Data bits

Shosho

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
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

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
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
2,408
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
495
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

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
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
4,133
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
571
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
 

Shosho

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
So, we are, horror show. Will caveat by saying that the squad we have, with the money that has been spent (where the money has come from, who knows!) I think KR's time is up. He hasn't improved any players, his record is hideous, he is hugely underperforming based on the squad.

We could criticise quite a lot...however the part that has me most interested over the last few weeks is the strategy/tactic of crossing that KR seems intent on embedding.

Firstly, crossing is inefficient:

1158

The above from MLS data in 2018 (ref: https://twitter.com/JmooreQuakes).

A few critiques being - what is counted in the data as a cross...how much data used etc. However, it does give a decent indication that crossing, as a primary strategy, is not a good one.

Firstly, 40% of the above crosses are either cleared by the opposition or blocked. Around 15% of the crosses resulted in a unsuccessful aerial (guessing missed header) and a shot from the crossing team...fundamentally, heading and converting crosses is a tough skill.

How many crosses result in a goal? 0.9%. This varies across various articles, however the maximum appears to be around 2%.

Apply this to Oxford and crosses from open play in recent league matches (don't have Accrington numbers):
vs Peterborough - 20 (5 successful)
vs Sunderland - 22 (6 successful)
vs Burton - 28 (10 successful)
vs Barnsley - 12 (3 successful)
vs Portsmouth - 13 (3 successful)

All those failed crosses = conceding possession.

Twin the above with the lack of striker, and no strikers with any discernible heading, finishing skill to deal with cross and what we end up with is a strategy that looks like plenty is happening in the final third, but in reality is an inefficient mechanism.

The alternative? Looking at the wide players we have, twinned with the strength of our strikers and the most sensible approach would be cutbacks. Browne, Whyte, Graham can all beat players....in these situations the ball along the floor, cutback to the penalty spot (preferably closer!) would be more lucrative.

KR stated that we have plenty of games last night and in some regard the sole focus now is on reaching 50 points however that happens. I do get the feeling that telling the wingers to cross more is a final plan and an admission that nothing else works.

( I write the above knowing we scored from a cross last night!!)
 

WuTang

Active member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
372
The seemingly one dimensional crossing plan has been winding me up. Repeatedly crossing into Jamie Mackie, usually the only one in the box, perhaps backed up by James Henry if he's lucky. Neither of them can win headers and rarely do. Mackie was presented with a free header 5 yards out last night and turned it wide, he's played as winger for the majority of his career so I can't even blame him for being poor at heading.

We had Sinclair and Smith on the bench last night, one of which came on with 10 minutes as a direct replacement for Mackie. Where is the gamble? We're whipping in tons of crosses, stick two proper strikers in the box and try and claw the game back surely?! Totally had enough of Robinson, painful to watch.
 

Shosho

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
The seemingly one dimensional crossing plan has been winding me up. Repeatedly crossing into Jamie Mackie, usually the only one in the box, perhaps backed up by James Henry if he's lucky. Neither of them can win headers and rarely do. Mackie was presented with a free header 5 yards out last night and turned it wide, he's played as winger for the majority of his career so I can't even blame him for being poor at heading.

We had Sinclair and Smith on the bench last night, one of which came on with 10 minutes as a direct replacement for Mackie. Where is the gamble? We're whipping in tons of crosses, stick two proper strikers in the box and try and claw the game back surely?! Totally had enough of Robinson, painful to watch.
I find it tough to be critical of Mackie. The guy has never been a goalscorer and would clearly work best with someone alongside him. He can do the leg work with someone else finishing.

However, its pretty irrelevant who we have in the box as the type of cross is so critical.

Im now of the firm opinion that crossing is a last resort. As from above, it's not a strategy that will produce many goals, whilst looking like you are being productive.

Im finding the arrogance that everything will be ok, that we have plenty of games remaining and just smashing the ball in the box and something will happen entirely disconnected
 

WuTang

Active member
Joined
15 Dec 2017
Messages
372
I find it tough to be critical of Mackie. The guy has never been a goalscorer and would clearly work best with someone alongside him. He can do the leg work with someone else finishing.

However, its pretty irrelevant who we have in the box as the type of cross is so critical.

Im now of the firm opinion that crossing is a last resort. As from above, it's not a strategy that will produce many goals, whilst looking like you are being productive.

Im finding the arrogance that everything will be ok, that we have plenty of games remaining and just smashing the ball in the box and something will happen entirely disconnected
Spot on Shosho
 

Pompeyyellows

Active member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
316
We are/ were a Brett Pitman away from being a half decent team. This Guy cant do anything but score goals at our level. Cant believe he cant even get on the bench at Pompey. I know its to late as the window is firmly shut. But what a wasted opportunity. Mind saying that we could only afford him if we got him on loan and Pompey paid his wages.
 

Shosho

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
A very quick bit based on the weekend:

1165

Firstly, we created nothing until a Dickie header around 28mins. Once Graham scored, we clearly shut up shop until around 70mins. Once Blackpool went chasing we started to gain a few chances on the break.

Blackpool clearly felt we were weak from crosses, making 24 in the match...however we all know effective it is crossing as a strategy ;).

As an aside, some of our best chances are coming from set pieces. Nelson/Dickie/Ruffels all threats...however we should be converting more tha we are. I had a little look into some set pieces as I think this is an area that if we batten down the hatches and become less expansive (until we are at the 50 point mark or so) we could exploit....just like Graham at the weekend.

I found the below:

"The ability for a small market team to replicate the same goal output for the price of an effective set-piece strategy is a clear market inefficiency that can be exploited. Therefore, any new method that can help teams exploit this inefficiency would be a key advantage."

Essentially, if you could develop a set piece strategy that yielded 15 goals a season....the expectation of a a striker...it would be considerably cheaper. As KR goes on about the cost of strikers, everyone looking for that top main striker that can do it all...how about developing a set piece strategy that could produce the same results?

A few points:
  • you are more likely to score from a set piece than open play
  • more likely to score from in-swinging corners
  • more likely to score from a flick on from a corner than directly
  • in-swinging corners create 18.61% of leading to shot compared to 20.85 on out-swinging corners
  • 10.81% chance of scoring off an in-swinging corner compared to 6.46% out-swinging

Therefore, it is tougher to take a shot from an in-swinging corner, however if you do, you are more likely to score.

You can go big on the set piece set up...blocking the keeper, players making near post runs, but fundamentally, you want inswinging corners that allow shots from between the penalty spot and six yard box. Looking towards this we have decent delivery from Graham and Brannagan, however we lack left footed quality on the ball...one of Garbutt's assets.

Anyway, a few thoughts written as to how we can improve
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
9,234
A very quick bit based on the weekend:

View attachment 1165

Firstly, we created nothing until a Dickie header around 28mins. Once Graham scored, we clearly shut up shop until around 70mins. Once Blackpool went chasing we started to gain a few chances on the break.

Blackpool clearly felt we were weak from crosses, making 24 in the match...however we all know effective it is crossing as a strategy ;).

As an aside, some of our best chances are coming from set pieces. Nelson/Dickie/Ruffels all threats...however we should be converting more tha we are. I had a little look into some set pieces as I think this is an area that if we batten down the hatches and become less expansive (until we are at the 50 point mark or so) we could exploit....just like Graham at the weekend.

I found the below:

"The ability for a small market team to replicate the same goal output for the price of an effective set-piece strategy is a clear market inefficiency that can be exploited. Therefore, any new method that can help teams exploit this inefficiency would be a key advantage."

Essentially, if you could develop a set piece strategy that yielded 15 goals a season....the expectation of a a striker...it would be considerably cheaper. As KR goes on about the cost of strikers, everyone looking for that top main striker that can do it all...how about developing a set piece strategy that could produce the same results?

A few points:
  • you are more likely to score from a set piece than open play
  • more likely to score from in-swinging corners
  • more likely to score from a flick on from a corner than directly
  • in-swinging corners create 18.61% of leading to shot compared to 20.85 on out-swinging corners
  • 10.81% chance of scoring off an in-swinging corner compared to 6.46% out-swinging
Therefore, it is tougher to take a shot from an in-swinging corner, however if you do, you are more likely to score.

You can go big on the set piece set up...blocking the keeper, players making near post runs, but fundamentally, you want inswinging corners that allow shots from between the penalty spot and six yard box. Looking towards this we have decent delivery from Graham and Brannagan, however we lack left footed quality on the ball...one of Garbutt's assets.

Anyway, a few thoughts written as to how we can improve
Wasn't that Sykes long range effort that the keeper flapped at in the 1st half?

Also, thanks for these.
 

Shosho

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
Wasn't that Sykes long range effort that the keeper flapped at in the 1st half?

Also, thanks for these.
Yep they were on 34 and 35mins....just before the Graham freekick.

No problem, just thoughts out loud really
 

AbbeyOx

Well-known member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
1,133
you should work at the club. I hope they've got someone looking into this like you do
 

Shosho

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
you should work at the club. I hope they've got someone looking into this like you do
Cheers - im sure the club will have something sorted - this barely scratches the surface. Just don't know how many pairs of hands we have on this stuff!
 

Shosho

Well-known member
Joined
10 Dec 2017
Messages
1,341
A good piece around recruitment at Barnsley....does our recruitment process/staff compare? This is what we are up against:

 

MJB

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,965
A very quick bit based on the weekend:

View attachment 1165

Firstly, we created nothing until a Dickie header around 28mins. Once Graham scored, we clearly shut up shop until around 70mins. Once Blackpool went chasing we started to gain a few chances on the break.

Blackpool clearly felt we were weak from crosses, making 24 in the match...however we all know effective it is crossing as a strategy ;).

As an aside, some of our best chances are coming from set pieces. Nelson/Dickie/Ruffels all threats...however we should be converting more tha we are. I had a little look into some set pieces as I think this is an area that if we batten down the hatches and become less expansive (until we are at the 50 point mark or so) we could exploit....just like Graham at the weekend.

I found the below:

"The ability for a small market team to replicate the same goal output for the price of an effective set-piece strategy is a clear market inefficiency that can be exploited. Therefore, any new method that can help teams exploit this inefficiency would be a key advantage."

Essentially, if you could develop a set piece strategy that yielded 15 goals a season....the expectation of a a striker...it would be considerably cheaper. As KR goes on about the cost of strikers, everyone looking for that top main striker that can do it all...how about developing a set piece strategy that could produce the same results?

A few points:
  • you are more likely to score from a set piece than open play
  • more likely to score from in-swinging corners
  • more likely to score from a flick on from a corner than directly
  • in-swinging corners create 18.61% of leading to shot compared to 20.85 on out-swinging corners
  • 10.81% chance of scoring off an in-swinging corner compared to 6.46% out-swinging

Therefore, it is tougher to take a shot from an in-swinging corner, however if you do, you are more likely to score.

You can go big on the set piece set up...blocking the keeper, players making near post runs, but fundamentally, you want inswinging corners that allow shots from between the penalty spot and six yard box. Looking towards this we have decent delivery from Graham and Brannagan, however we lack left footed quality on the ball...one of Garbutt's assets.

Anyway, a few thoughts written as to how we can improve
Fancy joining the ‘debate’ at the back of the East Stand about whether we should “leave a man up” when defending our own corners?

There’s an old boy up there who sounds like he’s going to have a nervous breakdown four or five times a game as we keep everyone back!
 
Top Bottom