Data bits

Shosho

Active member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
899
Everyone likes good stats....but I think you may need to make it clear if you are using analysis created by others. There's definitely stuff from experimental 361 in your most recent posts
That’s why I’ve left the tags on the timelines...have also answered further up about the use of Wyscout. Not claiming it’s mine, just using it to support/highlight some points
 

Shosho

Active member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
899
Good one Shosho.
You mention set pieces. We seemed to be very dangerous from set pieces against Barnsley but not against Burton.
From my observation the delivery was better v Barnsley and Burton defended far better.
Good news that Wimbledon seem to have caused lots if problems.
I wasn’t at burton and would need to watch the video, however one possible reason could be that Barnsley appeared to set up zonally. Nelson/dickie etc pretty much had a free run.

Another thing to note is that it’s more probable to score from inswinging corners. In that regard, aside from Garbutt we lack quality left footed set pieces
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,265
Good one Shosho.
You mention set pieces. We seemed to be very dangerous from set pieces against Barnsley but not against Burton.
From my observation the delivery was better v Barnsley and Burton defended far better.
Good news that Wimbledon seem to have caused lots if problems.
You are right. We had 9 corners against Barnsley and looked dangerous at virtually every one. 13 against Burton and the delivery was awful - hitting the first man more often than not.
 

Common Villager

Active member
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
362
Yeah, Barnsley's zonal marking definitely didn't help them, but the balls we were putting into the box were much better against them than they were against Burton. Last week Brannagan seemed intent on whipping the corners in, and as a result they were almost always too low and easily cleared by the first man. However against Barnsley he was floating them towards the back post which allowed Nelson and Dickie to time their runs and attack the ball.

I think with the aerial ability of players like Dickie, Nelson, Ruffels etc., we should just be aiming to get the corners into a decent area and not worry too much about getting pace on the ball. Even if they don't win the First ball they'll at least force the opposition into a more difficult clearance, and there's always the possibility of picking up the second ball as well.
 

Shosho

Active member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
899
Just had a look...taking the delivery out, the defensive structures are pretty different:


Screenshot 2019-02-08 at 12.50.36.png

Screenshot 2019-02-08 at 12.53.46.png

Those free men in the six yard box looked to mop must corners vs Burton.
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
2,729
The other thing I've noticed with set pieces is how bad we are at getting headers and shots on target. A couple of players get in good positions, but do not work the goal keeper enough
 

ttg17

Active member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
393
I came across the attached which I thought would be good to share with my fellow stat anoraks. Just think it's brilliant that something which I must admit I take for granted can be so scientific - even to come up with an amount of seconds to take the throw-in.
Do take a look at the link to Hazard vs the ball boy.
https://www.americansocceranalysis.com/home/2018/11/27/game-of-throw-ins
Much as I resent the use of the term ‘soccer’ that’s wonderfully nerdy and interesting analysis
 
Top Bottom