I Say, We Are Top of the League

[And Its Smith]

[And Its Smith]

If we were bottom of the form league this would get more comments!

[Gazred]

Top of the table clash next week then.

Another side with plenty to play for. At least our end of season hasn't all been dead rubbers.

[Nescot]

Can’t say anything positive it’s not allowed on here.

[Tomo]

2 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

[Mr Popodopolous]

It is a possible trend in the right direction, although the first half of both the Sunderland draw and today's one were alarming.

[mozo]

I can honestly say, I don't expect us to win away at a confident and on-form Norwich City, but if we do, our last 6 form will be excellent, and even our last 10 will be impressive. 

Come on the Form Army!

 

[Dr Balls]

6 minutes ago, Nescot said:

Can’t say anything positive it’s not allowed on here.

So unbeaten in the last 5 games, which is good, but the results have generally been better than the performances. Dreadful first half against Huddersfield today, a copy of the Swansea game last month, with not a single shot in the first 45 minutes. Last weekend indebted to Max for keeping a clean sheet against Sunderland. Good win against Leicester, decent performance versus Plymouth, while the Blackburn defence was giving away more gifts than Santa at Christmas!

Happy we have the points, and defensively we look pretty good, accepting that we were missing both Dickie and Vyner today. However, still unconvinced that Manning has really cracked how to get us playing forward, particularly how to break down teams that sit in and play 2 banks of 4 across the pitch and are happy to watch us huff and puff in front of them with minimal penetration. Also very lucky to come away with a point this afternoon.

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Dr Balls said:

So unbeaten in the last 5 games, which is good, but the results have generally been better than the performances. Dreadful first half against Huddersfield today, a copy of the Swansea game last month, with not a single shot in the first 45 minutes. Last weekend indebted to Max for keeping a clean sheet against Sunderland. Good win against Leicester, decent performance versus Plymouth, while the Blackburn defence was giving away more gifts than Santa at Christmas!

Happy we have the points, and defensively we look pretty good, accepting that we were missing both Dickie and Vyner today. However, still unconvinced that Manning has really cracked how to get us playing forward, particularly how to break down teams that sit in and play 2 banks of 4 across the pitch and are happy to watch us huff and puff in front of them with minimal penetration. Also very lucky to come away with a point this afternoon.

I don’t overly disagree, but if you think we’ve been “fortuitous” in the games post Easter (and I’d add to your analysis above the four Vardy chances pre our goal Vs Leicester) then the balance has to be whether in the six games post Southampton we were unlucky to only pick up three points.

(NB - avoidance of doubt I’ll say in the three wins post Easter I have liked our intent and that helps deserve points)

Those games were (in chronological order):

QPR (H), Weds (A), Cardiff (H), Ipswich (A), Swansea (H), WBA (A)

If you (or anyone) thinks we were unlucky to only get three points from those games the argument is that it’s luck balancing out. However, if the stance is that we got pretty much what we deserved from that batch, then people with that view should be concerned about the performances that continue - if not the results.

[Davefevs]

15 minutes ago, Dr Balls said:

So unbeaten in the last 5 games, which is good, but the results have generally been better than the performances. Dreadful first half against Huddersfield today, a copy of the Swansea game last month, with not a single shot in the first 45 minutes. Last weekend indebted to Max for keeping a clean sheet against Sunderland. Good win against Leicester, decent performance versus Plymouth, while the Blackburn defence was giving away more gifts than Santa at Christmas!

Happy we have the points, and defensively we look pretty good, accepting that we were missing both Dickie and Vyner today. However, still unconvinced that Manning has really cracked how to get us playing forward, particularly how to break down teams that sit in and play 2 banks of 4 across the pitch and are happy to watch us huff and puff in front of them with minimal penetration. Also very lucky to come away with a point this afternoon.

FWIW I think Kasumu and Matos as the two more conventional CMs today were all over us like a rash.  Both runners with physical attributes.  Kasumu reminded me of Massengo 2 seasons back.  Pretty sure I highlighted him as a possible replacement, but he’s really developed his destructive side, rather than his ball-playing side.  Matos was a right unit.  We struggled with him.

8 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I don’t overly disagree, but if you think we’ve been “fortuitous” in the games post Easter (and I’d add to your analysis above the four Vardy chances pre our goal Vs Leicester) then the balance has to be whether in the six games post Southampton we were unlucky to only pick up three points.

(NB - avoidance of doubt I’ll say in the three wins post Easter I have liked our intent and that helps deserve points)

Those games were (in chronological order):

QPR (H), Weds (A), Cardiff (H), Ipswich (A), Swansea (H), WBA (A)

If you (or anyone) thinks we were unlucky to only get three points from those games the argument is that it’s luck balancing out. However, if the stance is that we got pretty much what we deserved from that batch, then people with that view should be concerned about the performances that continue - if not the results.

I’m sure I could argue individual results, but trying to be fair I never get > 3 points.

[Dr Balls]

9 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

I don’t overly disagree, but if you think we’ve been “fortuitous” in the games post Easter (and I’d add to your analysis above the four Vardy chances pre our goal Vs Leicester) then the balance has to be whether in the six games post Southampton we were unlucky to only pick up three points.

(NB - avoidance of doubt I’ll say in the three wins post Easter I have liked our intent and that helps deserve points)

Those games were (in chronological order):

QPR (H), Weds (A), Cardiff (H), Ipswich (A), Swansea (H), WBA (A)

If you (or anyone) thinks we were unlucky to only get three points from those games the argument is that it’s luck balancing out. However, if the stance is that we got pretty much what we deserved from that batch, then people with that view should be concerned about the performances that continue - if not the results.

Out of those 6 previous games, the best performance was against Ipswich, when a draw would have been a fair result. We were lucky against Swansea, having been bobbins for most of the game, we were undone by a corner against Cardiff, but did nothing to deserve any more from that game, and the other 3 losses were deserved as we were really poor. I know it’s often said that the sign of a good team is one that wins when playing badly, but the opposite argument which fits us is that if you play badly most of the time you really can’t be that good!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Vs Leicester we shouldn't in some ways discredit ourselves, we in the first half took a very positive approach, first 20 especially and created chances of our own. I was surprised at how positive we were really in the context of a range of games.

They lost at Millwall and Plymouth too on the flipside but those games they were at least in respect of chances etc more dominant.

I would argue that vs QPR until their goal we had more of it. McCrorie side netting at 0-0 stands out a bit, post the multi substition we lost our shape and semblance of gameplan, went to shit.

Also worth pointing out for balance that the goal QPR scored with was their first Shot on Target. For the obvious flaws under Manning when we score first..our record it isn't bad!

Middlesbrough (H) 3-2 W

Norwich (H) 1-2 L

Sunderland (H) 1-0 W

Hull (H) 3-2 W

Watford (A) 4-1 W

Middlesbrough (A) 2-1 W

Southampton (H) 3-1 W

Ipswich (A) 2-3 L

Swansea (H) 1-0 W

Leicester (H) 1-0 W

Plymouth (A) 1-0 W

Blackburn (H) 5-0 W

P12W10D0L2F27A12PTS30GD+15

Had we scored first say v QPR and perhaps Cardiff we would have stood a reasonable chance of winning probably.

Otoh we have clawed back a mere 4 points from losing positions. (Drawn 3 games 0-0).

Otoh 3 penalties in 2 League games is remarkable and 6 in 28 League games since change of manager is also crazy (especially for us)!

Edited April 14 by Mr Popodopolous

[phantom]

[Andy082005]

9 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

Show us the league table of how it would look after all the games Manning has been in charge of?

that would be more reflective 

[ExiledAjax]

7 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

I don’t overly disagree, but if you think we’ve been “fortuitous” in the games post Easter (and I’d add to your analysis above the four Vardy chances pre our goal Vs Leicester) then the balance has to be whether in the six games post Southampton we were unlucky to only pick up three points.

(NB - avoidance of doubt I’ll say in the three wins post Easter I have liked our intent and that helps deserve points)

Those games were (in chronological order):

QPR (H), Weds (A), Cardiff (H), Ipswich (A), Swansea (H), WBA (A)

If you (or anyone) thinks we were unlucky to only get three points from those games the argument is that it’s luck balancing out. However, if the stance is that we got pretty much what we deserved from that batch, then people with that view should be concerned about the performances that continue - if not the results.

xG is not best used to say whether we should/shouldn't have got certain results. But. I do record it in that way  as by doing so I can look back at the longer term trend. It's also the best measure of "luck" that I know of. With those caveats in place, here is what I have for the past 11 games.

xG suggests that for the past 5 games, 6 points would have been "par" based on chance creation. We've received 11.

For the preceding 5 that you identify, it's again 6 points for "par". We actually took 3.

So for me, yes that suggests that the past 5 have seen us receive an element of fortune that we didn't get in those previous 6.

Overall it's a 17 point haul from 11 games where as my xG measure suggests 12 would be what we'd get on average based on the chances created.

Edited April 14 by ExiledAjax

[cityexile]

54 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

xG is not best used to say whether we should/shouldn't have got certain results. But. I do use it like that as by doing that I can look back at the longer terms trend. It's also the best measure of "luck" that I know of. With those caveats in place, here is what I have for the past 12 games.

xG suggests that for the past 5 games, 6 points would have been "par" based on chance creation. We've received 11.

For the preceding 5 that you identify, it's again 6 points for "par". We actually took 3.

So for me, yes that suggests that the past 5 have seen us receive an element of fortune that we didn't get in those 5.

Overall it's a 17 point haul from 11 games where as my xG measure suggests 12 would be what we'd get on average based on the chances created.

 

Interesting analysis. A good mix over the 12 games of teams sprinkled throughout the league.

As you say, dangerous to rely on xG to say ‘this is what the result of any one game should have been’, but it does provide an indicator over a decent period. Although some are marginal, is interesting that in only 3 out of 12 do we have a positive xG. Also it does confirm a nagging doubt in the back of my mind when our current very good position in the recent form table gets highlighted that  it is not really matching what I am seeing in the round. It’s not that we are bad recently as such, but that we are not either in a really purple patch of form where we are looking like we are great. 

Reminds me of those runs we would get under LJ were results were good for half a dozen games or so, but the evidence of my own eyes was that we were getting the rub of the green a little, and that sooner or later we would revert to our mean, which generally we did.

[ExiledAjax]

48 minutes ago, cityexile said:

Interesting analysis. A good mix over the 12 games of teams sprinkled throughout the league.

As you say, dangerous to rely on xG to say ‘this is what the result of any one game should have been’, but it does provide an indicator over a decent period. Although some are marginal, is interesting that in only 3 out of 12 do we have a positive xG. Also it does confirm a nagging doubt in the back of my mind when our current very good position in the recent form table gets highlighted that  it is not really matching what I am seeing in the round. It’s not that we are bad recently as such, but that we are not either in a really purple patch of form where we are looking like we are great. 

Reminds me of those runs we would get under LJ were results were good for half a dozen games or so, but the evidence of my own eyes was that we were getting the rub of the green a little, and that sooner or later we would revert to our mean, which generally we did.

What is interesting - to some - is that Manning is showing a consistent knack of delivering results well above what underlying numbers such as xG show.

I discussed this with old spreadsheet boy @Davefevs last week and said the following to him, this was written before the Blackburn game.

"The xG differentials [under Manning] at times have been as bad as they were under Holden, relegation style numbers tbh. Had we not already amassed the points we had I'd not have been so bullish about not fearing the drop. 

In his comparatively short spell here (beware small number bias) LM has us over-delivering across the board, we've scored more, conceded fewer, and in my "turn long-term xG into expected points" model, has a staggering 7 points more than my xG system reckons he should have - that's an extra 0.25ppg (three times as good as Pearson's total 0.08ppg extra per game). Notably, he did this at Oxford as well. NTT20 were always on about how Oxford were out of position as compared to underlying numbers. Since Manning has left they have regressed to their more natural position. Is Manningball the secret to shoving xG where some think it should go"?"

Edited April 14 by ExiledAjax

[Bristol Oil Services]

9 hours ago, And Its Smith said:

If we were bottom of the form league this would get more comments!

That's human nature. Us being top over 5 games now is like Rory McIlroy playing another round on Monday and going: look at me! I'm winning now!

[Silvio Dante]

1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said:

What is interesting - to some - is that Manning is showing a consistent knack of delivering results well above what underlying numbers such as xG show.

I discussed this with old spreadsheet boy @Davefevs last week and said the following to him, this was written before the Blackburn game.

"The xG differentials [under Manning] at times have been as bad as they were under Holden, relegation style numbers tbh. Had we not already amassed the points we had I'd not have been so bullish about not fearing the drop. 

In his comparatively short spell here (beware small number bias) LM has us over-delivering across the board, we've scored more, conceded fewer, and in my "turn long-term xG into expected points" model, has a staggering 7 points more than my xG system reckons he should have - that's an extra 0.25ppg (three times as good as Pearson's total 0.08ppg extra per game). Notably, he did this at Oxford as well. NTT20 were always on about how Oxford were out of position as compared to underlying numbers. Since Manning has left they have regressed to their more natural position. Is Manningball the secret to shoving xG where some think it should go"?"

That reminds me somewhat of the Post article when LM came in initially. They asked Dons and Oxford fans for views on him and one standout comment was the one below. The correlation here is that if you’re struggling to create chances beyond the two points mentioned, naturally you’re going to have a lower xG. And because the “cutback” goals are better chances (higher individual xG), they’re more likely to be scored.

Basically your analysis correlates with what we’ve seen under Liam - a real struggle to create good chances. Against Blackburn our xG was ramped up by two penalties and one on ones they gave us - we actually created very little off our own steam (but the press equally forced the mistakes).

People may point to shots of x per game, but a lot of time they’ve been shots that aren’t real chances. The lack of “good chances” has been a real thematic 

So, if the secret to outperforming xG is not to create much, I’m not sure it’s a formula for long term success - and if you look at the implications of the below quote, it suggests Oxford were getting by on worldies, which is unsustainable and plays to the theory we employed a coach on a “good streak” as opposed to one who’s cracked it.

 

Edited April 14 by Silvio Dante

[Natchfever]

10 hours ago, Nescot said:

Can’t say anything positive it’s not allowed on here.

Joined Thursday.

[bexhill reds]

10 hours ago, Nescot said:

Can’t say anything positive it’s not allowed on here.

oh lovely another brand new antagonistic wind up account, exactly what the forum needs

[Davefevs]

7 hours ago, phantom said:

6 game form guides are better than 5 games, due to 5 game form guides always having a different amount of home and away games.  6 game form guides will “usually” have an equal number.

For me, 6 games feels “recent form”, anything longer starts to point to being a trend toward norm.

[The Swan and Cemetery]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Vs Leicester we shouldn't in some ways discredit ourselves, we in the first half took a very positive approach, first 20 especially and created chances of our own. I was surprised at how positive we were really in the context of a range of games.

They lost at Millwall and Plymouth too on the flipside but those games they were at least in respect of chances etc more dominant.

I would argue that vs QPR until their goal we had more of it. McCrorie side netting at 0-0 stands out a bit, post the multi substition we lost our shape and semblance of gameplan, went to shit.

Also worth pointing out for balance that the goal QPR scored with was their first Shot on Target. For the obvious flaws under Manning when we score first..our record it isn't bad!

Middlesbrough (H) 3-2 W

Norwich (H) 1-2 L

Sunderland (H) 1-0 W

Hull (H) 3-2 W

Watford (A) 4-1 W

Middlesbrough (A) 2-1 W

Southampton (H) 3-1 W

Ipswich (A) 2-3 L

Swansea (H) 1-0 W

Leicester (H) 1-0 W

Plymouth (A) 1-0 W

Blackburn (H) 5-0 W

P12W10D0L2F27A12PTS30GD+15

Had we scored first say v QPR and perhaps Cardiff we would have stood a reasonable chance of winning probably.

Otoh we have clawed back a mere 4 points from losing positions. (Drawn 3 games 0-0).

Otoh 3 penalties in 2 League games is remarkable and 6 in 28 League games since change of manager is also crazy (especially for us)!

For the season to date we’re =14th for scoring first (44%) and 9th for points won from scoring first positions. A few stats below, taken from Soccerstats, I haven’t done the hard yards of splitting NP/LM periods, albeit @Mr Popodopolous work above shows LM more successful at gaining points from winning positions. Think overall they show what we’d all think anyway, when we get a lead and opponents chase we’re decent at defending/extending, when we concede first, we’re below average at breaking teams down who are happy to defend their lead.
 

Score first %
Top: Southampton 71%
14th: BC 44%
bottom: Sunderland/Stoke/Rotherham: 33%
 

PPG from scoring first

Top: Leeds 2.82
9th: BC 2.42

Bottom: Rotherham 1.21

 

Concede first

Top: Rotherham 63%
=12th: BC 47%
Bottom: Southampton 27%

PPG from conceding first

Top: Ipswich 1.56

17th: BC 0.40

Bottom: Millwall 0.12

[Mr Popodopolous]

We do hit the (in most years) magic 2 PPG across 7 games from Swansea at Home to Huddersfield at Home so it depends on how we want to measure it.

Moreover, in GJ's blocks of 10 we just about hit the level inherited under Manning. 14 from 10, 4 wins ie 40%.

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

10 hours ago, Dr Balls said:

So unbeaten in the last 5 games, which is good, but the results have generally been better than the performances. Dreadful first half against Huddersfield today, a copy of the Swansea game last month, with not a single shot in the first 45 minutes. Last weekend indebted to Max for keeping a clean sheet against Sunderland. Good win against Leicester, decent performance versus Plymouth, while the Blackburn defence was giving away more gifts than Santa at Christmas!

Happy we have the points, and defensively we look pretty good, accepting that we were missing both Dickie and Vyner today. However, still unconvinced that Manning has really cracked how to get us playing forward, particularly how to break down teams that sit in and play 2 banks of 4 across the pitch and are happy to watch us huff and puff in front of them with minimal penetration. Also very lucky to come away with a point this afternoon.

And I hope that trend continues into next season. I want us to perform well, of course I do, but I'll take points over performances if it gained us promotion at the end of it. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

And I hope that trend continues into next season. I want us to perform well, of course I do, but I'll take points over performances if it gained us promotion at the end of it. 

A problem is that in general (not always but in general) performances and results tend to align.

There are exceptions in respect of performances continuing to outstrip results over a season or vice versa but eventually the two meet somewhere in the middle, or regress or progress to the mean.

[mozo]

If the stats point to Manning being a bit 'lucky' (let's simplify), then I can't really argue with that. It raises a question mark about the future and whether our chickens will come home to roost, or whatever the poultry saying is. 

If, however, we are lucky over a sustained period, you'd tend to feel that we must be making our own luck.

Clearly, if Manning can add another 10-15% of that good fortune, we'll all be applauding him.

It's an interesting one. 

 

[mozo]

20 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We do hit the (in most years) magic 2 PPG across 7 games from Swansea at Home to Huddersfield at Home so it depends on how we want to measure it.

Moreover, in GJ's blocks of 10 we just about hit the level inherited under Manning. 14 from 10, 4 wins ie 40%.

We've been talking about 'par', and I think we're very much a 1.4 ppg team this season. That's our level.

With a little bit of investment we could be 1.5 to 1.6 and its happy days

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A problem is that in general (not always but in general) performances and results tend to align.

There are exceptions in respect of performances continuing to outstrip results over a season or vice versa but eventually the two meet somewhere in the middle, or regress or progress to the mean.

This is true but points are a reality whereas performances that satisfy are subjective. I'm old enough to remember Jack Charlton's Boro, one of the most boring turgid sides I ever saw but they won every week and you didn't hear much moaning around Ayresome Park. 

[Alessandro]

I’ve agreed that under Manning we’ve been in a patch of what could be called ‘relegation form’ not so long ago - so only fair to acknowledge we’ve been in a patch of what could be called ‘promotion form’ recently.

Feels the sample of ‘poor’ was longer than ‘good’ - but perhaps we’ve turned a corner….Yesterday will likely fall into either category depending on our next few results though.