The stats

[TomThumb84]

13 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Football has evolved almost beyond recognition including the amount of different stats that are available these days.

Now I think that individual player stats recorded in each game ( that we fans are not privy to ) are a wonderful addition to the beautiful game and of tremendous benefit to all concerned but I don’t believe for one second that Deano and his staff bother to look at the overall match stats, possession , shots on target etc etc to know what they’d  all seen with their own eyes and why I think  there pretty meaningless. Can anyone convince me that overall match stats actually matter?

We all know that the only match stat that matters is goals for and goals conceded.

Ok, seeing as you responded, I will have a quick go.

The basic rule of numbers and probability means the more a set of variables happens, then the more likely an outcome is over a period of time.

In this instance (football) and using last night as an example - over a period of time, the more a team has the football (possession), the more likely they are to produce a shot at goal (shots on target), and over time the more goals they are likely to score (goals).

There will be times of course when this does not apply, but not consistently over a period of time - hence why stats matter, and it is almost certain that Dean and his team analyse these in depth, both his team, other teams and individuals.

I don’t think I can make it any more simple without appearing patronising.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Phileas Fogg said:

Winning obviously great, but the stats are concerning. Stats tend to be a good indicator of longer term results too. My concern is that we are effectively papering over the cracks with these sort of wins.

Every point counts I suppose.. 

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Do they? 

Stats are different every match and are pretty meaningless. All last night stats did was confirm what we all knew that Huddersfield had more possession and shots on target but which team won the game?

 

1 hour ago, bcfcfinker said:

I sort of agree but currently this view isn't supported.

Dean's winning stats, irrespective of what people think otherwise, are quite impressive.
This tends of negate the 'longer term' argument.
However, stuff like this needs to be broken down into chunks of say 5 to 10 games and injuries do need to be taken into account.
It all comes down to context and considering other feed in factors to results.

I make no apologies for linking this video!.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Ankersen

Whether you are into stats or not, this is the guy has been part of Brentford’s success:

27 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Football has evolved almost beyond recognition including the amount of different stats that are available these days.

Now I think that individual player stats recorded in each game ( that we fans are not privy to ) are a wonderful addition to the beautiful game and of tremendous benefit to all concerned but I don’t believe for one second that Deano and his staff bother to look at the overall match stats, possession , shots on target etc etc to know what they’d  all seen with their own eyes and why I think  there pretty meaningless. Can anyone convince me that overall match stats actually matter?

We all know that the only match stat that matters is goals for and goals conceded.

You’d be wrong then, will form a big part of their post-match debrief with the performance analysts.  Dean has told us that himself.  They view the stats, little video clips of patterns etc.  This is football in the 21st century!

[ExiledAjax]

40 minutes ago, TomThumb84 said:

Ok, seeing as you responded, I will have a quick go.

The basic rule of numbers and probability means the more a set of variables happens, then the more likely an outcome is over a period of time.

In this instance (football) and using last night as an example - over a period of time, the more a team has the football (possession), the more likely they are to produce a shot at goal (shots on target), and over time the more goals they are likely to score (goals).

There will be times of course when this does not apply, but not consistently over a period of time - hence why stats matter, and it is almost certain that Dean and his team analyse these in depth, both his team, other teams and individuals.

I don’t think I can make it any more simple without appearing patronising.

Couldn't explain it better myself.

[BigTone]

14 hours ago, Bassomylord said:

pretty shocking.

The only stat that really matters is the first one showing we scored more than them.

[TomThumb84]

5 minutes ago, BigTone said:

The only stat that really matters is the first one showing we scored more than them.

That stat is less likely to happen if all the other contributing stats remain the same.

You will not find many teams losing with the set of stats that Huddersfield were allowed.

[Bassomylord]

6 minutes ago, BigTone said:

The only stat that really matters is the first one showing we scored more than them.

Thanks for that enlightening insight Tony.

[BigTone]

8 minutes ago, Bassomylord said:

Thanks for that enlightening insight Tony.

I do my best

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Football has evolved almost beyond recognition including the amount of different stats that are available these days.

Now I think that individual player stats recorded in each game ( that we fans are not privy to ) are a wonderful addition to the beautiful game and of tremendous benefit to all concerned but I don’t believe for one second that Deano and his staff bother to look at the overall match stats, possession , shots on target etc etc to know what they’d  all seen with their own eyes and why I think  there pretty meaningless. Can anyone convince me that overall match stats actually matter?

We all know that the only match stat that matters is goals for and goals conceded.

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/numbers-game-huddersfield-town-h-1/

But they're on the OS so must hold some weight.

On another point, here's a visual indication (some people find pictures easier) of the siege Huddersfield laid on our goal. Each step up the line is a shot. 

[Robbored]

7 minutes ago, BigTone said:

I do my best

So do I Tone but some posters seem to want to ridicule my point of view...............It goes all the way back to the days when I was slagging off GJ for producing crap football,.................

[Tonks55]

To ignore the fact that we won last night 2-1, when all the statistics said that we should have lost, is ignoring the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach. If we were to play like we did last night, reproducing the same set of ‘poor statistics’ in the next 10 games (say) then we would lose the vast majority of those games. Put differently, we would be’ lucky ‘to win more than 1 game with such a skewed set of statistics!

I agree that ultimately the only statistic that matters, at the end of one game, is the final score. However if your objective is to improve your team’s performance over time then you need to look at all measures and not conclude that as you won 2-1 there is nothing to be learnt from that game.  

The one measure that concerns me is the number of shots taken or more precisely the number of shots on target. We consistently have a lower number than our opponents. As an old friend put it ‘If you don’t buy a raffle ticket, you don’t win a prize’!

The question is whether our low number of shots is ‘due to the coaching’ or the ‘strategy we set out with, in a game’ or whether it is down to the fact that the players chosen aren’t good enough to create the opening where a shot can be taken.

I think that most of us believe that our squad, even with the horrific number of injuries, is good enough to be  competitive in this division, so that only leaves one answer?

[TomThumb84]

12 minutes ago, Robbored said:

So do I Tone but some posters seem to want to ridicule my point of view...............It goes all the way back to the days when I was slagging off GJ for producing crap football,.................

I’m not sure ridicule is the right word, but your stance around ignoring statistics, that our Head Coach and his team do not look at them, and that formations do not matter in football when posting on a football forum, and the entire history of football pointing to the exact opposite of your statements, probably will provoke an adverse reaction.

The signals are, that if you were leading a football team, you would send them out with no formation, and would not pay any attention to a body of data from history in order to learn moving forward.

Ridicule - no, but I am not sure how much credibility you hope to attach to your posts around this.

[IAmNick]

Ah, the old "I don't understand something so therefor it must be wrong/useless" argument, classic.

[Bassomylord]

6 minutes ago, Tonks55 said:

To ignore the fact that we won last night 2-1, when all the statistics said that we should have lost, is ignoring the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach. If we were to play like we did last night, reproducing the same set of ‘poor statistics’ in the next 10 games (say) then we would lose the vast majority of those games. Put differently, we would be’ lucky ‘to win more than 1 game with such a skewed set of statistics!

I agree that ultimately the only statistic that matters, at the end of one game, is the final score. However if your objective is to improve your team’s performance over time then you need to look at all measures and not conclude that as you won 2-1 there is nothing to be learnt from that game.  

The one measure that concerns me is the number of shots taken or more precisely the number of shots on target. We consistently have a lower number than our opponents. As an old friend put it ‘If you don’t buy a raffle ticket, you don’t win a prize’!

The question is whether our low number of shots is ‘due to the coaching’ or the ‘strategy we set out with, in a game’ or whether it is down to the fact that the players chosen aren’t good enough to create the opening where a shot can be taken.

I think that most of us believe that our squad, even with the horrific number of injuries, is good enough to be  competitive in this division, so that only leaves one answer?

Very well put.

[Simon79]

It’s why a lot of coaches talk about performance, in fact it was something SOD often talked about & got slated for. Fans wanted points & wins, which while I can understand, it is a short term view. If you perform consistently well but also know how to battle a win ( like last night ), then great, all the top teams can do that. But what is for sure though, if we continue to play in that way, another Norwich result will quickly follow. COYR 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

Football has evolved almost beyond recognition including the amount of different stats that are available these days.

Now I think that individual player stats recorded in each game ( that we fans are not privy to ) are a wonderful addition to the beautiful game and of tremendous benefit to all concerned but I don’t believe for one second that Deano and his staff bother to look at the overall match stats, possession , shots on target etc etc to know what they’d  all seen with their own eyes and why I think  there pretty meaningless. Can anyone convince me that overall match stats actually matter?

We all know that the only match stat that matters is goals for and goals conceded.

Stats should not be meaningless. Players should have expectations in roles. Stats can be used to identify roles. A central midfielders role can be to receive, retain/reset possession and repeat. That is the role. If a player only does this x times a game at x times accuracy he is failing succeeding.

You mind and mine will have bias and your mind and mine will have behaviours (anger/discomfort) that will even affect your eyesight. We also all project, nobody wants to be proved wrong and our behaviours reflect this. We remember what we want and what is necessary as that is how we are wired until we train ourselves to do otherwise.

Watch a tape of a game and we all have a view, its rarely the same (Otib?). 

Stats can assist and combat the above. The best in the land and all use them because they are not meaningless.  

 

 

 

[ExiledAjax]

27 minutes ago, Tonks55 said:

The one measure that concerns me is the number of shots taken or more precisely the number of shots on target. We consistently have a lower number than our opponents. As an old friend put it ‘If you don’t buy a raffle ticket, you don’t win a prize’!

The question is whether our low number of shots is ‘due to the coaching’ or the ‘strategy we set out with, in a game’ or whether it is down to the fact that the players chosen aren’t good enough to create the opening where a shot can be taken.

The fact that this season we are seeing stats in these areas almost in line with what we saw last season suggests to me that it's coaching and tactics.

Our only saving grace is that although we take fewer shots, those we do take are of a higher quality than average. That's why we're still managing to score a reasonable number of goals.

 

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, Cowshed said:

Stats should not be meaningless. Players should have expectations in roles. Stats can be used to identify roles. A central midfielders role can be to receive, retain/reset possession and repeat. That is the role. If a player only does this x times a game at x times accuracy he is failing succeeding.

You mind and mine will have bias and your mind and mine will have behaviours (anger/discomfort) that will even affect your eyesight. We also all project, nobody wants to be proved wrong and our behaviours reflect this. We remember what we want and what is necessary as that is how we are wired until we train ourselves to do otherwise.

Watch a tape of a game and we all have a view, its rarely the same (Otib?). 

Stats can assist and combat the above. The best in the land and all use them because they are not meaningless.  

 

Individual players stats are extremely useful - not just the ones we see on the OS but the complex stats that we fans are not privy to - they’re even more important.

By ‘beef’ if you like is that the overall match stats are unnecessary. They confirm  you what already thought and saw. We knew that the Terriers had more possession and shots on target and the overall match stats simply quantify them. 

What they don’t tell you is how/why those stats came about - that’s why each game is analysed by the coaches with the  players. No doubt that’ll happened today. 

[Cowshed]

6 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Individual players stats are extremely useful - not just the ones we see on the OS but the complex stats that we fans are not privy to - they’re even more important.

By ‘beef’ if you like is that the overall match stats are unnecessary. They confirm  you what already thought and saw. We knew that the Terriers had more possession and shots on target and the overall match stats simply quantify them. 

What they don’t tell you is how/why those stats came about - that’s why each game is analysed by the coaches with the  players. No doubt that’ll happened today. 

Yes.

Do you really know what you know? Frequently what we thought is incorrect. 

We knew that the Terriers had more possession .. What type? And where?

Shots .. What type and where? 

What they don’t tell you is how/why those stats came about .. Often they will = you do that that many times that has to be a normal consequence, but combined with other tools stats should create clear pictures - We have divergent learning styles so data in differing forms is necessary.   

[mossey]

15 hours ago, TomThumb84 said:

There seems to be a bit of a “you cannot criticise the tactics or the performance, without hating Bristol City and want them to lose” mentality developing on here.

I love this club with a passion and have done for 35 years and always will but I am very concerned with the pattern of performance recently and tonights match stats may go against the result, but its not sustainable to play like that.

I think everyone on here wants success for the club for personal, collective and sentimental reasons, but we also need to be considered and objective in our critique.

To win a game with those stats for a side with serious top 6 aspirations (and a stated public objective) is very unusual, even more so at home against a bottom half team in awful form.

Our approach from the second goal onwards was bordering desperation.

I’m sorry but it is true.

I said it before, but Holden is lucky that there’s no fans in the ground, imagine how they would have been watching an hour of backs to the wall, and hanging on to win the game, think we’ve been there many times before under both Johnson’s. I’ve even stopped watching it on Robins tv now, boring and predictable, rather watch re runs of NCIS, that’s how sad it is.

[Clutton Caveman]

16 hours ago, Bassomylord said:

pretty shocking.

Talking of stats (at which I am awful) I would love some of our stats savvy members to take a look at stats relating to our first 30 mins of games and the remaining minutes.

I really think that we are just not fit enough or over trained and so without energy. Last night for the first 30mins we pressed aggressively, won all second balls, ran off the ball, and looked great.

At about the 30 min mark the wheels fell off. Young players like Bakinson and Vyner looked out on their feet. We could blame this on the number of games but that is the same for all teams.

We just don't seem to be able to keep a high tempo for 90 mins.

 

[Swede]

16 hours ago, Malago said:

We scored one more goal than they did.  That’s the only stat that matters sunshine.

We'll, actually it's not. Short term is fine because we somehow got the three points but long term we are in trouble with his coaching methods.

They were streets ahead of us last night.

At this level don't you think we should at the very least have a similar amount of posession, or corners or shots.

I would expect those stats if we were playing Premier League opposition, not a team from the same league in an inferior position and on a poor run to us in the league.

We have good players and a mediocre coach. We're lucky we have Bents, Mawson & Kalas otherwise we'd be up 5hit creek by now.

They changed their formation and tactics after going 2:0 and played us off the park. All the head coach did was take off attackers and midfielders and replace them with defenders and stuck the less than mobile Martin up front on his own.

We will not get away with this shambolic coaching in every match. 

It simply isn't good enough.

[Clutton Caveman]

36 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Yes.

Do you really know what you know? Frequently what we thought is incorrect. 

We knew that the Terriers had more possession .. What type? And where?

Shots .. What type and where? 

What they don’t tell you is how/why those stats came about .. Often they will = you do that that many times that has to be a normal consequence, but combined with other tools stats should create clear pictures - We have divergent learning styles so data in differing forms is necessary.   

They did hit the bar and the post so the shots were pretty good

[Gazred]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I make no apologies for linking this video!.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Ankersen

Whether you are into stats or not, this is the guy has been part of Brentford’s success:

You’d be wrong then, will form a big part of their post-match debrief with the performance analysts.  Dean has told us that himself.  They view the stats, little video clips of patterns etc.  This is football in the 21st century!

Thanks Dave, that was fascinating.

The Newcastle example was perfect for demonstrating that. 

I do take a look at our present GD and see a lot of similarities there.

When we made the PO final in 08, didn't we have a negative or perhaps +1 or 2 GD? Far inferior to those around us.

[Clutton Caveman]

16 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

There's no way on god's earth you control possession, or dominate a game, by picking Vyner, Bakinson, Palmer and Semenyo as your midfield. 

We did for the first 30 mins when they were energetic

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

https://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/numbers-game-huddersfield-town-h-1/

But they're on the OS so must hold some weight.

On another point, here's a visual indication (some people find pictures easier) of the siege Huddersfield laid on our goal. Each step up the line is a shot. 

I love these from Ben at E361....I don’t use them for the actual xG but for the timeline aspect which as you say shows they constantly created chances from the moment we went 2-0 up.

1 hour ago, Robbored said:

So do I Tone but some posters seem to want to ridicule my point of view...............It goes all the way back to the days when I was slagging off GJ for producing crap football,.................

I wasn’t on here then, only been posting about 5/6 years, but you sometimes don’t help yourself when you make statements like above, because it will have been pointed out to you several times in the past that what you’ve stated is not the case.  I don’t ridicule you, but you do make me laugh sometimes, and therefore you’ll get a slightly tongue in cheek response from me.

18 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

Talking of stats (at which I am awful) I would love some of our stats savvy members to take a look at stats relating to our first 30 mins of games and the remaining minutes.

I really think that we are just not fit enough or over trained and so without energy. Last night for the first 30mins we pressed aggressively, won all second balls, ran off the ball, and looked great.

At about the 30 min mark the wheels fell off. Young players like Bakinson and Vyner looked out on their feet. We could blame this on the number of games but that is the same for all teams.

We just don't seem to be able to keep a high tempo for 90 mins.

 

I can break data down by 15 minute chunks on Wyscout, but it’s difficult to know what data to pull.  Physical data I don’t have I’m afraid.

13 minutes ago, Gazred said:

Thanks Dave, that was fascinating.

The Newcastle example was perfect for demonstrating that. 

I do take a look at our present GD and see a lot of similarities there.

When we made the PO final in 08, didn't we have a negative or perhaps +1 or 2 GD? Far inferior to those around us.

It’s why I use it to explain....beyond the obvious goals for and against in a game, the correlation between GD and league position is pretty strong.  There will be outliers....Us in 07/08, Huddersfield when they fit to the Prem, but it’s a good marker for team position.

We generally have lots of close games, we rarely stuff a team, we rarely get stuffed....but if you couple our level GD against position, we are above expectations....and like Newcastle are we about to descend?

[Gazred]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

 

It’s why I use it to explain....beyond the obvious goals for and against in a game, the correlation between GD and league position is pretty strong.  There will be outliers....Us in 07/08, Huddersfield when they fit to the Prem, but it’s a good marker for team position.

We generally have lots of close games, we rarely stuff a team, we rarely get stuffed....but if you couple our level GD against position, we are above expectations....and like Newcastle are we about to descend?

I wish i hadn't watched it now!

We have lost more, scored fewer than any of the current top 10. And only Reading have conceded more 28 to our 27.

After watching that I'll say we would be lucky to reach the playoffs and we are perhaps lucky to be where we are now.

Could well be the warning signs are there. Hopefully we don't offer Holden an 8 year contract if we do finish top 6...sorry Dean!

[Hampshire Red]

Why does supper only think about Brentford - has she already written her criticisms? We play at Derby before then so maybe a chance to say something complimentary about a team some people on this forum support.

Do you know any proper football fans / supporters who go to games? When you find them ask them if they like anything better than a 'backs to the wall' defensive display where the home team have all the stats but Bristol City win 1-0 away. 

FFS the only stats that matter are in the final score and the emotional enjoyment varies amongst all of us; apart from people who may only be happy with 25 shots!!

 

[Jerseybean]

23 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

Saturday 4 shots on target = 3 goals, tonight 2 shots on target = 2 goals! As the home team we didn’t even win a corner while they managed 13! 

After half an hour tonight was pretty much attack against defence. With thanks to some good defending and some very good fortune somehow we hung on. Delighted by three points but remain seriously concerned by our stats and style of play.   
 

 

We are in good company - tonight (home against Brentford) Swansea had one shot on target and one corner! 

[Numero Uno]

7 hours ago, Swede said:

We'll, actually it's not. Short term is fine because we somehow got the three points but long term we are in trouble with his coaching methods.

They were streets ahead of us last night.

At this level don't you think we should at the very least have a similar amount of posession, or corners or shots.

I would expect those stats if we were playing Premier League opposition, not a team from the same league in an inferior position and on a poor run to us in the league.

We have good players and a mediocre coach. We're lucky we have Bents, Mawson & Kalas otherwise we'd be up 5hit creek by now.

They changed their formation and tactics after going 2:0 and played us off the park. All the head coach did was take off attackers and midfielders and replace them with defenders and stuck the less than mobile Martin up front on his own.

We will not get away with this shambolic coaching in every match. 

It simply isn't good enough.

I thought we have three coaches or do Simpson and Downing just stand there and do sod all?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I make no apologies for linking this video!.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Ankersen

Whether you are into stats or not, this is the guy has been part of Brentford’s success:

You’d be wrong then, will form a big part of their post-match debrief with the performance analysts.  Dean has told us that himself.  They view the stats, little video clips of patterns etc.  This is football in the 21st century!

An interesting vid and well presented.

For those who would like to take it one step further and like a good read:
https://soccerment.com/the-importance-of-football-analytics/

A question might be, will this drive to analytics in footy be as effective as other sports?
I think the vid might give some insight to this i.e. footy is a low scoring game, and by the looks of it, this introduces a high degree of randomness.
This is not to say it won't be effective, maybe more a case of, don't expect miracles or silver bullets.
Some non football people will make a lot of money out of it though, especially if they can get their 'algorithms' right.