Early Season Data

[Davefevs]

Not meant to be at all defining, but thought I’d share.  Two games is a crap sample, but hey-ho.

the big thing for me is the obvious attempt to evolve us into a more passing / possession side than last season. Almost 60 passes per game more (17.7% up) at 85.6% accuracy (12% up).  Of course some of that increase will be down to “fancying around” passes at the back, but there were plenty of those last season too, before the hoof!!!  But possession up too, ought to see benefits over a season too if it continues.

Data from Wyscout .

Other interesting stuff.  We were one if the bottom three teams for stringing together sequences of 10+ passes last season.  This season:

Now we are top third.  Will be interesting to see if we can keep this up?

In the next pic, you can see we are a bit more intricate in our build up.  We were in the top left quadrant last season.

Finally, how much if the pitch are we “controlling”?  Definitions are in the key to the left.

We are controlling 19 of the 30 areas holding 3 and losing 8, we were controlling significantly less than half last season.

Dara from Opta .

Then moving onto individuals, Sunderland match only.  Here is GK, DEF and MID pass maps.  Definitely a move towards shorter passing.

Data from Wyscout (again) :

As per my opening sentence, not trying to draw too many conclusions from this.  Still need to concede less shots, and stop conceding multiple chances in a short period of time, e.g. 3 chances in a couple of minutes.  But I do think we are evolving our style…and a bit of patience is required.

Coventry on Wednesday at Burton might see something different, as Cov pass it more / control games more than Sunderland and Hull. But both line-ups could be very different.

 

Any comments / questions welcome.

 

[ExiledAjax]

5 hours ago, Davefevs said:

the obvious attempt to evolve us into a more passing / possession side than last season. Almost 60 passes per game more (17.7% up) at 85.6% accuracy (12% up).  Of course some of that increase will be down to “fancying around” passes at the back, but there were plenty of those last season too, before the hoof!!!

Yeh, I picked up on the clear and consistent (as much as consistency can be shown over 2 games) increase in passing. Thanks for going into more detail though, it's useful to see the types of passes, length of sequence stuff as well.

As it is we saw in the Sunderland game how it can be a double-edged sword. When we were on top there were a few excellent, incisive passages of forward passing that took us up the pitch quickly. 

Equally when Sunderland came out in the second half and pressed us higher up the pitch that short passing became a liability. Their press, combined with our attempt to continue short passing, meant we lost possession in our own third on more than one occasion. IMO that was a time to switch back to some longer balls and bypass the press by going over it.

If we can develop that ability to be adaptable and turn this impressive short passing on and off as needed, then it has the potential to become a single-edged katana that cuts through poor defences.

[pongo88]

I may be reading this incorrectly, but the charts with blue, grey and red squares show that City control more of the pitch than Sunderland. If I have read it correctly, it seems to indicate that raw data doesn’t always tell the true picture as City has lost both matches so far and Sunderland have won both. Hull away may have been a bit unlucky but Sunderland deserved the win on Saturday 

[Mendip City]

2 hours ago, pongo88 said:

I may be reading this incorrectly, but the charts with blue, grey and red squares show that City control more of the pitch than Sunderland. If I have read it correctly, it seems to indicate that raw data doesn’t always tell the true picture as City has lost both matches so far and Sunderland have won both. Hull away may have been a bit unlucky but Sunderland deserved the win on Saturday 

I guess only eyes can tell whether the possession is useful or not? We certainly controlled/we well on top of parts of both games but did little with it. Both Hull and Sunderland had spells in command and punished us. 
 

from those pass charts it’s  interesting (if I’m reading correctly) how many forward passes from Naismith and Vyner. Atkinson seems to often go square or backwards. 
Also Sykes  passes seem to be short and backwards in forward positions. If we’re playing wingbacks high up the field they need to getting the ball into dangerous areas…. But that needs their colleagues to also be in those dangerous areas to receive the ball. 
 

Two games, two defeats and a lack presence/physicality and character is the “eye data” I’d take away from the games so far. 
it’s got a bit of a SOD feel to me. All the talk about off field and reorganisation and changing and somewhere down the line it will improve, whilst the first XI aren’t producing the goods. Trouble is back then we would afford relegation without ruining the club… not sure that’s the case now. 

[GrahamC]

Interesting stuff & whilst not able to totally appreciate the more technical aspects, it is obvious we are trying to evolve.

There was a brilliant move in the first half involving Vyner, Scott & a couple of others that cut Sunderland open with slick, first time passes that was light years away from last season.

Here comes the “however” though, there is still too much conservative, directionless passing for me that certainly keeps possession but doesn’t either look to create an opening or to make the opposition work.

Beyond that & looking at the bigger picture, even 2 games in if we don’t significantly reduce the goals conceded we are in for another bottom six scrap & Pearson’s comments afterwards about potentially changing the way we play “to be more messy & ugly to get results” suggests he knows this.

John Mortimer wrote a brilliant novel called Paradise Postponed & I do wonder how much stomach everyone has for potentially yet another season of struggle, Gould’s comments today suggest FFP is an ever bigger problem for us than even a pessimist (realist?) like me has been banging on about, but not everyone wants to bother with the big picture when you’re bottom four & struggling against the likes of Birmingham, do they?

[1960maaan]

I thought the start at Hull was promising.
The rotation of James and Williams coming short, Atkinson and Vyner going wide for space. But we seemed to struggle 2nd half with the changes. Home games will be slightly different. I thought Sunderland seemed to fill the space and close well. Naismith had nearly got caught on the ball at Hull, he did Vs Sunderland, that is a concern. I didn't think the passing was as good, but then I don't think HNM is a natural in that deeper role, maybe King would have been a better fit but might not have been around or ready at short notice.

I'm not convinced about Pearson's Subs. Ending up with 4 strikers but not dominating midfield seems pointless. Not getting fresh legs on in MF at Hull seemed madness.
That said, a poor mistake, poor Reffing and a mad deflection has really coloured how we look at our start. Even the team has been forced to change. Sykes was brilliant at Hull, but we had set up with Wilson & Tanner all pre season. James had looked good, late change forced HNM into a role that IMO is not his best. I think it was important to change out style, to keep the ball better. But with that brings the possibility of mistakes.
I think we need to start Klose , maybe see how close Kalas is. That Klose/Kalas/Naisith back 3 looks an interesting prospect.

It will be interesting to revisit this with 5-10 gone.

[Baba Yaga]

My question would be are Massengo's passing numbers unusually low or is it quite common that one cm gets numbers like that for some games? Appreciate he didn't play 90 mins and was playing deep quite a lot but imagine things would look a lot different with James in the team or even King.

[IAmNick]

36 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I thought the start at Hull was promising.
The rotation of James and Williams coming short, Atkinson and Vyner going wide for space. But we seemed to struggle 2nd half with the changes. Home games will be slightly different. I thought Sunderland seemed to fill the space and close well. Naismith had nearly got caught on the ball at Hull, he did Vs Sunderland, that is a concern. I didn't think the passing was as good, but then I don't think HNM is a natural in that deeper role, maybe King would have been a better fit but might not have been around or ready at short notice.

I'm not convinced about Pearson's Subs. Ending up with 4 strikers but not dominating midfield seems pointless. Not getting fresh legs on in MF at Hull seemed madness.
That said, a poor mistake, poor Reffing and a mad deflection has really coloured how we look at our start. Even the team has been forced to change. Sykes was brilliant at Hull, but we had set up with Wilson & Tanner all pre season. James had looked good, late change forced HNM into a role that IMO is not his best. I think it was important to change out style, to keep the ball better. But with that brings the possibility of mistakes.
I think we need to start Klose , maybe see how close Kalas is. That Klose/Kalas/Naisith back 3 looks an interesting prospect.

It will be interesting to revisit this with 5-10 gone.

My assumption for the logic from the subs (and I'm generally not a fan of simply piling on strikers either) was that Sunderland were pressing us higher up the pitch, so in response we wanted to skip the middle third and play longer to the strikers, rather than try and contest a lost battle in the middle. It seemed like Scott then started coming really deep - which isn't really where you want him, unless he's trying to play longer or through balls maybe?

I don't know if it was a good plan, or if that even was the plan, but that's all I could think of.

On the graphics above, I like the one showing we're controlling higher up on each side, but the very noticeable red area just inside of half. That certainly reflects what I've seen, and is definitely one of the areas we completely lost control of on Saturday.

Edited August 9, 2022 by IAmNick

[Zookeeper WSM]

Thanks for this Dave - really interesting. Is this information freely available from Opta / Wyscout or do you have a subscription for this?

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, pongo88 said:

I may be reading this incorrectly, but the charts with blue, grey and red squares show that City control more of the pitch than Sunderland. If I have read it correctly, it seems to indicate that raw data doesn’t always tell the true picture as City has lost both matches so far and Sunderland have won both. Hull away may have been a bit unlucky but Sunderland deserved the win on Saturday 

The charts are both games combined…

…my interpretation of this is that “control” probably isn’t a great term to use.  If I take both games we have controlled possession in periods, but we are still easily broken down defensively (as a team), hence why we concede chances.

We might have 75% “control” in an area of the pitch (in that graphic), but if the opponent create 2 or 3 chances from their 25% Im not sure “control” really builds the picture.

Does that make sense.  If they called it “possession / touches” I think it’s much easier to interpret…

….and as we know “possession wins eff-all”.

So, you could argue we’ve been less efficient with our possession.

I still think there are lots of metrics out there (other than the scoreline) that suggest “they deserved to win” is not black and white.  Both games so far had we come away with two draws, I think that was nearer the case…imho.

But if you hand a team an opening goal like we did…and scoring from it with a 22 yarder, a low percentage shot, the balance of chances / shots / scenarios created was pretty even imho.  Dasilva left footer, Martin left footer cleared off the line, Wilson at back post which inadvertently set up Atkinson were as good if not better than anything Sunderland conjured up, bar the Simms shot fantastically saved by Bentley.

I think it is human nature to be more worried when our opponent attacks than when we do.  I’ve seen people say we obviously put them under pressure because they sat back, so we get no credit for that.  But perhaps they were forced back…just like we were v Hull for a period second half.  You can see the negative angle taken when it’s Bristol City….human nature.

Going back to “control”, both games have felt a bit frantic, and again I don’t think control is a great word to use.

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

Interesting stuff & whilst not able to totally appreciate the more technical aspects, it is obvious we are trying to evolve.

There was a brilliant move in the first half involving Vyner, Scott & a couple of others that cut Sunderland open with slick, first time passes that was light years away from last season.

Here comes the “however” though, there is still too much conservative, directionless passing for me that certainly keeps possession but doesn’t either look to create an opening or to make the opposition work.

Beyond that & looking at the bigger picture, even 2 games in if we don’t significantly reduce the goals conceded we are in for another bottom six scrap & Pearson’s comments afterwards about potentially changing the way we play “to be more messy & ugly to get results” suggests he knows this.

John Mortimer wrote a brilliant novel called Paradise Postponed & I do wonder how much stomach everyone has for potentially yet another season of struggle, Gould’s comments today suggest FFP is an ever bigger problem for us than even a pessimist (realist?) like me has been banging on about, but not everyone wants to bother with the big picture when you’re bottom four & struggling against the likes of Birmingham, do they?

That is the key thing, we are trying to evolve a way of playing.  We did work some excellent moves during the game, not just first half.

We saw versus Hull how effective Naismith was breaking the lines with clever passes.  There was less of this versus Sunderland.

58 minutes ago, Baba Yaga said:

My question would be are Massengo's passing numbers unusually low or is it quite common that one cm gets numbers like that for some games? Appreciate he didn't play 90 mins and was playing deep quite a lot but imagine things would look a lot different with James in the team or even King.

I’d say most of Han’s came in the first half, and were an acceptable “involvement”…in fact 18/18 first half (definitely ok as a volume).

Team splits were:

1st half 241 / 209 successful (86.7%)

2nd half 185 / 157 (84.8%)

total 426 / 366

[Davefevs]

12 minutes ago, Zookeeper WSM said:

Thanks for this Dave - really interesting. Is this information freely available from Opta / Wyscout or do you have a subscription for this?

The Opta stuff is freely available….great source:

https://theanalyst.com/eu/2022/08/english-championship-stats-2022-23/
 

The Wyscout stuff I pay a sub for.