|
|
Post by stevebrown on Oct 14, 2017 19:50:07 GMT
Well I think today's game summed up the thread title. Doncaster appeared to be what they are, a lower mid table side.
I can't see them being in a shout for the play offs, but I also think they looked organised and hard working enough to avoid relegation. I reckon where they are in the table looks about right. We should have won by 2 or 3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2017 21:15:06 GMT
Well I think today's game summed up the thread title. Doncaster appeared to be what they are, a lower mid table side. I can't see them being in a shout for the play offs, but I also think they looked organised and hard working enough to avoid relegation. I reckon where they are in the table looks about right. We should have won by 2 or 3. Still 3 points if it's 1 nil or 3 nil |
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Oct 14, 2017 22:52:14 GMT
Well I think today's game summed up the thread title. Doncaster appeared to be what they are, a lower mid table side. I can't see them being in a shout for the play offs, but I also think they looked organised and hard working enough to avoid relegation. I reckon where they are in the table looks about right. We should have won by 2 or 3. Still 3 points if it's 1 nil or 3 nil Certainly is. I'd be happy to win every game 1-0. |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 15, 2017 12:45:50 GMT
Well I think today's game summed up the thread title. Doncaster appeared to be what they are, a lower mid table side. I can't see them being in a shout for the play offs, but I also think they looked organised and hard working enough to avoid relegation. I reckon where they are in the table looks about right. We should have won by 2 or 3. I'll bet you a tenner they finish higher than 18th!! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 15, 2017 13:10:11 GMT
Well I think today's game summed up the thread title. Doncaster appeared to be what they are, a lower mid table side. I can't see them being in a shout for the play offs, but I also think they looked organised and hard working enough to avoid relegation. I reckon where they are in the table looks about right. We should have won by 2 or 3. Perhaps we might have scored a second as we had better chances than the actual Fosu goal. I think that rather than belittle Doncaster, we should ask ourselves why they didn't create their typical 12 chances - which also happens to be the typical number of chances we concede. Was it their no.26 going off injured? Or perhaps our defence and midfield pivots playing better? Or was it as described by their manager: www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/news/2017/october/ferguson-wants-more/Perhaps they were chasing the game after we went 1-0 up and found it hard to break us down? If That's the case, then that augurs well for the future given we have been conceding too many chances. Obviously one game is too small a sample so let's see how this pattern develops. For it's possible that our stats may edge towards those in the group behind Wigan, i.e., this isn't a fluke or an outlier that will vapourise over time. Tuesday night will tell us more. And isn't it great that we have the squad depth such that Pearce and Marshall being unavailable is hardly noticed? |
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Oct 15, 2017 13:12:28 GMT
Well I think today's game summed up the thread title. Doncaster appeared to be what they are, a lower mid table side. I can't see them being in a shout for the play offs, but I also think they looked organised and hard working enough to avoid relegation. I reckon where they are in the table looks about right. We should have won by 2 or 3. I'll bet you a tenner they finish higher than 18th!! :-) I reckon they'll end up around 14th-18th. |
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Oct 15, 2017 13:58:36 GMT
Well I think today's game summed up the thread title. Doncaster appeared to be what they are, a lower mid table side. I can't see them being in a shout for the play offs, but I also think they looked organised and hard working enough to avoid relegation. I reckon where they are in the table looks about right. We should have won by 2 or 3. Perhaps we might have scored a second as we had better chances than the actual Fosu goal. I think that rather than belittle Doncaster, we should ask ourselves why they didn't create their typical 12 chances - which also happens to be the typical number of chances we concede. Was it their no.26 going off injured? Or perhaps our defence and midfield pivots playing better? Or was it as described by their manager: www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/news/2017/october/ferguson-wants-more/Perhaps they were chasing the game after we went 1-0 up and found it hard to break us down? If That's the case, then that augurs well for the future given we have been conceding too many chances. Obviously one game is too small a sample so let's see how this pattern develops. For it's possible that our stats may edge towards those in the group behind Wigan, i.e., this isn't a fluke or an outlier that will vapourise over time. Tuesday night will tell us more. And isn't it great that we have the squad depth such that Pearce and Marshall being unavailable is hardly noticed? I'm not sure anyone is belittling Doncaster, certainly not me. I think they are decent club who are doing well enough, certainly better than in the years when they had to seek re election to the football league. I think the reason we limited their chances was mainly because we put in a more professional, less gung ho performance. Instead of the whole midfield and both full backs pushing up, leaving the centre backs exposed, Solly, Kashi and JFC all played somewhat deeper when we were attacking. Certainly, James Coppinger going off didn't help them, but at 36 his better years are behind him. They definitely found it hard to break us down because we didn't leave big gaps, we got tighter and marked very well. In fact we did everything we were lacking in the recent run of win less matches. If we keep winning I don't doubt our stats will edge towards the top clubs and if we start to lose I expect our stats will also reflect that. I'm looking forward to Tuesday it can't come soon enough, it's a pity that the ground is so far from the centre of town, but cabs each way normally work out well & you can always get a beer at the bowling alley adjacent to the ground. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 25, 2017 21:43:42 GMT
A new style of graphic has just appeared on Experimental 361. This link shows how we are fourth in the table on form over the last six games. It also shows that Wigan are streets ahead of the field with an expected goals of 12 scored vs 4.4 conceded. There are two clubs, Blackburn and Shrewsbury who have an expected goal difference of +3 but we are in the next set with an xG diff of +1 over six games. That might not sound much but this is good news to those who believe that these stats are relevant. For it validates that we are genuine play-off contenders rather than an outlier that will drop down the table. Goals are completely random events with just one in ten chances going in. This season we are creating 15 chances per game and therefore expect to create nine goals in six games. For sure expected goals is determined by the quality of the chances and these stats show that we create decent chances. Enough to get us to the next window in the top six. But nowhere near the top two  |
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 26, 2017 19:25:33 GMT
Don’t think this is a new set of tables Amigo. Ben Mayhew has been producing analysis in this format for a while. Clubs are ranked by points won over the last six matches and we are fourth. The ‘value add’ is then the mapping of results against expected goals for and against. Not for the first time this season we appear to have won more points than was warranted by our underlying performances. That’s if you believe expected goals is a good measure of performance anyway.
Of the leading teams Wigan, Shrewsbury and Blackburn appear to have been playing better than us over this period, but the key takeaway for me is just how open this League is. Over the last six matches Oldham, Bury and Bristol Rovers, for example, have all ourscored us on expected goal difference while Oxford and Rotherham have struggled.
A reasonable conclusion might be that any one of as many as a dozen teams might make the playoffs.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Oct 26, 2017 19:41:30 GMT
I would say any of the top 13 could make the play offs, plus MKD as a real outside bet, so 14 of the 24.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 26, 2017 20:04:45 GMT
Agreed. I might throw Doncaster Rovers in there too!! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Oct 26, 2017 20:28:33 GMT
Agreed. I might throw Doncaster Rovers in there too!! :-) Cheeky. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Oct 27, 2017 14:36:58 GMT
It's true that many sides could make the play-offs but we have an advantage as we have so many points on the board already. It will be a real surprise if we are not in the top six at the half way point. For sure it's a fresh release of the form table - I stand corrected! As stated, Doncaster show the same xG diff of +1 as ourselves. It just happens that they had a bad time against us. My point was that aside from the top three on xG we are in the mix for the play-offs and that is certainly at the top end of what we might have expected at the start of the season. Let's not forget those of us who were going to throw in the towell over the Dodoo loan  On a pure data view we have traveled from an xG of negative 0.09 (or -0.5 goals in six games) last season to +0.16 now. That happens to be precisely half the delta between us and Millwall and Bolton from last season. They were on +0.4 per game or an xG +2.4 goals over six games. The question now is whether the management, squad and possible acquisition of players in January can help us complete that journey in 2018? For if we can further improve our xG, that might secure automatic promotion? Or at least make us the best side in the play-offs?! |
|
|
|
Post by bexleyboy on Oct 27, 2017 14:41:57 GMT
Rotherham need to pick up as many points as possible before jan as there going to lose Moore back to Ipswich
|
|
|
|
Post by webbo on Oct 27, 2017 15:06:28 GMT
Get to 60 points by the end of January, and strengthen the squad by then and we will seriously be in business.
60 points would be very good statistics indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Oct 31, 2017 21:34:59 GMT
The latest update of Experimental's Scatter Graphs is here. Not much to add to what I've said in previous posts. If we believe that teams will mean revert to their position ranked by 'expected goals difference' then we are going to struggle to make the playoffs, unless our performances improve. That said, the league would appear to be absolutely wide open with only Wigan Athletic looking like the real deal. I'm not sure this analysis of attack breakdowns is terribly insightful, but it's interesting that Doyle (Oldham) and Moore (Rotherham) really stand out on both chances and conversion rate. |
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Nov 19, 2017 15:21:31 GMT
@richcawleyslp
Steve Parish describes the next eight matches as of "immense importance". Says expected goals metric means they should be 10th in the table. #cpfc
1:28 PM - Nov 18, 2017
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 15:40:17 GMT
@richcawleyslp Steve Parish describes the next eight matches as of "immense importance". Says expected goals metric means they should be 10th in the table. #cpfc 1:28 PM - Nov 18, 2017 Wtf does Crystal Palace stats have to do with us!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Nov 19, 2017 16:14:14 GMT
@richcawleyslp Steve Parish describes the next eight matches as of "immense importance". Says expected goals metric means they should be 10th in the table. #cpfc 1:28 PM - Nov 18, 2017 Wtf does Crystal Palace stats have to do with us!!!!! Look at the thread title and if it needs spelling out, it is illustrating that stats need to be treated with caution, as Palace are not 10th in the table. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 16:54:56 GMT
Wtf does Crystal Palace stats have to do with us!!!!! Look at the thread title and if it needs spelling out, it is illustrating that stats need to be treated with caution, as Palace are not 10th in the table. Yes “Steve”, this is a Charlton forum and you can look at our stats to see this without having to compare to Crystal Palace! |
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Nov 19, 2017 17:10:02 GMT
Look at the thread title and if it needs spelling out, it is illustrating that stats need to be treated with caution, as Palace are not 10th in the table. Yes “Steve”, this is a Charlton forum and you can look at our stats to see this without having to compare to Crystal Palace! Ok mate, you just keep having a dig if it's how you get your pleasure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2017 17:14:35 GMT
Yes “Steve”, this is a Charlton forum and you can look at our stats to see this without having to compare to Crystal Palace! Ok mate, you just keep having a dig if it's how you get your pleasure. Don’t start going all defensive with me matey, you ain’t going to provoke me the way you did with IA!!! On a Charlton forum there is no sense in bringing the stats of one of our rivals who aren’t even in our division into the discussion... Now go cry somewhere claiming I’ve been abusive, it’s your usual direction.... |
|
RedHood
Season Ticket Holder
Posts: 196 
|
Post by RedHood on Nov 19, 2017 20:39:40 GMT
Ok mate, you just keep having a dig if it's how you get your pleasure. Don’t start going all defensive with me matey, you ain’t going to provoke me the way you did with IA!!! On a Charlton forum there is no sense in bringing the stats of one of our rivals who aren’t even in our division into the discussion... Now go cry somewhere claiming I’ve been abusive, it’s your usual direction.... What about the thread on Sampdoria? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2017 8:06:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Nov 26, 2017 16:52:34 GMT
Haven’t posted on this thread since the end of October, largely because there has been very little to add. However, I’ve just taken a look at the ‘expected goals’ timeline for yesterday’s match at Scunthorpe. The data confirms the eyewitness reports. The match was very evenly contested and, with relatively few clear cut chances, a draw would probably have been a fair result. (For those who are interested I’ve copied a link to the League One timelines on the Experimental 3-6-1 site at the end of this post). It follows, therefore, that while the result was disappointing, the performance should probably be viewed as quite encouraging. That’s notwithstanding the fact a number of key players were unavailable and, in turn, this suggests that the squad isn’t actually short of depth in most areas. The Josh Magennis role is, of course, the one glaring exception to that fact. That said, it’s hard to know quite what to make of our prospects from here. On the one hand, if we are able to maintain our existing points per game ratio, then we’ll finish the season with around eighty seven points. That points total will secure a play-off position with a very significant margin for error and may well even be enough to win automatic promotion. Put another way, if we win eighty seven points it is simply inconceivable that we won’t make the play-offs. The concern, of course, is not with yesterday’s result, but with our performances prior to yesterday. The analysis of our ‘expected goals’, for and against, as reported in that last post, does not suggest that we are capable of getting anywhere near eighty seven points; an impression confirmed by our unconvincing performances against MK Dons and Rochdale. The question then is whether we’ve been flattering to deceive or whether we can defy the Experimental 3-6-1 model and continue to pick up points at the current rate? Our goal difference might provide something of a clue here. There is an interesting symmetry about our goals for and against. We have won six more games than we have lost and also have a goal difference of plus six; we have both won and lost one game by three clear goals (4-1, 0-3), won and lost two games by two clear goals (3-1, 2-0, 0-2, 0-2), won seven games by one clear goal (4 1-0s, 2 2-1s, 1 4-3) and lost one game by one clear goal (0-1). This pattern of results is entirely consistent with the prior observation that we’ve somehow managed to win a number of matches which really could have gone either way. It’s hard to believe this is simply down to luck though. Karl Robinson’s squad appears to be determined, resilient and very together, but it does seem unlikely that a team which appears unable to dominate other sides is going to be able to get 85-90 points. To put all of this into perspective though, last season Bolton Wanderers finished second with eighty six points while Millwall made the play-offs with just seventy three. Indeed, it would be an unusual season if we got to, say, seventy five points and failed to finish in the top six. From here that’s another forty one points from twenty eight games, equivalent to a sixty seven point season, and ought to be achievable. Those points need to be won one game at a time, of course, starting on Tuesday evening against Peterborough. Another difficult game in what is a very tough division. Here’s the link to yesterday’s League One timelines. |
|
|
|
Post by jonkool on Nov 26, 2017 17:48:43 GMT
Some very good points made Mundell but as usual it’s the perennial cliche of one game at a time.
However when I kept track of the Physio Room Website during our final Prem season I recall that the incidence of injury absence had a huge influence on performance stats. The period when Darren Bent was out injured had a high correlation to us failing to score and win.
Therefore our final position in May will be partly determined by two key factors, namely, our luck in terms of injury and our successful activity in the January window.
But let’s just concentrate on Tuesday and the Posh!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mundell on Nov 26, 2017 18:00:54 GMT
Agreed jonkool The January window will be interesting. My guess, for what it’s worth, is that Karl Robinson will be hoping to bring in a loan or two. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if he is able to make a permanent signing who will make a real difference. I guess we’ll see. |
|
|
|
Post by seriouslyred on Nov 26, 2017 18:07:11 GMT
Approximately once per month Ben at Experimental updates the scatter graphics. experimental361.com/2017/11/26/scatter-graphics-league-1-26-nov-2017/And these simply confirm the narrative from Mundell . Blackburn, Wigan and Shrewsbury are ahead of the rest and we are on a par with Portsmouth, Bradford, Scunthorpe etc. Our expected goals are up to 1.5 per game as we create 14-15 chances per game with a one in nine conversion rate. But our chances conceded have not improved on last season - we are bang average. Tuesday should be an exiting game for the Posh concede 14 chances per game. As posted elsewhere, it's in the gift of the owner to assist KR in taking us up a level with a few additions. But first some interesting games that will settle how many points we have at the halfway mark. |
|
|
|
Post by stevebrown on Nov 26, 2017 18:33:33 GMT
Last season Millwall (6th & promoted) had a goal difference of +9.
Charlton were 13th and had a goal difference of +7.
|
|
|
|
Post by newyorkaddick on Nov 26, 2017 20:34:30 GMT
Huddersfield were promoted last season with a negative goal difference....
|
|
