ExiledAjax

1,000 games is mad. 1,000 consecutive games is crazy. 1,000 consecutive away games is honestly mythical.

If we don't get 3 points in the next 12 games then we deserve to go down. We're going to be fine. We could play Nice and Fleming as our CB pair and we'd stay up from here.

Agree with a lot of this and I really wouldn't mind us experimenting a little. We're prevented by injuries from playing our strongest line up, yet are safely ensconced in mid table. So it's the time to play some wildcards and try things out. Don't mind your line up much, could work, might not work, might work a little bit.

With the squad we have I don't think anyone could pick an XI that everyone was happy with and everyone saw as strong. The front 3 or 4 have been weak in recent games and I think it's worth trying something a bit experimental. We're safe in mid-table so try a few things out. Start Cornick, give Weimann some minutes - maybe they'll surprise us.

For their sake let's hope Plymouth get promoted and then your mate can pop up the M5 and do their away day at a proper stadium in Bristol.

However the cash payment is structured the whole £10m is booked into this season's accounts. It's all a credit for this season.

The correct one given that no one likes him and he doesn't care.

For what it's worth Fivethirtyeight say a City win is the narrow favourite, although all three results are pretty likely. 29% is a pretty high chance for a draw.

So a net gain of +8 goals over 34 games. +0.23 goals per game. Worth playing him imo.

@IAmNick and I discussed this in the match thread. Infogol (where that data is from) gave Mehmeti's follow up to Scott's header a 0.65. Upon further inspection Infogol don't consider defenders or "defensive pressure" - of which there was loads - in their model. Other models such as Opta (available via FotMob for free) do. They gave it just 0.25, and us as a whole 0.98. For what it's worth my average of 3 sources - the two mentioned above plus one other - came out at 1.4 for the whole game. I am waiting on Experimental361 to publish his figure to get my final average. Fbref gave us 1.0. But yes, 1.9 is high.

I don't think a Cornick start is a bad thing. Bloke needs some minutes and although I don't think he's as dangerous as Wells he's definitely a handful. Also potentially a better physical presence against Huddersfield. Bell, Cornick and Sykes as a front three should be competent. Not terribly dangerous, but competent. I think I'd rest Mehmeti and look to bring him on either for Weimann centrally or left for Bell in the below. O'Leary Tanner Vyner Pring Dasilva Scott James Weimann Sykes Cornick Bell It's XI adult men forming some sort of team. God knows what result that gets, but they'd play.

Can't argue with that.

Still gone. Play offs have been realistically out of our reach for months.

See posts above. It's 8.8 per game(ish). In the 10 games prior we shot 8.8 times per game. Our average for the whole season is 9.7. We just don't shoot very much, and that's been true since Johnson's time. 9.74 shots per game ranks us 20th out of the 24 teams in the division. Mid table is about 12 shots per game. The most trigger happy team are Sheff Utd who have taken an average of 14.12 shots per game over the season. It's a balance to be found. Say you're aiming for xG of about 1.5 per game - which is a good and achievable total that suggests you can expect to score 1 or 2 a game. You can get to 1.5 either through 6 shots of 0.25 per game, or you could take 30 shots of 0.05. In recent seasons we've trended towards the first of those options through counter attacking and strikers like Wells and Weimann waiting and taking good shots. Generally I prefer that as it's relatively easy for a keeper to save a 0.05 xG shot. A 0.25 shot is far harder. The trouble is in recent games we've combined the two worst aspects and (two penalties aside) have ended up on average taking 9 shots of 0.07. That's crap and you don't score. Ultimately I'd like us to be taking 15 shots of 0.1 xG average. You see these numbers produced by top teams fairly regularly and it's a good balance of quality and quantity.

Conway could be a big boost when he come back. Looking at the numbers our true attacking purple patch was the first ten games or so of the season. We posted big numbers then - 11.3 shots per game, 4.1 on target, xG per shot of 0.13. Scored 1.9 per game. All well above our season averages and shots on target, xG per shot and goals scored are what you'd expect from a play off team. Interesting that we were in a 352 formation at that point rather than the 433 we've all been lauding in 2023. Conway and Wells up top. Sykes at RWB. Even Dasilva rather than Pring on the left. What we do see in the formations is that 433 gives us a better balance of attack and defence. In 352 we were dangerous going forward but allowed too much threat at our own end of the pitch. We conceded almost as many as we scored and it wasn't sustainable despite the attacking quality. IMO 433 is the better compromise. This is a really interesting thread with some top input. I think I'm leaning towards attacking quality being more dependent on personnel rather than formation/system. Don't know what the accepted tactical theory is on this, but for us this season it seems that we are at our most dangerous when we have our most direct players on the pitch.

Conversion has dropped because the shots are weaker. 0.07 xG per shot versus a seasonal average of 0.12 and a previous 10 game average of 0.18. Our shots are just more likely to be saved or miss.

I generally agree, but the switch to 4213, 4231, however you want to write it, was made at the turn of the year. We had 4 league and 3 cup games playing it prior to Mehmeti joining and starting. In those 4 league games in January we averaged 9 shots a game - same as in the last 5 - but xG per shot was a huge 0.18, 2.5x the 0.07 we've registered (excluding the two penalties) in the last 5 league games. We scored 8 goals in those 4 league games. I don't have the xG for the cup games, but we scored 6 in 3. The formation was dangerous in January. Properly, properly dangerous. Not soft opponents either. Blackburn, WBA, Coventry. We were really threatening. I honestly think something changed where we lost Naismith and started mixing Mehmeti into the attack, bringing Bell central, and resting Wells. There's been some other tweaks in the team, but the quality of shot has dropped off a cliff in February.

I don't think @Alessandro should get pelters for suggesting that Bell is part of the issue. It's clear there's a number of factors that have combined to weaken out attacking threat. That's worrying in a way, but also encouraging as it suggests that just a couple of positive changes could see us get back to taking dangerous shots and creating real threat.

It's just interesting how all of these changes can combine to create what is effectively a team that carries only 50% of the threat that it did in the prior ten games. Really shows how fragile a thing a 'good' team is. And also why our thin squad was never going to mount a serious charge on the top 10 (let alone the top 6 ffs). I'm not sure how much Conway and Cornick factor into it. We were threatening for a long time even when Conway was out, although we did have Semenyo during that spell, and Cornick has played so little as to be almost negligible in the stats. I agree completely with that last paragraph though. I think it's rectifiable with the return of Naismith, Mehmeti and Cornick gelling into the squad, Sykes and Scott being freed up by other players returning.

To add, our xG per shot in the 10 games prior to these last 5 was 0.15. So even though we took the same number of shots (8.8) each shot was about twice as dangerous as those in the last five games!

I started this as a reply to one of @Kid in the Riot's match thread posts. But, I thought it might merit its own thread. Firstly a warning. This OP IS HEAVY ON XG CHAT. If you hate or don't understand xG then look away now. Ok so KITR properly mentioned that attack has been poor recently. I remember a few other recent posts highlighting this. So I took a look at some numbers. Yes. Shot quality has dropped a lot in the last 5 games (including Cardiff today). Each of our shots is currently hovering at about 0.12 xG per shot over that spell (44 shots, total xG 4.55). That includes two penalties as well of course, which account for about 1.4 of that 4.55 total. So non-penalty xG per shot has been only 0.07 per shot. Average non-penalty xG per shot across the division and across the season is approx 0.10. Our own non-penalty xG over the season is 0.12. So you can see that recently our quality of shot has been very poor - in comparison to both our own record and the record of the division as a whole. Is it a 'thing' that this coincides with Mehmeti's 5 league starts? Is there something about his play that changes the way we create quality shots? He's not affected the quantity of shots we take - we've averaged 8.8 per game compared to 8.8 in the prior 10 games, so it's only the quality that has declined since he's played. This is just one variation though and I'm wary of attributing causation where really it's just correlation. Naismith's absence also started 5 league games ago, so that could be a contributing factor. Any other changes that might cause this drop? A high level of shot quality is very, very important when you only take 9 shots per game, so it's really crucial that we rectify this by next season.

Pin thread as a reminder that a few good results do not make a play off challenge.

Fingers crossed. Wonder who our outfield goalie would be?

Love an outfielder in goal.

Can't really rest anyone unless we're happy starting players from the U23s. Tbf with our season essentially over I'd not really have any complaints about that.