|
|
Post by Mundell on Nov 25, 2020 11:25:47 GMT
Our last two results have been disappointing. The question is whether we might view them as a one-off or a result of our luck having run out? Prior to our games at Gillingham and Burton our record was 7-1-2 and we'd just won six matches on the bounce. Were we really that good though, or flattering to deceive, perhaps?
Based on analysis by XgStats the answer is very clear cut. We were never that good. Here are a few headlines, based on analysis of our season to date, before last night's defeat at Burton Albion.
1. If to win (or lose) we assume there must be more than 0.5 expected goals (Xg) difference between the two sides (that's fairly arbitrary, but not unreasonable) then based on the Xg from our first eleven matches our record is 2-7-2, i.e. we'd have 13 points. That's one measure of how much better our actual results have been than our underlying performances.
2. If we look at a pure statistical measure of our 'expected points' from each game given the 'expected goals' in that game, then our total points season to date is 15.5, i.e. a little higher, but well below the 23 we've actually got. On both these measures of expected points we're in the bottom half of the table.
3. Focusing only on expected goals for, we rank 17th in the table. You don't need to be Alex Ferguson to see that we're simply not creating enough chances. Its very tough being a striker for Charlton Athletic. The team simply isn't providing the service needed.
4. Our defence is clearly our strength. At least until last night our expected goals against placed us sixth in that table. Add to this the heroics of Ben Amos, again at least until last night, and it is fairly clear that we are set up to stop our opponents playing and to keep it tight at the back. The price for that focus is painfully obvious though.
To fix a problem you need to begin by understanding it. That's never easy and its even harder if you are fooled by outcome bias. Hopefully, someone at the club is looking objectively at our underlying performances and, based on that, is able to find solutions.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonkool on Nov 25, 2020 13:14:09 GMT
Our last two results have been disappointing. The question is whether we might view them as a one-off or a result of our luck having run out? Prior to our games at Gillingham and Burton our record was 7-1-2 and we'd just won six matches on the bounce. Were we really that good though, or flattering to deceive, perhaps? Based on analysis by XgStats the answer is very clear cut. We were never that good. Here are a few headlines, based on analysis of our season to date, before last night's defeat at Burton Albion. 1. If to win (or lose) we assume there must be more than 0.5 expected goals (Xg) difference between the two sides (that's fairly arbitrary, but not unreasonable) then based on the Xg from our first eleven matches our record is 2-7-2, i.e. we'd have 13 points. That's one measure of how much better our actual results have been than our underlying performances. 2. If we look at a pure statistical measure of our 'expected points' from each game given the 'expected goals' in that game, then our total points season to date is 15.5, i.e. a little higher, but well below the 23 we've actually got. On both these measures of expected points we're in the bottom half of the table. 3. Focusing only on expected goals for, we rank 17th in the table. You don't need to be Alex Ferguson to see that we're simply not creating enough chances. Its very tough being a striker for Charlton Athletic. The team simply isn't providing the service needed. 4. Our defence is clearly our strength. At least until last night our expected goals against placed us sixth in that table. Add to this the heroics of Ben Amos, again at least until last night, and it is fairly clear that we are set up to stop our opponents playing and to keep it tight at the back. The price for that focus is painfully obvious though. To fix a problem you need to begin by understanding it. That's never easy and its even harder if you are fooled outcome bias. Hopefully, someone at the club is looking objectively at our underlying performances and, based on that, is able to find solutions. I have no doubt that our new executive team will be very watchful and Bows will not have the same tolerance he received from the previous 1% owner! I don’t like quick draw hire/fire management style but TS is an owner in a hurry and so LB had better sit down with Jacko and systematically analyse how they can improve their decision making as they may reach the end of their road as the winter window approaches. The loss of two quality CBs hasn’t helped but all clubs gave injuries and it’s down to the gaffer to manage the situation. The clock is ticking ... |
|
|
|
Post by earlpurple on Nov 25, 2020 13:43:36 GMT
Lee Bowyer had to put together a squad very quickly in a small period of time. And then key defenders Inniss and Famewo got injured and had they been there and kept it tight enough at the back the 2 goals we did score would have won us the game.
Please go and analyse Tottenham, and before him other teams that Jose Mourinho has managed. Spurs are currently top of the Premier League in spite of throwing 4 points away at home against Newcastle and West Ham with last minute goals against them. But they thrashed Manchester United 6-1 away and just beat Manchester City at home when the opponents had all the stats for them. However it seems Jose Mourinho has a record of winning games this way. Yes I know Manchester City left gaps and aren't the same since Vincent Kompany left, but still, look at the stats.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldred on Nov 25, 2020 14:32:07 GMT
We have done well with two makeshift CB before, but only papered over the cracks
Inniss and Famewo, were a huge part of our clean sheets run, and their loss was always going to be big.
When everyone is fit, or maybe that should be IF, we will match any team in this league.
Re LB, Thomas is indeed ambitious, and wants success, but at the moment, he has a lot of faith and trust in the manager, indeed why wouldn’t he after the previous eight games.
He is the type of owner, who will do all he can, to help LB to succeed with their joint ambitions, rather than just get rid, at the first sign of struggle.
We are hardly even into the season yet, with a completely new team again, but have been winning games, even if not convincingly at times.
There will be no panic within the club, even if a few fans have shown signs of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Nov 25, 2020 14:40:12 GMT
Our last two results have been disappointing. The question is whether we might view them as a one-off or a result of our luck having run out? Prior to our games at Gillingham and Burton our record was 7-1-2 and we'd just won six matches on the bounce. Were we really that good though, or flattering to deceive, perhaps? Based on analysis by XgStats the answer is very clear cut. We were never that good. Here are a few headlines, based on analysis of our season to date, before last night's defeat at Burton Albion. 1. If to win (or lose) we assume there must be more than 0.5 expected goals (Xg) difference between the two sides (that's fairly arbitrary, but not unreasonable) then based on the Xg from our first eleven matches our record is 2-7-2, i.e. we'd have 13 points. That's one measure of how much better our actual results have been than our underlying performances. 2. If we look at a pure statistical measure of our 'expected points' from each game given the 'expected goals' in that game, then our total points season to date is 15.5, i.e. a little higher, but well below the 23 we've actually got. On both these measures of expected points we're in the bottom half of the table. 3. Focusing only on expected goals for, we rank 17th in the table. You don't need to be Alex Ferguson to see that we're simply not creating enough chances. Its very tough being a striker for Charlton Athletic. The team simply isn't providing the service needed. 4. Our defence is clearly our strength. At least until last night our expected goals against placed us sixth in that table. Add to this the heroics of Ben Amos, again at least until last night, and it is fairly clear that we are set up to stop our opponents playing and to keep it tight at the back. The price for that focus is painfully obvious though. To fix a problem you need to begin by understanding it. That's never easy and its even harder if you are fooled outcome bias. Hopefully, someone at the club is looking objectively at our underlying performances and, based on that, is able to find solutions. I have no doubt that our new executive team will be very watchful and Bows will not have the same tolerance he received from the previous 1% owner! I don’t like quick draw hire/fire management style but TS is an owner in a hurry and so LB had better sit down with Jacko and systematically analyse how they can improve their decision making as they may reach the end of their road as the winter window approaches. The loss of two quality CBs hasn’t helped but all clubs gave injuries and it’s down to the gaffer to manage the situation. The clock is ticking ... The clock is indeed ticking! We need our best central defense options back and Bowyer / Jacko need to work out their best options for the front six The only mitigation for the analysis above by Mundell is that one might exclude the first four games where we were terrible on the basis that Sandgaard arrived and they put together a new back four. Even then, we are little better than mid-table, perhaps 10th. And that was the objective for end December: Top ten and in touching distance of the play-offs. Time will tell where we are 31/12 But the management need to make a series of rational decisions with a view as to what to do in the January window. Put another way, to move our first XI closer towards a side that delivers a +ve xG of 0.5 every game will take some serious analysis and problem solving. Note that xG of +ve 0.5 would be where the top four or five clubs are every season. This isn't about the quality of the finishing but the quality of the build up and decision making. Similarly Amos' contribution and fine saves might explain some of the difference between expected goals conceded and results? On the upside, Ipswich xG has fallen this season but... |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Nov 25, 2020 15:18:25 GMT
Please go and analyse Tottenham, and before him other teams that Jose Mourinho has managed. Spurs are currently top of the Premier League in spite of throwing 4 points away at home against Newcastle and West Ham with last minute goals against them. But they thrashed Manchester United 6-1 away and just beat Manchester City at home when the opponents had all the stats for them. However it seems Jose Mourinho has a record of winning games this way. Yes I know Manchester City left gaps and aren't the same since Vincent Kompany left, but still, look at the stats. The XGStats for Tottenham are interesting, but they're very different to ours. 1. Based on their 'expected points' season to date (as defined in my post above) Tottenham are second in the table behind Liverpool. 2. They are also second in the table for both Xg for and Xg against. In other words, Tottenham's current league position is a very fair reflection of their underlying performances, measured by Xg. Tottenham murdered Newcastle and, based on the respective Xg's of the two sides, would have won such a match around 84% of the time. They also had much the better of the game against West Ham. The fact they didn't win these matches illustrates the randomness of the outcome in any one-off game, but also that it is important to look at underlying performances and not just results. You'd expect the team which is top of the table to be able to beat Newcastle comfortably. The stats tell us that Tottenham are such a team, but that on the day the clearly better team didn't win. That's football. The game versus Manchester City was very close, based on an Xg assessment. It seems City very marginally edged what might well have been a 1-1 draw, but Tottenham took their chances while City didn't. What's interesting about the game versus City is that City had a lot more possession (around 66%) and a lot more shots, but when those shots are converted to reflect the likelihood of a goal to produce a total for 'expected goals', that apparent dominance all but disappears. Its the quality of the goalscoring opportunities being created that matters, and for all City's possession they sit 10th in the League table for expected goals for. That's a problem that Pep Guardiola somehow has to solve if City are to challenge for the title. Ironically, it seems that the main benefit of City's dominance possession wise is that they concede relatively few chances. They sit top of the table for 'expected goals' against. Possession only helps offensively if it leads to more chances and a higher Xg. That's not happening for City. On the other hand, Mourinho is a master at making his sides very hard to beat by restricting Xg against, while exploiting the opportunity to counter on the turnover to create good chances and a high Xg for. At least so far, its working for Mourinho and Tottenham sit top of the table on merit. Looked at through exactly the same lens, it appears we're lucky to even be in the top half of the table. |
|
|
|
Post by newyorkaddick on Nov 25, 2020 20:36:28 GMT
I looked back at the amazing 2015/16 Premier League season and it was interesting to note that on an XG basis Leicester would've been expected to have finished 4th.
So in a sense their title was a dual miracle: a) that they were competed at such a high level at all, and b) they had the good fortune to pick up more points than would have been expected having done so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Aug 10, 2021 11:16:02 GMT
I thought I might make one of my occasional posts on this thread, not quite on the basis of popular demand because I'm not sure many of us have any interest in this stuff, but so that, if nothing else, it 'stays alive'!!
I'll start by copying something I posted elsewhere in response to Thomas Sandgaard's bullish comment that we won two points per game from our last fifteen matches last season, implying that if we could continue that 'form' we'd win automatic promotion. Its interesting that since then the rhetoric has all been about 'a place in the top six'. Anyway, here's what I said;
"It's entirely possible that Sandgaard thinks we produced automatic promotion form late on in the season and as result believes that more of the same, supported by a few incremental improvements, will do the job.
I'm not sure the evidence quite supports that view though, unfortunately. In his recent interview Sandgaard said that over the last 15 games of last season we got 2 points per game and that would win us automatic promotion. However, we significantly outperformed our Xg over this period.
Over those 15 games we got 30 points (3rd in the last 15 games table), scoring 25 goals and conceding 12. However, our XgF was just 16 (13th in the table) with XgA of 14 (9th in the table), producing X Points of 23, which placed us 12th in the X Points table over those 15 games.
Lies, lies, damn lies and statistics and all that, but this data tells us that our form over those 15 matches fell well short of what's likely to be needed to win automatic promotion. This sort of data isn't perfect, but it isn't often that wrong either."
Based on xGstats data we edged Saturday's opener against Sheffield Wednesday on Xg by 0.86 to 0.33. Statistically, we'd win a game with those Xg scores 47% of the time and our expected points was 1.8, which converts to 83 points over the course of a full season.
Data like this, taken from just one game, is fairly meaningless obviously, but what it highlights is that if we can limit the chances we concede we'll be in good shape. Nigel Adkins says he's aiming for 25 clean sheets and, to state the obvious, if we don't concede goals there's always a chance we'll nick one ourselves even if we don't create much, and that's exactly what almost happened on Saturday.
Given this, I thought it would be interesting to look at the chances we've created and conceded since Adkins arrived. I've taken the liberty of excluding the games against Bristol Rovers and AFC Wimbledon and started with the match at Doncaster, the first time he stamped his mark on the playing style.
This gives us ten games to look at. During those ten games we've scored 17 goals (including 6 at Plymouth) while conceding just 6. The Xg for those ten games was 10.1 v 8.9, which is somewhat less impressive, but perhaps also more revealing. Over a full season this would translate into a goals for of 46 and goals against of 41.
This data, for what its worth, probably isn't telling us anything we don't already know. If we only concede 41 goals we'll have one of the best defences in the League, but we'll be lucky to get promoted if we don't score a lot more than 46.
It will be interesting to see what this picture looks like in ten games time.
|
|
|
|
Post by kings hill addick on Aug 10, 2021 13:07:55 GMT
I thought I might make one of my occasional posts on this thread, not quite on the basis of popular demand because I'm not sure many of us have any interest in this stuff, but so that, if nothing else, it 'stays alive'!! I'll start by copying something I posted elsewhere in response to Thomas Sandgaard's bullish comment that we won two points per game from our last fifteen matches last season, implying that if we could continue that 'form' we'd win automatic promotion. Its interesting that since then the rhetoric has all been about 'a place in the top six'. Anyway, here's what I said; "It's entirely possible that Sandgaard thinks we produced automatic promotion form late on in the season and as result believes that more of the same, supported by a few incremental improvements, will do the job. I'm not sure the evidence quite supports that view though, unfortunately. In his recent interview Sandgaard said that over the last 15 games of last season we got 2 points per game and that would win us automatic promotion. However, we significantly outperformed our Xg over this period. Over those 15 games we got 30 points (3rd in the last 15 games table), scoring 25 goals and conceding 12. However, our XgF was just 16 (13th in the table) with XgA of 14 (9th in the table), producing X Points of 23, which placed us 12th in the X Points table over those 15 games. Lies, lies, damn lies and statistics and all that, but this data tells us that our form over those 15 matches fell well short of what's likely to be needed to win automatic promotion. This sort of data isn't perfect, but it isn't often that wrong either." Based on xGstats data we edged Saturday's opener against Sheffield Wednesday on Xg by 0.86 to 0.33. Statistically, we'd win a game with those Xg scores 47% of the time and our expected points was 1.8, which converts to 83 points over the course of a full season. Data like this, taken from just one game, is fairly meaningless obviously, but what it highlights is that if we can limit the chances we concede we'll be in good shape. Nigel Adkins says he's aiming for 25 clean sheets and, to state the obvious, if we don't concede goals there's always a chance we'll nick one ourselves even if we don't create much, and that's exactly what almost happened on Saturday. Given this, I thought it would be interesting to look at the chances we've created and conceded since Adkins arrived. I've taken the liberty of excluding the games against Bristol Rovers and AFC Wimbledon and started with the match at Doncaster, the first time he stamped his mark on the playing style. This gives us ten games to look at. During those ten games we've scored 17 goals (including 6 at Plymouth) while conceding just 6. The Xg for those ten games was 10.1 v 8.9, which is somewhat less impressive, but perhaps also more revealing. Over a full season this would translate into a goals for of 46 and goals against of 41. This data, for what its worth, probably isn't telling us anything we don't already know. If we only concede 41 goals we'll have one of the best defences in the League, but we'll be lucky to get promoted if we don't score a lot more than 46. It will be interesting to see what this picture looks like in ten games time. If we could concede all those 41 goals in one game, and lose 41-1 and score just one in the forty five games that would be ok! Thanks for the stats though. Very interesting. |
|
|
|
Post by AndyB on Aug 10, 2021 15:03:55 GMT
I thought I might make one of my occasional posts on this thread, not quite on the basis of popular demand because I'm not sure many of us have any interest in this stuff, but so that, if nothing else, it 'stays alive'!! I'll start by copying something I posted elsewhere in response to Thomas Sandgaard's bullish comment that we won two points per game from our last fifteen matches last season, implying that if we could continue that 'form' we'd win automatic promotion. Its interesting that since then the rhetoric has all been about 'a place in the top six'. Anyway, here's what I said; "It's entirely possible that Sandgaard thinks we produced automatic promotion form late on in the season and as result believes that more of the same, supported by a few incremental improvements, will do the job. I'm not sure the evidence quite supports that view though, unfortunately. In his recent interview Sandgaard said that over the last 15 games of last season we got 2 points per game and that would win us automatic promotion. However, we significantly outperformed our Xg over this period. Over those 15 games we got 30 points (3rd in the last 15 games table), scoring 25 goals and conceding 12. However, our XgF was just 16 (13th in the table) with XgA of 14 (9th in the table), producing X Points of 23, which placed us 12th in the X Points table over those 15 games. Lies, lies, damn lies and statistics and all that, but this data tells us that our form over those 15 matches fell well short of what's likely to be needed to win automatic promotion. This sort of data isn't perfect, but it isn't often that wrong either." Based on xGstats data we edged Saturday's opener against Sheffield Wednesday on Xg by 0.86 to 0.33. Statistically, we'd win a game with those Xg scores 47% of the time and our expected points was 1.8, which converts to 83 points over the course of a full season. Data like this, taken from just one game, is fairly meaningless obviously, but what it highlights is that if we can limit the chances we concede we'll be in good shape. Nigel Adkins says he's aiming for 25 clean sheets and, to state the obvious, if we don't concede goals there's always a chance we'll nick one ourselves even if we don't create much, and that's exactly what almost happened on Saturday. Given this, I thought it would be interesting to look at the chances we've created and conceded since Adkins arrived. I've taken the liberty of excluding the games against Bristol Rovers and AFC Wimbledon and started with the match at Doncaster, the first time he stamped his mark on the playing style. This gives us ten games to look at. During those ten games we've scored 17 goals (including 6 at Plymouth) while conceding just 6. The Xg for those ten games was 10.1 v 8.9, which is somewhat less impressive, but perhaps also more revealing. Over a full season this would translate into a goals for of 46 and goals against of 41. This data, for what its worth, probably isn't telling us anything we don't already know. If we only concede 41 goals we'll have one of the best defences in the League, but we'll be lucky to get promoted if we don't score a lot more than 46. It will be interesting to see what this picture looks like in ten games time. If we could concede all those 41 goals in one game, and lose 41-1 and score just one in the forty five games that would be ok! Thanks for the stats though. Very interesting. That will be against Ipswich I take it ? |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Aug 22, 2023 13:37:28 GMT
Not for the first time I thought I’d post a comment on this thread in order to keep it alive for those interested. In order to do so, I’ve copied below something I posted on another thread yesterday. “The data on which these tables (in the post to which I was replying) are based can be found in the Opta Analyst - linked hereIt’s very early days so hard to draw any clear conclusions. However, for what they’re worth, a few highlights. 1. The data says that only Bolton have created more chances from open play (number of shots adjusted for the likelihood of scoring from them) than we have. In theory, we ought to have scored five goals from open play compared to the three we’ve actually scored. 2. On the other hand, our Xg from set plays is lower than everyone else save Northampton Town. Dean Holden clearly needs to work on this. 3. Our Xg against from open play is broadly mid table, but from set plays we’ve conceded more chances than anyone else in the League and it’s no coincidence we’ve conceded two goals from set plays. Dean Holden and his coaching staff need to work on set plays!! . Hopefully, with his experience at Brentford, Andy Scott will be aware of the potential here. 4. I’ve made the point in post match comments that we seem to be pressing well and it’s interesting that this is born out by the data. We rank third in the table for passes per defensive action, top of the table, by a clear margin, for both high turnovers and shot ending turnovers where a shot-ending sequence starts in open play having begun 40m or less from the opponent's goal. 5. The data on our passing is quite different from how it looked under Ben Garner. It would appear that we’re not trying to ‘play through teams’, but instead aiming to press high and win turnover ball in dangerous positions. That again would seem to fit with what we’re seeing with the naked eye.” Ten to fifteen games in I’ll try to post a summary of this kind of data. It will be interesting to see how things look once the season is close to a third of the way in. I remain conscious that there is some skepticism about this sort of analysis, but I’d make two observations in response to those understandable reservations. First, there is very good reason to believe the club’s management are looking at this kind of stuff. Second, skimming back through some of the posts on this thread it appears the conclusions have often been insightful even when at the time they may have been quite counterintuitive. To be clear, that’s not a comment about me, or anyone else who has posted, it’s simply evidence that the data we’re looking at has value. |
|
|
|
Post by surridgecobbler5 on Aug 22, 2023 13:44:40 GMT
Our last two results have been disappointing. The question is whether we might view them as a one-off or a result of our luck having run out? Prior to our games at Gillingham and Burton our record was 7-1-2 and we'd just won six matches on the bounce. Were we really that good though, or flattering to deceive, perhaps? Based on analysis by XgStats the answer is very clear cut. We were never that good. Here are a few headlines, based on analysis of our season to date, before last night's defeat at Burton Albion. 1. If to win (or lose) we assume there must be more than 0.5 expected goals (Xg) difference between the two sides (that's fairly arbitrary, but not unreasonable) then based on the Xg from our first eleven matches our record is 2-7-2, i.e. we'd have 13 points. That's one measure of how much better our actual results have been than our underlying performances. 2. If we look at a pure statistical measure of our 'expected points' from each game given the 'expected goals' in that game, then our total points season to date is 15.5, i.e. a little higher, but well below the 23 we've actually got. On both these measures of expected points we're in the bottom half of the table. 3. Focusing only on expected goals for, we rank 17th in the table. You don't need to be Alex Ferguson to see that we're simply not creating enough chances. Its very tough being a striker for Charlton Athletic. The team simply isn't providing the service needed. 4. Our defence is clearly our strength. At least until last night our expected goals against placed us sixth in that table. Add to this the heroics of Ben Amos, again at least until last night, and it is fairly clear that we are set up to stop our opponents playing and to keep it tight at the back. The price for that focus is painfully obvious though. To fix a problem you need to begin by understanding it. That's never easy and its even harder if you are fooled by outcome bias. Hopefully, someone at the club is looking objectively at our underlying performances and, based on that, is able to find solutions. |
|
|
|
Post by surridgecobbler5 on Aug 22, 2023 13:50:52 GMT
I. m New around here but I find this very interesting Can you judge a qualitative issue sport with quantitative methodology ..there's a question !
I'd say I prefer the a
the more direct style of Holden to the possession-based Garnerball, primarily because at this level and with this quality of players, a more direct approach is likely to be successful. The point about set pieces is critical.I think we certainly miss the attributes of Innis in both boxes. As well as playing direct to May not him playing off a target man is limiting the finishing. CBT is also wasteful, and I love to see him play right side to improve his final ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Aug 22, 2023 13:51:24 GMT
It's early days as you say for stats. I'm at least encouraged by our xG. We've also had the joint most shots. So we're creating stuff but our finishing is woeful. I believe the goals will come. If we sign another striker or when Leaburn is back.
My biggest concern is the goals against. Just looking at the 'Zones of control' on that Opta site. We have an area of our own box which is contested! (50%). Kinda shows the work we have. We need all that area to be Charlton controlled at a minimum.
Also, looking at the individual stats. CBT has very minimal xG, despite the amount of time he has played and the fact I've seen he's completed the most dribbles so far. Backs up the common theme that he's beating his man but not doing anything worthy after (obviously the 1 assist being the exception). Really need him to pick a pass out. His decision making at times is extruciating, but also probably why he's in L1 and will remain there imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Aug 22, 2023 15:50:28 GMT
I. m New around here but I find this very interesting Can you judge a qualitative issue sport with quantitative methodology ..there's a question ! That’s a really good question. I have absolutely no doubt that data and analysis can help. However, it’s critical to take the time to understand what any data item actually means and how it might help. There are lots of people out there who don’t really understand the statistics they’re quoting and who sometimes misrepresent and mislead. That’s why I titled this thread ‘Lies, lies, damn lies and statistics’, even though I’m a believer in the huge potential value of data and analytics. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Aug 22, 2023 15:59:49 GMT
It's early days as you say for stats. I'm at least encouraged by our xG. We've also had the joint most shots. So we're creating stuff but our finishing is woeful. I believe the goals will come. If we sign another striker or when Leaburn is back. My biggest concern is the goals against. Just looking at the 'Zones of control' on that Opta site. We have an area of our own box which is contested! (50%). Kinda shows the work we have. We need all that area to be Charlton controlled at a minimum. Also, looking at the individual stats. CBT has very minimal xG, despite the amount of time he has played and the fact I've seen he's completed the most dribbles so far. Backs up the common theme that he's beating his man but not doing anything worthy after (obviously the 1 assist being the exception). Really need him to pick a pass out. His decision making at times is extruciating, but also probably why he's in L1 and will remain there imo. Agreed aaronaldo though it’s also worth looking at CBT’s expected assists. These are running at 0.31 per match which represents a very decent contribution. Next on the Xa for us is Karoy Anderson at 0.13, followed by Nathan Asiimwe on 0.11. As you’ve said, it’s very early days for this data which doesn’t yet mean that much, but an obvious worry is our high dependency on CBT for the creation of goalscoring opportunities. |
|
|
|
Post by vaangard on Aug 27, 2023 14:35:45 GMT
CBT possibly is so bloody quick that there is nobody in the box when he looks up. Hence "No end product".
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Aug 27, 2023 14:50:25 GMT
It's early days as you say for stats. I'm at least encouraged by our xG. We've also had the joint most shots. So we're creating stuff but our finishing is woeful. I believe the goals will come. If we sign another striker or when Leaburn is back. My biggest concern is the goals against. Just looking at the 'Zones of control' on that Opta site. We have an area of our own box which is contested! (50%). Kinda shows the work we have. We need all that area to be Charlton controlled at a minimum. Also, looking at the individual stats. CBT has very minimal xG, despite the amount of time he has played and the fact I've seen he's completed the most dribbles so far. Backs up the common theme that he's beating his man but not doing anything worthy after (obviously the 1 assist being the exception). Really need him to pick a pass out. His decision making at times is extruciating, but also probably why he's in L1 and will remain there imo. Not sure what the XG was for the first half yesterday but overall it was 1:1.5 in Oxford's favour for the whole game. And that in turn brings the August numbers closer to where we were last season. It will be interesting to see September numbers now that we have both Campbells available and Leaburn due to return. Add that to what CBT has contributed and perhaps XG created can stay around 1.5? In terms of defence the average 1.43 XG against needs to trend down towards 1.1 or below. Only a decent, settled spine of the team will secure that so decisions on formation and personnel needed fast. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Aug 27, 2023 14:58:48 GMT
CBT possibly is so bloody quick that there is nobody in the box when he looks up. Hence "No end product". Thats wishful thinking. It’s his lack of ability to slow down / composure in these situations that is the issue. Plus decision making I would say. |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Oct 2, 2023 14:19:20 GMT
What sites / apps do people use to track xG etc? Opta is great but doesn't easily show the xG trend. Would love a line chart for that ideally.
Also doesn't capture "big chances", which we're nearly bottom of the table on. Which aligns with my view that we have rearely cut a team open with through passes etc. We reply a lot on wide play and not attacking through the middle. Which is mad when we play 3 CM's.
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 2, 2023 15:35:25 GMT
What sites / apps do people use to track xG etc? Opta is great but doesn't easily show the xG trend. Would love a line chart for that ideally. Also doesn't capture "big chances", which we're nearly bottom of the table on. Which aligns with my view that we have rearely cut a team open with through passes etc. We reply a lot on wide play and not attacking through the middle. Which is mad when we play 3 CM's. Footy stats is quick to update and it's easy to click into individual games for us or opponents: footystats.org/england/efl-league-one/xgThis one aggregates season to date and splits between open play and set pieces - Mundell has written about this data which is subtly different to the one above. theanalyst.com/eu/2023/08/league-one-stats-2023-24-opta/And finally sofascore doesn't do XG but does have an opta driven algorithm to score every player. And this runs live so one can look at half time or the end to see how the scores correlate to your own views or those expressed on social media. What's noticeable is that our defensive scores went up in September. Note that there's no transparency about how the algorithm works and which Opta data is the most significant when compiling scores. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 5, 2023 14:05:44 GMT
A few weeks ago I said (a few posts above) that I'd try to summarise what the data is saying about our underlying performances 10-15 games in. I've decided to do so after just ten games, despite the very recent change of Head Coach, because doing so now will provide a useful comparator for how things look in another 10-15 games, by which time Michael Appleton ought to be really making his mark.
For me the framing here is very simple. James Rodwell and Andy Scott have told us that we have a wage bill in the top 2-4 of League One wage bills. We now have a hand-picked Head Coach who is supported by an experienced Technical Director and a soon to be appointed Director of Performance. And we benefit from a thriving academy, of course. Against this background, we should expect the club to make a strong challenge for a place in the top six and, in my view, that's an entirely reasonable expectation for this season.
The bookmakers remain sceptical. On SkyBet we're currently 4/1 against to make the top six, behind ten other teams who have shorter odds. The objective of this post, and those that will follow later in the season, is to assess what the data is telling us about our chances, about our underlying performances and, most importantly, whether we improve as the season progresses. Can we prove the bookmakers wrong? I'd note here that a quick skim of previous posts on this thread tends to confirm that the data on our underlying performances has been a much better lead indicator of likely future results than past results.
Shots for an against and Xg
The simplest indicator of underlying performance is shots, for and against, with expected goals (Xg) a more refined version of shots taken which reflects the quality of the chance.
The data tells us that we've taken more shots from open play than any other team except Peterborough. However, our XgF from open play ranks only seventh at 9.56, which is lower than the 11 goals we've actually scored from open play. That's a credible if not spectacular start and its worth noting that three of the teams with a higher XgF than us have played one more game.
Our XgA against from open play stands at 7.98, so we have a positive XgD, but there are ten sides who've been more difficult to create chances against than we've been. One way of looking at our Xg is to say that if we continue to create and concede chances from open play at the current rate, then we'd finish the season with a goal difference from open play of around 7. Credible, but nowhere near good enough to finish in the top six.
The position from set plays is less favourable. Our XgA from set plays is 4.04 and only three teams have done worse. We haven't done much better from our own set plays. Our Xg here is 1.98 with only five teams doing worse. Moreover, our Xg here is potentially flattered by the fact that Opta have included the Xg of the rebound Alfie May scored from, following Chuk Aneke's penalty miss.
Our results have been helped by the fact we've also scored from three penalties, four if we include May's goal from that rebound, but we'd be very fortunate to continue to win penalties in forty percent of our matches.
If the bookmakers are looking simply at this data then its not surprising they don't fancy our chances of making the playoffs. We'll obviously need to improve if we are going to make a serious challenge. Though results have clearly improved under Michael Appleton, its much less clear that there has been a statistically significant improvement in our Xg. Both the scoreline and the Xg on Tuesday night against Exeter City almost certainly flattered us.
Other data
Opta produce lots of additional data and much of it interesting. Some of this data isn't that easy to interpret though and even when it is, much of it is simply telling us about our style of play, not whether that style is a good way of playing or if we are executing the style effectively.
Opta put together data on what they call 'Sequence Styles', addressing the question whether teams like to keep possession and build up slowly, like Manchester City or play in shorter sequences, moving the ball quickly and directly, like West Ham, for example. We appear to be more of a passing team than a direct team, but we do not appear to have a very clear style like Wigan, or Notts County in League Two, for example. It will be interesting to see how this evolves under Appleton.
Opta produce graphics they call 'Zones of Control' which for each of 30 segments of the pitch indicates the team that has the most touches in that area, providing an interesting visual image of who is controlling games and who isn't. In the Premier League Arsenal, Brighton, Manchester City and Tottenham, all dominate the pitch, as might be expected, while Luton, Forest and Sheffield United are dominated. West Ham are also dominated though, yet sit 7th in the table. Anyway, we are one of the most dominant teams in League One. We appear to be controlling matches in the same way the best teams at the top of the pyramid do.
Finally, the data on our pressing is the most striking of all the Opta data and it will be very interesting to see whether this continues in the coming weeks.
Opta's measure of pressing shows that only Bolton have produced a higher level of pressing than we have. Opta measure what they call High Turnovers which captures the number of sequences (possessions) that start in open play and begin 40m or less from the opponents goal. In other words, we're looking here at teams winning the ball back high up the field. Here, we're second only to Steve Evan's aggressive and direct Stevenage. Moreover, we actually top the table for such turnovers that then end in a shot on goal. It's not clear whether this style of play was more Holden than Appleton, but we'll obviously find out over the next few months.
Players
Opta also produce data on individual players. This is probably less useful in helping us to understand performance, but there are a few interesting observations as far as Charlton is concerned.
Alfie May's Xg per game, ex penalties, is 0.31 so that we might expect him to score 14 goals in 46 matches, excluding penalties. He is 30th on list for Xg, i.e. 29 other League One players might be expected to score more goals than May with Martin Waghorn and Victor Adeboyejo topping the list with an Xg per game of 0.64. We should see our old friend Jordan Rhodes on Saturday and he's coming in at 0.53. Miles Leaburn is just behind Alfie May in the list at 0.29. We need to create more chances for our best finishers.
Corey Blackett Taylor tops the CAFC list for Expected Assists on 0.15 per game, but he has 46 other League One players ahead of him.
This data is consistent with our failure create enough chances. As the playing style and formation bed down and key players establish themselves in the side, we can hope this will change and for our big players to feature more prominently in the list of high performing League One players.
Finally, though we do not yet have any players featuring prominently in the chances or chance creation stakes, Corey Blackett Taylor does feature in Opta's analysis of carries. He has the most shot ending carries and the most key pass ending carries in League One.
Other observations
It appears that Michael Appleton has a lot of work to do, but its early days yet. It's already clear that he's going to play a system Andy Scott has recruited for. That's no surprise, of course, but it seems likely that Dean Holden's problem was that with his ineffective 3-5-2 he was seeking an unsustainable independence.
Moreover, now that we've had the opportunity to see something of each of our new signings, it seems clear we've recruited well, with T Watson, Hector, Jones, Edun, L Watson and May all looking good with judgement perhaps reserved on Isted, Camara, T Taylor, C Campbell and Tedic and only Abankwah a possible disappointment. Hopefully, Abankwah will prove even that reservation wrong next Tuesday evening in the EFL Trophy.
We've certainly seen a major upgrade in the squad. Let's now hope that both the underlying data on our performances and our results show the improvement needed so that by year end we are seen as genuine playoff contenders.
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 5, 2023 18:43:39 GMT
It's a great idea to baseline XG analysis and other observations at this point. People can then digest and challenge. Then we might discuss where we think we might be after 20 or 23 games - in terms of XG, results and performances.
No transfers in or out for three months so it's all about improving culture, fitness, and decision making through coaching and personal development.
A big test for the players recruited by Scott and Appleton's coaching ability. And the XG reports don't lie!
XG explains theoretical value of where chances are taken. But it's fair to say that in Leaburn, Aneke, May, Tedic and the rest we have a potentially prolific attack.
Should we rush to the bookies and lump on before the odds are cut?! Or simply enjoy the games and watch the odds dwindle should we continue this current run?
There's also the inevitability of injuries to consider plus incoming bids for our best players. But why worry?! Too early to say for sure but this SMT appears more competent than any we have seen for a while.
So if Leaburn continues to blossom and a multi- million bid arrives will the club accept and use the windfall to develop and retain the rest. Or do what's counterintuitive and retain him?
Much will depend upon where we are in three months - what are the % chances of a play-off finish and a crack at Wembley 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 5, 2023 19:15:38 GMT
It's a great idea to baseline XG analysis and other observations at this point. People can then digest and challenge. Then we might discuss where we think we might be after 20 or 23 games - in terms of XG, results and performances. No transfers in or out for three months so it's all about improving culture, fitness, and decision making through coaching and personal development. A big test for the players recruited by Scott and Appleton's coaching ability. And the XG reports don't lie! XG explains theoretical value of where chances are taken. But it's fair to say that in Leaburn, Aneke, May, Tedic and the rest we have a potentially prolific attack. Should we rush to the bookies and lump on before the odds are cut?! Or simply enjoy the games and watch the odds dwindle should we continue this current run? There's also the inevitability of injuries to consider plus incoming bids for our best players. But why worry?! Too early to say for sure but this SMT appears more competent than any we have seen for a while. So if Leaburn continues to blossom and a multi- million bid arrives will the club accept and use the windfall to develop and retain the rest. Or do what's counterintuitive and retain him? Much will depend upon where we are in three months - what are the % chances of a play-off finish and a crack at Wembley. A longshot perhaps? But is there a site that predicts expected outcomes based upon XG? How many games are required before one can accurately estimate direction of travel and most likely outcomes after 46 games. Not searching for certainty, just an edge with the bookies 😉 My own view is that 4/1 against making the playoffs represents good value. Those odds imply that we've only got a one in five chance of finishing in the top six (a little less than that if we allow for the bookies' margin) and that strikes me as unduly pessimistic, given the wage budget we appear to have and the decent squad of players which has been put together. Put another way, if we're not capable of making the top six at least one season in five then there's something very wrong. I guess we're all a bit concerned about our defence, but though it is very early days we do appear a little more resilient under Appleton and he has at least played the same centre backs in each match. I agree entirely that we now appear well stocked up front. The puzzle for Appleton is how to combine his best players. What does he do on the right of the front three and how does he ensure sufficient control and creativity in the areas immediately behind that front three? If you're at all inclined to have a flutter I'd go for it now!! Two or three more wins and those odds will come crashing in!! |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 23, 2023 16:24:54 GMT
It's a great idea to baseline XG analysis and other observations at this point. People can then digest and challenge. Then we might discuss where we think we might be after 20 or 23 games - in terms of XG, results and performances. No transfers in or out for three months so it's all about improving culture, fitness, and decision making through coaching and personal development. A big test for the players recruited by Scott and Appleton's coaching ability. And the XG reports don't lie! XG explains theoretical value of where chances are taken. But it's fair to say that in Leaburn, Aneke, May, Tedic and the rest we have a potentially prolific attack. Should we rush to the bookies and lump on before the odds are cut?! Or simply enjoy the games and watch the odds dwindle should we continue this current run? There's also the inevitability of injuries to consider plus incoming bids for our best players. But why worry?! Too early to say for sure but this SMT appears more competent than any we have seen for a while. So if Leaburn continues to blossom and a multi- million bid arrives will the club accept and use the windfall to develop and retain the rest. Or do what's counterintuitive and retain him? Much will depend upon where we are in three months - what are the % chances of a play-off finish and a crack at Wembley. A longshot perhaps? But is there a site that predicts expected outcomes based upon XG? How many games are required before one can accurately estimate direction of travel and most likely outcomes after 46 games. Not searching for certainty, just an edge with the bookies 😉 My own view is that 4/1 against making the playoffs represents good value. Those odds imply that we've only got a one in five chance of finishing in the top six (a little less than that if we allow for the bookies' margin) and that strikes me as unduly pessimistic, given the wage budget we appear to have and the decent squad of players which has been put together. Put another way, if we're not capable of making the top six at least one season in five then there's something very wrong. I guess we're all a bit concerned about our defence, but though it is very early days we do appear a little more resilient under Appleton and he has at least played the same centre backs in each match. I agree entirely that we now appear well stocked up front. The puzzle for Appleton is how to combine his best players. What does he do on the right of the front three and how does he ensure sufficient control and creativity in the areas immediately behind that front three? If you're at all inclined to have a flutter I'd go for it now!! Two or three more wins and those odds will come crashing in!! The bookies now offering 13/5 after our last couple of results so you were right to advise lumping on at 4/1. XG from open play improving too, but probably best to see where we are at the end of the month after two away games. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 24, 2023 8:48:29 GMT
Fortune favours the brave seriouslyred !! If we win tonight and then get results against Bolton and at Wigan those odds will simply drift tighter!! There is no free lunch here!! |
|
|
|
Post by mersthamred on Oct 24, 2023 18:07:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 24, 2023 21:52:10 GMT
Fortune favours the brave seriouslyred !! If we win tonight and then get results against Bolton and at Wigan those odds will simply drift tighter!! There is no free lunch here!! My overdraft safely guarded from the bookies 😉 Will I get even better odds next week?! |
|
|
|
Post by aaronaldo on Oct 25, 2023 8:54:41 GMT
Fortune favours the brave seriouslyred !! If we win tonight and then get results against Bolton and at Wigan those odds will simply drift tighter!! There is no free lunch here!! My overdraft safely guarded from the bookies 😉 Will I get even better odds next week?! You probably will for the rest of the season.. |
|
