ONE FOR THE STATS BOYS (GIRLS)

[Guest]

Bristol City 1 Stoke City 0

3 points and a clean sheet.

Do those often quoted match stats, X this and % that used to explain results by our stattos back those three facts up?

I’m genuinely interested to know, and a supplementary question is the support or not of the crowd recognised as a contributory factor to the oft quoted stats and result?

 

[And Its Smith]

2 minutes ago, Countryfile said:

Bristol City 1 Stoke City 0

3 points and a clean sheet.

Do those often quoted match stats, X this and % that used to explain results by our stattos back those three facts up?

I’m genuinely interested to know, and a supplementary question is the support or not of the crowd recognised as a contributory factor to the oft quoted stats and result?

 

All the stats say we deserved to lose.  

[1960maaan]

6 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

All the stats say we deserved to lose.  

You don't need those stats to know Stoke could, maybe should , have won. 
Bar & post, off target on the stats but could have been so different. 2 1 on 1's they fluffed apart from saves and the missed header.
But I really think we were due some luck, and some of the Refs decisions made me think we wouldn't get any last night. 
Hopefully we can build on this now, maybe control things better and not sit so deep. Wins are vital , with luck this will boost confidence.

[Davefevs]

To the OP…..the stats show we were in many ways fortunate.  But….it’s about sticking it in the onion bag more often than the opposition.

I’ll talk about some of this on FBC pod today….don’t want to spoil it

There are good reasons for possession stats being as they were for example.

[Super]

64% pass success is much higher than we usually get?

[David Brent]

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

All the stats say we deserved to lose.  

Erm…not all of them

[Redstart]

We played at home to Stoke a few seasons back, we lost 1-0 after conceding a goal in a terrible first half performance. Second half we knocked 7 shades of shite out of them, totally dominated them, but Jack Butland had one of those days where he saved everything, it was like he had 8 bloody arms. We just couldn't get the ball in the net. 

What goes around, comes around, I reckon we were owed that win last night

[And Its Smith]

5 minutes ago, David Brent said:

Erm…not all of them

Ah but is the result what is deserved? 
 

One could argue that if they don’t finish their chances then they don’t deserve anything. In which case every result is pretty much deserved

[David Brent]

57 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Ah but is the result what is deserved? 
 

One could argue that if they don’t finish their chances then they don’t deserve anything. In which case every result is pretty much deserved

Bit deep…Goals scored is also a stat on which you can measure if a team deserves to lose or not. Ours was higher ergo not all the stats. 

[BrizzleRed]

3 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

All the stats say we deserved to lose.  

…… shame the stats don’t show effort and tenacity, as we absolutely dominated them in that!

[Dullmoan Tone]

1 hour ago, Redstart said:

We played at home to Stoke a few seasons back, we lost 1-0 after conceding a goal in a terrible first half performance. Second half we knocked 7 shades of shite out of them, totally dominated them, but Jack Butland had one of those days where he saved everything, it was like he had 8 bloody arms. We just couldn't get the ball in the net. 

What goes around, comes around, I reckon we were owed that win last night

Thanks for reminding me.

I can’t believe Butland has only played one game since joining Palace. At the time I thought he’d be playing for England by now!

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

1 hour ago, And Its Smith said:

Ah but is the result what is deserved? 
 

One could argue that if they don’t finish their chances then they don’t deserve anything. In which case every result is pretty much deserved

Makes me think of the "goal that never was" against Colin's Crystal Palace. Did a monumentally bad decision by the officials to somehow miss a clear goal mean that Palace got what they really deserved.

In Warnock's case I think they did.

[RedRoss]

Stoke clearly dominated possession and had big chances and will be aggrieved they didn't pick up points but stats don't nessarily reflect grit/guts and luck which is a huge factor in sports.

I take it we deserved to win based on determination and ultimately putting the ball in the net but Stoke also deserved to win if they had been more clinical. We rode our luck but we showed character so I'm loving it!

[bcfc01]

7 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Makes me think of the "goal that never was" against Colin's Crystal Palace. Did a monumentally bad decision by the officials to somehow miss a clear goal mean that Palace got what they really deserved.

In Warnock's case I think they did.

It was fantastic to see Colins head explode.

Been talking out of his arse ever since.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

2 hours ago, Super said:

64% pass success is much higher than we usually get?

Yes better, but surely something that really needs to be improved by a big amount. We have to be able to keep the ball.

[ExiledAjax]

3 hours ago, Countryfile said:

Bristol City 1 Stoke City 0

3 points and a clean sheet.

Do those often quoted match stats, X this and % that used to explain results by our stattos back those three facts up?

I’m genuinely interested to know, and a supplementary question is the support or not of the crowd recognised as a contributory factor to the oft quoted stats and result?

An all cap's thread title. Always an indicator of a reasoned, nuanced, and open-minded thread.

But ok I'll bite.

Firstly I personally don't really use the stats to "explain results". Generally they are more useful to explain why a certain result is a surprise, or is unexpected.

This is done by looking at stats across, say, the last 30 matches, and comparing them to those from the match or incident at hand. 

We had a chat about this the other day re shot conversion. You considered just two data points from a single game, and concluded that our strikers are poor. I  looked at the entire season, and concluded that they're ok.

Same thing applies last night. Look at the scoreline and you rightly conclude that we beat the team in 4th 1 - 0 and are therefore good. Go deeper and look at the stats of that game and you see that we were largely second best. Then compare those stats to our seasonal averages and you see that it was a fairly typical performance. Now we both know that our typical result this season is not a win. We can therefore conclude that as we generally don't win when we play like that, it's last night's result that is an anomaly. 

That does not mean that it shouldn't be celebrated or praised. It just means that you need to keep your feet on the ground,  and try not to expect a repeat result if the performance is also repeated.

Statistical analysis is not perfect, we must be aware of bias in the system, and there will always be anomalies that some will say disprove it's effect. However, over 5 seasons the stats have never let me down in predicting our ultimate fate in May.

As to the fans' impact. Again, in a single instance they could have an effect, but as a general rule fans are not the most important factor in generating home advantage. This has been studied extensively over the past few seasons.

[ExiledAjax]

4 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

All the stats say we deserved to lose.  

Who's xG numbers are these mate?

[BigTone]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

 But….it’s about sticking it in the onion bag more often than the opposition.

 

Ooooh Matron !!

[And Its Smith]

20 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Who's xG numbers are these mate?

Fotmob 

[And Its Smith]

58 minutes ago, RedRoss said:

Stoke clearly dominated possession and had big chances and will be aggrieved they didn't pick up points but stats don't nessarily reflect grit/guts and luck which is a huge factor in sports.

I take it we deserved to win based on determination and ultimately putting the ball in the net but Stoke also deserved to win if they had been more clinical. We rode our luck but we showed character so I'm loving it!

Imagine Stoke’s stats if they’d have been determined as well then!

The whole ‘deserved to win’ doesn’t make much sense really. If a team has 45 shots and doesn’t score people would say they deserved to win.  But why should a team who can’t finish chances deserve anything ?

[Numero Uno]

2 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

Ah but is the result what is deserved? 
 

One could argue that if they don’t finish their chances then they don’t deserve anything. In which case every result is pretty much deserved

I totally understand that on balance we were second best and came out with a win (that won't change for a while to come given the resources at our disposal) but the highlighted bit is my argument in this particular game. It wasn't misfortune on Stoke's part more a case of abysmal finishing and that's their problem not bad luck. Poor finishing is poor play end of story and teams who play poorly often fall on the wrong side of a result. Two free headers and two clean throughs have to be buried not smacked against woodwork and goalkeeper, just as big a mistake as the poor defensive headers blighting Kalas recently that have cost us goals against and nobody says they were "unlucky". One bit of good movement and composure from the much maligned Tyreeq and four pieces of utterly shite finishing from them = 1-0 win to us!!

The positive from last night is that for the majority of that game (take out the first 15 minutes where we got battered) we competed again. With our side that's the most you can ask for - we can't dictate games because with the ball at our feet we are pretty mediocre...........make that very mediocre hence 170 odd successful passes in 90 minutes.

[Davefevs]

16 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

An all cap's thread title. Always an indicator of a reasoned, nuanced, and open-minded thread.

But ok I'll bite.

Firstly I personally don't really use the stats to "explain results". Generally they are more useful to explain why a certain result is a surprise, or is unexpected.

This is done by looking at stats across, say, the last 30 matches, and comparing them to those from the match or incident at hand. 

We had a chat about this the other day re shot conversion. You considered just two data points from a single game, and concluded that our strikers are poor. I  looked at the entire season, and concluded that they're ok.

Same thing applies last night. Look at the scoreline and you rightly conclude that we beat the team in 4th 1 - 0 and are therefore good. Go deeper and look at the stats of that game and you see that we were largely second best. Then compare those stats to our seasonal averages and you see that it was a fairly typical performance. Now we both know that our typical result this season is not a win. We can therefore conclude that as we generally don't win when we play like that, it's last night's result that is an anomaly. 

That does not mean that it shouldn't be celebrated or praised. It just means that you need to keep your feet on the ground,  and try not to expect a repeat result if the performance is also repeated.

Statistical analysis is not perfect, we must be aware of bias in the system, and there will always be anomalies that some will say disprove it's effect. However, over 5 seasons the stats have never let me down in predicting our ultimate fate in May.

As to the fans' impact. Again, in a single instance they could have an effect, but as a general rule fans are not the most important factor in generating home advantage. This has been studied extensively over the past few seasons.

FWIW, I thought the less we pressed their back 3 last night the better we were.

On Saturday v Blackburn it helped when Benarous joined Weimann and Martin to press their defenders (but they played with a back 4).

Last night it was our downfall opening 25 mins, because it meant Williams and Bakinson had to mark Vrancic, Allen and Sawyers, who took it in turns to be spare and find pockets.  We suddenly stopped doing that (no idea whether it was a tactical tweak) and let their 3 CBs have it…none of them are Webster-esque are they?  We concentrated on blocking passing lanes and frustrated them to allow us to get a foothold and then put pressure on them.  So although they were making more passes, it was between their CBs and then giving it away trying to “force it”.

Suddenly it’s our possession stats rising

And I’d say we had much better control of the case in the middle 30 mins, 15 mins either side of ht.

Think it was @Port Said Redred who wrote earlier about sometimes you don’t have to high-press.  I think last night proved that perfectly.

So no real issues with the 35/65 possession per se, but it’s an area where we can keep the ball better.  Weimann made a great run down the right first half, and then with Martin marked and charging to the box he tried a 0.01% chance cross.  It was a great cross if Martin had a chance of getting to it.  He should’ve waited for support.

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Fotmob 

Free?

[Numero Uno]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

FWIW, I thought the less we pressed their back 3 last night the better we were.

On Saturday v Blackburn it helped when Benarous joined Weimann and Martin to press their defenders (but they played with a back 4).

Last night it was our downfall opening 25 mins, because it meant Williams and Bakinson had to mark Vrancic, Allen and Sawyers, who took it in turns to be spare and find pockets.  We suddenly stopped doing that (no idea whether it was a tactical tweak) and let their 3 CBs have it…none of them are Webster-esque are they?  We concentrated on blocking passing lanes and frustrated them to allow us to get a foothold and then put pressure on them.  So although they were making more passes, it was between their CBs and then giving it away trying to “force it”.

 

Pearson and Fleming were very busy and vocal in the opening half an hour (shot in the arm for those who want to see him on the touchline) and conversed with/shouted at a number of players. I would suggest it was most definitely tactical. What we did well was making a very good Stoke side who I think will finish top 6 go from looking like Man City on steroids for 15 minutes to pretty ordinary for the rest of the game. We weren't amazing ourselves but it allowed us to be in the game.

[And Its Smith]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Free?

Yeah it’s a free app.  It’s okay. I’m not a massive statto but it’s good to monitor how crap our passing is 

[ExiledAjax]

16 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

FWIW, I thought the less we pressed their back 3 last night the better we were.

On Saturday v Blackburn it helped when Benarous joined Weimann and Martin to press their defenders (but they played with a back 4).

Last night it was our downfall opening 25 mins, because it meant Williams and Bakinson had to mark Vrancic, Allen and Sawyers, who took it in turns to be spare and find pockets.  We suddenly stopped doing that (no idea whether it was a tactical tweak) and let their 3 CBs have it…none of them are Webster-esque are they?  We concentrated on blocking passing lanes and frustrated them to allow us to get a foothold and then put pressure on them.  So although they were making more passes, it was between their CBs and then giving it away trying to “force it”.

Suddenly it’s our possession stats rising

And I’d say we had much better control of the case in the middle 30 mins, 15 mins either side of ht.

Think it was @Port Said Redred who wrote earlier about sometimes you don’t have to high-press.  I think last night proved that perfectly.

So no real issues with the 35/65 possession per se, but it’s an area where we can keep the ball better.  Weimann made a great run down the right first half, and then with Martin marked and charging to the box he tried a 0.01% chance cross.  It was a great cross if Martin had a chance of getting to it.  He should’ve waited for support.

No I don't have issues with us having 35% possession across the whole match either. I track whole game possession as a curiosity but it's rarely an indicator. 

Broken down by period as you've done here, and combined with something like ppda it's certainly more instructive.

I couldn't watch last night's game but listened but listened RB. Thanks for the breakdown. Certainly matches what I heard, a tough opening quarter, followed by a fairly even, perhaps even dominant middle period, and then Stoke managing to work a few chances through our press.

Interesting re easing the high press. Don't think RB picked that up...Owers was too busy complaining that the other guy mentioned an "orange card".

Edited November 25, 2021 by ExiledAjax

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Yeah it’s a free app.  It’s okay. I’m not a massive statto but it’s good to monitor how crap our passing is 

Fair, I like to see as many xG measures as I can. Each one tends to use slightly different methods to calculate, and so imo it's best to take 3 or 4 (or as many as possible) and average them to get the best overall idea of how shit we are.

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Fair, I like to see as many xG measures as I can. Each one tends to use slightly different methods to calculate, and so imo it's best to take 3 or 4 (or as many as possible) and average them to get the best overall idea of how shit we are.

Wyscout- 

BC 1.09

SC 1.26