Aaron Wilbraham - OPTA (On-field perfomance tested (by) Alessandro) Statistics

[Alessandro]

Wilbraham came in for a lot of abuse on otib tonight. Things like "he's won nothing all night" - "he offers nothing" - "like playing with 10 men" etc etc, you know the ones.

At half time, I decided to do an unofficial OPTA style report on him for the second half, just to see what came out. (Geeky, I know)

 

              CHALLENGES (AIR)                                        PASSES (including knock on's/flick on's/link up play etc)

                Won: 10 - Lost: 3                                                        Completed: 10 - Lost: 1 (misplaced cross)

 

•  SHOTS ON TARGET - 0                                                          
•  SHOTS OFF TARGET - 0
• POSSESSION LOST - 2 (one was the cross) 
• TACKLES WON - 1
• TACKLES LOST - 0 (I don't think he was 'dispossessed' all half)
• FOULS COMITTED - 2
• OFFSIDE - 1

Firstly I don't sit in any camp r.e Wilbraham, but I think he gets unfair criticism. None of this shows what he also does off the ball and in creating space for others. 

But the first two stats are very telling, he wins much more than people give him credit for and is very efficient when he has the ball. He actually won more as the game went on. I counted 6 flick on's, several of which Kodjia fed off, including his chance near the end. These stats are only the second half (when as a few of you always say...he tires)

Make of the stats what you will, it's not official, or my job, nor I am pretending to be good at it. My internet stream froze a few times so I may have missed something!

 

[And Its Smith]

Stats: the death of football analysis. 

[Alessandro]

Stats: the death of football analysis. 

and yet the back bone of a huge amount of what is done in modern football management.

 

[howey_ducky]

I think the bloke should get a lot more credit than what he gets.  He's not quick, that's the only thing I can think of that's bad about him.  

He's physical, defenders always know they've been in a game against him.

He's tactically astute, the amount of times he drops deep, dragging a centre half with him to leave Kodjia with a one on one race with the other cb is unfortunately overlooked by most of the Wilbraham haters.

His hold up play to bring in Freeman/ Bryan/ Williams/ Elliot starts a great amount of our attacks.

He won't get us 20 goals this season, but he doesn't need to, the sooner people open their eyes to see what he gives us, the sooner they get off his back, the better for all of us.

[joe jordans teeth]

Op where the stats taken from,does it tell you what part of the field these knock ons where and can you get flints,stats are useless is my point

[joe jordans teeth]

and yet the back bone of a huge amount of what is done in modern football management.

 

Steve mclaren is a big fan

[Alessandro]

Steve mclaren is a big fan

So is Pep Guardiola, in fact, probably every other premiership manager right now.

[Chivs]

Stats: the death of football analysis. 

Presumably the assassins are people who can't add up.

[joe jordans teeth]

So is Pep Guardiola, in fact, probably every other premiership manager right now.

pep maybe is,let's see him manage Hartlepool and study the stats rather than having some off the best players in the world at his disposal 

[And Its Smith]

and yet the back bone of a huge amount of what is done in modern football management.

 

you aren't in football management and nor are the millions of fans who seem to churn out stats as they haven't watched games.  Not saying that is you but many do it. 

[Alessandro]

pep maybe is,let's see him manage Hartlepool and study the stats rather than having some off the best players in the world at his disposal 

you aren't in football management and nor are the millions of fans who seem to churn out stats as they haven't watched games.  Not saying that is you but many do it. 

Fine, you don't like stats, I never said they were the be all and end all, they're absolutely not. But one thing for sure, whether you agree with them or not, they are a massive part of football.

The fact is stats don't lie, they don't have emotions, agendas or rose tinted glasses.

People watched this game today and HONESTLY believed that Wilbraham didn't win a header all game. There are fans who would swear blind he didn't have one flick on all game. The "stats" above prove they're completely wrong.  And why, because they've got rose tinted glasses on, human nature. 

I'm not trying to be a football manager, just having a debate. Pretty rich comment coming from you, i'm sure you've got and had plenty to say about tactics and the team. What qualifications do you have??  

 

[Bs4Red]

He was 0-4 against Morrison in the opening 5 minutes of the half mate. You might want to reevaluate your method. 

[And Its Smith]

 

Fine, you don't like stats, I never said they were the be all and end all, they're absolutely not. But one thing for sure, whether you agree with them or not, they are a massive part of football.

The fact is stats don't lie, they don't have emotions, agendas or rose tinted glasses.

People watched this game today and HONESTLY believed that Wilbraham didn't win a header all game. There are fans who would swear blind he didn't have one flick on all game. The "stats" above prove they're completely wrong.  And why, because they've got rose tinted glasses on, human nature. 

I'm not trying to be a football manager, just having a debate. Pretty rich comment coming from you, i'm sure you've got and had plenty to say about tactics and the team. What qualifications do you have??  

 

stats DO lie, that is my point. They can be manipulated and they do lie.

one play plays a simple pass to another who smashes it in from 35 yards.  Another player cleverly dummies a cross to fool a defender and leave a simple tap in for a striker.  One gets and assist and the other doesn't.  

Half way through last season Phil Jones had the highest block shot stats which was fantastic apparently until somone pointed out that nearly half of the shots were blocked because he gave the ball away just before.

 

[Alessandro]

He was 0-4 against Morrison in the opening 5 minutes of the half mate. You might want to reevaluate your method. 

First or second? As I said I only did the second and am no pro. I didn't read it that way for the second, so perhaps you need to reevaluate your method?

[Alessandro]

stats DO lie, that is my point. They can be manipulated and they do lie.

one play plays a simple pass to another who smashes it in from 35 yards.  Another player cleverly dummies a cross to fool a defender and leave a simple tap in for a striker.  One gets and assist and the other doesn't.  

Half way through last season Phil Jones had the highest block shot stats which was fantastic apparently until somone pointed out that nearly half of the shots were blocked because he gave the ball away just before.

 

They don't 'lie' - what you're saying is they are open for interpretation. That I agree with you on

[And Its Smith]

Pretty rich comment coming from you, i'm sure you've got and had plenty to say about tactics and the team. What qualifications do you have??  

 

excuse me?  I already said that I am not referring to you. 

And why is it rich coming from me?  You seem to have been on this forum for five minutes so how would you know about my postings?  

You come across as a young kid.  If you are then fair enough, sure you will learn.  If not then grow up. 

[And Its Smith]

They don't 'lie' - what you're saying is they are open for interpretation. That I agree with you on

the player who does the dummy should get an assist but he doesn't.  So that is a lie. 

[joe jordans teeth]

They don't 'lie' - what you're saying is they are open for interpretation. That I agree with you on

so why bother with your original post,we can see with our own eyes how he played,stats like he won a header from the keepers kick on the halfway line that went out of play mean diddly squat 

[Lrrr]

Stats can be manipulated to represent anything that the person creating them wants them to, without context and supporting evidence they are largely useless.

[Alessandro]

excuse me?  I already said that I am not referring to you. 

And why is it rich coming from me?  You seem to have been on this forum for five minutes so how would you know about my postings?  

You come across as a young kid.  If you are then fair enough, sure you will learn.  If not then grow up. 

Nice try. Depends if 30's is a young kid to you?!? You come across as an old man, stuck in his ways. Insecure, very quick to react, perhaps covering that insecurity by trying to patronise others. Won't work on me old boy. And don't worry I have nothing to learn from you.

So you have nearly 5000 posts, I have a few. What you think that earns you respect? That gives you absolutely no more rights than me.  I've been reading this forum for 10 years and am entitled to an opinion without you trying to throw your weight around.

[Donkeeebles]

 

Fine, you don't like stats, I never said they were the be all and end all, they're absolutely not. But one thing for sure, whether you agree with them or not, they are a massive part of football.

The fact is stats don't lie, they don't have emotions, agendas or rose tinted glasses.

People watched this game today and HONESTLY believed that Wilbraham didn't win a header all game. There are fans who would swear blind he didn't have one flick on all game. The "stats" above prove they're completely wrong.  And why, because they've got rose tinted glasses on, human nature. 

I'm not trying to be a football manager, just having a debate. Pretty rich comment coming from you, i'm sure you've got and had plenty to say about tactics and the team. What qualifications do you have??  

 

I do agree with this. There are many people who would have made their mind up about Wilbs performance tonight before he even stepped out on the pitch. Same with Pack, or Fielding or God knows how many other players down the years. Once they have decided they are shit then that's it, they aren't prepared to give any credit to them regardless of what they do. I sat next to a guy in the Dolman for years who took a particular dislike to Steve Phillips and simply refused to see any good he did. 

[And Its Smith]

Nice try. Depends if 30's is a young kid to you?!? You come across as an old man, stuck in his ways. Insecure, very quick to react, perhaps covering that insecurity by trying to patronise others. Won't work on me old boy. And don't worry I have nothing to learn from you.

So you have nearly 5000 posts, I have a few. What you think that earns you respect? That gives you absolutely no more rights than me.  I've been reading this forum for 10 years and am entitled to an opinion without you trying to throw your weight around.

you started with the personal messages.  I qualified my first post by saying that I wasn't referring to you and you come back with 'that's rich coming from you'

 

[Alessandro]

you started with the personal messages.  I qualified my first post by saying that I wasn't referring to you and you come back with 'that's rich coming from you'

 

OK. With regard to the 'that's rich coming from you' - was not mean't to be personal, I know nothing about you or your previous posts. Simply you put something along the lines of 'arm-chair' managers or whatever and then on other threads you are making comments about tactics etc. It's a football fans forum, we're all blooming armchair managers, for better or worse!

[And Its Smith]

OK. With regard to the 'that's rich coming from you' - was not mean't to be personal, I know nothing about you or your previous posts. Simply you put something along the lines of 'arm-chair' managers or whatever and then on other threads you are making comments about tactics etc. It's a football fans forum, we're all blooming armchair managers, for better or worse!

I said that stats are often used by people who don't watch games to form an opinion. 

 

[joe jordans teeth]

I do agree with this. There are many people who would have made their mind up about Wilbs performance tonight before he even stepped out on the pitch. Same with Pack, or Fielding or God knows how many other players down the years. Once they have decided they are shit then that's it, they aren't prepared to give any credit to them regardless of what they do. I sat next to a guy in the Dolman for years who took a particular dislike to Steve Phillips and simply refused to see any good he did. 

don't think that's right to be honest,I always have been 50/50 on pack and fielding,and pack was good tonight and fielding had nowt to do apart from come flapping for a cross he never needed to,doesn't mean I had it in for them,because you sat next to 1 bloke who who didn't like Phillips doesn't mean everybody likes that

[UK0wnag3]

If Wilbz could keep his eyes on the ball he'd be ace

[City1984]

 

Fine, you don't like stats, I never said they were the be all and end all, they're absolutely not. But one thing for sure, whether you agree with them or not, they are a massive part of football.

The fact is stats don't lie, they don't have emotions, agendas or rose tinted glasses.

People watched this game today and HONESTLY believed that Wilbraham didn't win a header all game. There are fans who would swear blind he didn't have one flick on all game. The "stats" above prove they're completely wrong.  And why, because they've got rose tinted glasses on, human nature. 

I'm not trying to be a football manager, just having a debate. Pretty rich comment coming from you, i'm sure you've got and had plenty to say about tactics and the team. What qualifications do you have??  

 

Stats can prove and disprove a lot of arguments.  people try to use them to put weight or evedince to their point of view but seldom are they really valued. 

fact is number crunching and stats are huge in modern football. 

For the last 11ish years i have been, year on year,  seeing our former beautiful game as a spreadsheet of stats,  learning how to analyze these stats and then trying to use them to gain an edge in betting and trading markets. 

I will not go into my personal experience other than saying, when used in an appropiate way, they really are the staple of a lot of sporting events. 

Point is,  the stats don't lie. 

[JamesBCFC]

wilbs was decent tonight, he caused cardiff trouble and was holding the ball up. but it is clear he has become the scapegoat. there was a cross in the second half that went several feet over him, he had no chance whatsoever, and people near me were moaning about him not getting to it

[EmersonsRed]

Wilbrahams son, surely?

[joe jordans teeth]

Stats can prove and disprove a lot of arguments.  people try to use them to put weight or evedince to their point of view but seldom are they really valued. 

fact is number crunching and stats are huge in modern football. 

For the last 11ish years i have been, year on year,  seeing our former beautiful game as a spreadsheet of stats,  learning how to analyze these stats and then trying to use them to gain an edge in betting and trading markets. 

I will not go into my personal experience other than saying, when used in an appropiate way, they really are the staple of a lot of sporting events. 

Point is,  the stats don't lie. 

they don't lie of course its just they don't tell you nothing,it may tell you you had 70% of possession and created no chances,a human eye could pretty much tell you that