which meant that every created chance, despite being the worst 'attacking side' in the league, had more value.

Good post.

It really is the absence of Jack O'Connell.

Losing the most irreplaceable player has impacted both boxes and the overall team balance for the midfield.

 

[CentralQuay]

Good post.

It really is the absence of Jack O'Connell.

Losing the most irreplaceable player has impacted both boxes and the overall team balance for the midfield.

I disagree, and think that is the weakest reason I keep seeing on here.

This side created the least chances in the league last season, with JOC present for 33 of 38 games.

 

[Champagneblade]

I disagree, and think that is the weakest reason I keep seeing on here.

This side created the least chances in the league last season, with JOC present for 33 of 38 games.

You seem to be looking for a reason to disagree. In fact what are you disagreeing?

It is the single most clear argument as far as I'm concerned. Just as Spurs were ineffective without Son and Kane and Man U stumbled without Rashford. Teams miss their best players and those around them are also affected.

If JOC were fit we would not be sat marooned as we currently are, just like we would not have ended post lockdown in such poor form. He's our best player.

Football is a combination of defence and attack. You don't have to be the best at attacking if you are solid at defending. You just have to have a suitable balance between the two. We've lost games by odd goals all season that a marginal uptick in defence would have dramatically changed.

With Jack O'Connell in the team, we were one of the best at defending and had a flat goal difference. Without him we haven't kept a clean sheet. For all the obvious Henderson / Ramsdale comparisons, Henderson faced few shots at his goal. Ramsdale has made more saves than anyone.

What is your conclusion? The balance of defensive/offensive capabilities has shifted this term. You can conclude the 'weak' attack has been exposed. But it is only exposed because it's supportive partner, the defence is far weaker and that is because the best player is injured.

 

[CentralQuay]

You seem to be looking for a reason to disagree. In fact what are you disagreeing?

It is the single most clear argument as far as I'm concerned. Just as Spurs were ineffective without Son and Kane and Man U stumbled without Rashford. Teams miss their best players and those around them are also affected.

If JOC were fit we would not be sat marooned as we currently are, just like we would not have ended post lockdown in such poor form. He's our best player.

Football is a combination of defence and attack. You don't have to be the best at attacking if you are solid at defending. You just have to have a suitable balance between the two. We've lost games by odd goals all season that a marginal uptick in defence would have dramatically changed.

With Jack O'Connell in the team, we were one of the best at defending and had a flat goal difference. Without him we haven't kept a clean sheet. For all the obvious Henderson / Ramsdale comparisons, Henderson hardly faced few shots at his goal. Ramsdale has made more saves than anyone.

What is your conclusion?

Liverpool/Leicester have been without both more players, and better players, yet that hasn't damaged them anywhere near as severely.
Van Dijk/Gomez and Soyuncu/Pereira, yet they sit 1st and 3rd respectively.


The conclusion is relatively simple.
The players are not good enough for this level.


Choose 1 player from any side in this league, take him out for the whole season, and none of them become the 'Worst side in Premier League History'.

 

[Champagneblade]

Liverpool/Leicester have been without both more players, and better players, yet that hasn't damaged them anywhere near as severely.
Van Dijk/Gomez and Soyuncu/Pereira, yet they sit 1st and 3rd respectively.


The conclusion is relatively simple.
The players are not good enough for this level.


Choose 1 player from any side in this league, take him out for the whole season, and none of them become the 'Worst side in Premier League History'.

Liverpool and Leicester may have been without better players, I don't know, I don't follow them.

In my opinion you will struggle to find a more crucial player to be without. The entire system functions on the basis of patterns of play created by Basham and O'Connell's role within the team. Not just overlapping, overloading but also the balance that United can switch play and offer similar threats on either flank where Norwood can switch play. There are no other players on the books who combine their attributes and can fill in. This also negates Norwood's effectiveness as he has half the options.

Without one of the two, the team is like a bird with a broken wing. Playing our own unique system we can compete. Playing half a system or being forced to adopt someone else's we struggle.

We have always been about the whole being greater than the sum of it's parts under Wilder.

If we had time and spent money we don't have then perhaps we could have somehow mended this. As it is, we are not that type of club, so we rely on backups that are not of sufficient quality because the club has advanced so quickly and beyond the first XI there is a big drop off.

 

[Blade1959]

Liverpool/Leicester have been without both more players, and better players, yet that hasn't damaged them anywhere near as severely.
Van Dijk/Gomez and Soyuncu/Pereira, yet they sit 1st and 3rd respectively.


The conclusion is relatively simple.
The players are not good enough for this level.


Choose 1 player from any side in this league, take him out for the whole season, and none of them become the 'Worst side in Premier League History'.

We certainly don’t need a Leicester City “fan” coming on here and reminding us about being the “worst side in premier league history “ at every opportunity. We know all too well we are doing badly
As far as missing Jack O’Connell it is a fact and has in no doubt impacted our season, just because a Leicester fan says it hasn’t doesn’t alter that fact!

 

[CentralQuay]

We certainly don’t need a Leicester City “fan” coming on here and reminding us about being the “worst side in premier league history “ at every opportunity. We know all too well we are doing badly
As far as missing Jack O’Connell it is a fact and has in no doubt impacted our season, just because a Leicester fan says it hasn’t doesn’t alter that fact!

You have only ever read 1 of my posts, thats the only reason you can be so wrong.

 

[Barney Rubble]

Liverpool/Leicester have been without both more players, and better players, yet that hasn't damaged them anywhere near as severely.
Van Dijk/Gomez and Soyuncu/Pereira, yet they sit 1st and 3rd respectively.


The conclusion is relatively simple.
The players are not good enough for this level.


Choose 1 player from any side in this league, take him out for the whole season, and none of them become the 'Worst side in Premier League History'.

Newcastle and Saint-Maximin after what I've seen tonight.

 

[CentralQuay]

Newcastle and Saint-Maximin after what I've seen tonight.

They've already taken 9 points without him.

 

[Foody]

I disagree, and think that is the weakest reason I keep seeing on here.

This side created the least chances in the league last season, with JOC present for 33 of 38 games.

We didn't 'create the least chances'. We had the fewest shots, which isn't a great metric to be using tbh. If you look at out xg we were 15th, not great but certainly not the sitsry in the league. If you look at big chances created we were joint 9th (same as Arsenal).

We've never been a team that shoot on sight, largely because it's very rarely the option that's most likely to result in a goal.