Progress after Round 15:
Phoenix Analysis
Back at it after the break - today's column consists of:
The Nix's second-half dominance
The rarity that was last night's poor midfield display.
Glen Moss' punditry
HOT TAKES (aka satire) about how Kenny Cunningham is a pro's pro.
You omitted "it's the thought process", "individual brilliance" "Boom!" for Moss to use.
Be interested to see how this game changes the margins. WSW will certainly move into slightly more respectable territory.
Also, plan either tomorrow or Tuesday to do a statistical analysis on Lia v Gorrin - whether Merrick should be persisting with sticking with Lia in the starting lineup.
Tards have gone up. I guess we will go down.
After Round 16
Good stuff J82.
To recap, in the past two seasons, no team has cracked 39% or gone below 23%, so improvement on the part of CCM and WSW is actually the thing I'd be most confident predicting. 17/20 have nestled in between the 25-32% range.
With the Nix, it wouldn't totally shock me if they ended in the high range of the 35-40% area, and that's because Ernie discourages shooting outside the box, the Nix by and large take quality shots and that's the bit of context which can be added to this stat.
However, I'm still comfortable predicting that they will slide from the 43% mark they have currently, but yeah - a mark rebuffing the historical trends wouldn't be out of the realms of possibility.
(I'm actually more intrigued if CCM and WSW can stay that low, as that would be even more of an historical outlier. Will be interesting to keep track for sure).
It's interesting because that previously teams have fallen within that band by the 11th or 12th round so it's probably surprising we and victory aren't there yet.
I see a lot of talk from WSW fans that they just need to shoot more. These stats indicate it's not that simple.
OK, so I get that these historical data points are consistent with other leagues (which have longer seasons and more games). I would like to know why all teams average out to a narrow(ish) band.
Why would we expect "good" teams to tail off later in the season and "poor" teams to lift their game?
Surely a team that has a high conversion rate should be able to maintain that unless there are injuries to the main goal scorers or their team mates who supply the balls, or do other teams learn how to counter these teams later in the season?
| Team | G/SoT |
| Tards | 0.466 |
| Nix | 0.423 |
| Perth | 0.392 |
| AU | 0.361 |
| Bling | 0.319 |
| Roar | 0.292 |
| City | 0.259 |
| Jets | 0.224 |
| CCM | 0.217 |
| WSW | 0.185 |
Have teams worked out how to counter our game in the midfield and crowd out the box so we can't get shots away in the box?
Does Vince Lia deserve his starting spot, or should it go back to Alejandro Gorrin? I took a look at one part of the equation - the statistics:
I guess the beauty of stats is that they are devoid of emotion. The unfortunate thing is that they only paint the story you choose to look at. This is not an accusation merely mirroring your observation that there are other factors unmentioned. Its unfortunate there is not a comparative stat for the intangibles like field positioning that affects the passing options or something like that.
Good analysis.
At the margins:
- Tards improve to 0.481,
- we slip marginally to 0.417,
- WSW stay the same at 0.186
- CCM slip to 0.208
Round is a bit skew-whiff with the postponed game and also I think the A-League season stats for Nix and Jets weren't updated after the game (Goals per Shots on Target):
| Team | R18 |
| Tards | 0.48 |
| Nix | 0.41 |
| Perth | 0.39 |
| AU | 0.34 |
| Bling | 0.34 |
| Roar | 0.29 |
| Jets | 0.26 |
| City | 0.24 |
| CCM | 0.22 |
| WSW | 0.18 |
What I'd be interested in is how the amount of goals from corners compares to goals from general play.
Say the chance of scoring from a corner pumped into the mixer is 1/30. If the chance of scoring from any given possession/attacking play is better than 1/30 then playing a short corner is the best option. If it's worse than 1/30 then crossing the corner in is worth it.
Basically, there's not many goals scored in football. It takes a lot of attempts at creating goal scoring chances for every shot taken, and a lot of shots for every goal. On its own 1/30 sounds very low, but is it really? For instance, in yesterdays game there were 33 shots (including blocked shots), and 49 cross attempts, in a game with only 1 goal.
"Set pieces are another focus. Midtjylland have scored 15 goals from set pieces from 17 games, an average of 0.88 per game, the second highest in Europe. Only Atlético Madrid, with an average of 1.04 a game, are more prolific. The highest in the Premier League are Arsenal with 15 in 26 games, an average of 0.57."
Arsenal leading anything in set-pieces goes against conventional wisdom for sure, good read. Over a set-piece goal a game is super impressive from Atletico, they've always interested me, especially in their habit of often defending corners with no men on the posts, something which is just accepted in football without any data analysis behind it.
FYI, the column has taken a break recently with uni starting up again and having to cover the Breakers means there's been some clashes, hopefully I'll be able to catch the next games live and get back into it.
Re: Atletico not putting men on the posts on corners, this old article about Barcelona's zonal marking at corners is a great read and probably applies to Atleti these days too https://defensiveminded.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/b...
Sounds like a great idea but it's a bit hard to pull off in social grades when you don't have linesman...
Before the Asian Cup, Wellington were placing 40% of their shots on target, largely aided by the fact that 73% of their shots were coming from inside the box – at the time the highest ratio in the league. Since the season has resumed, they have managed to place just 29% of their shots on target, with only 63% of their shots coming from inside the penalty area (and only 55% discounting the Newcastle match).
http://leopoldmethod.com.au/jets-get-physical-as-asian-cup-break-burns-the-phoenix/
Interesting stat given the calls from some people to shoot from distance more.
It also depends on the context of the game.
and the ability of the people who would be taking those long shots.
It looks like what we were seeing in the game, BUrns/Krishna has missed the instinctive nature and combination they had before the break. I'd also say that Roly hasn't rampaged as much? often he sucked in players, creating space.
"Over the last three A-League seasons, of all the players who have scored more than five non-penalty goals in a season, Burns’ pre-Asian Cup form was the best the competition had seen. His 0.77 non-penalty goals per 90 minutes (NPG90) was superior to even Besart Berisha’s best efforts. Assisted by Wellington’s system that created high percentage scoring opportunities, he was placing 55% of shots on target – the fourth highest on the graph above.
With no goals since the break though, Burns has started to fall back amongst the pack. He has had 0.5 less shots per game, but importantly 0.7 less shots on target per game too. Although Wellington have perhaps been unable to create as many high quality chances in recent weeks as they did earlier in the season, the Newcastle match aside, it could also be a case that Burns’ astonishing and record-breaking pre-Asian Cup form had become unsustainable."
And yet the Tards still remain just under 0.5 goals per shots on target so clearly they are able to sustain their conversion rate. Are we too reliant on Burns?
After Round 19:
The conversion rate is pretty high, we should work on our set pieces, which are not as good. Check this little piece below on vimeo, it's in the beginning of the "Die Mannschaft" movie.
Mueller says, they trained the trip and he thinks the idea worked pretty well in the game, the Algerian players we pretty stunned and did no reacted to his run. But as you can see in the video, the chip by Toni Kroos was the not good enough. The coach said, it was the players idea, he would had wished they did not tried that in the 89 min with a score of nil all.
password: number8
the art of deception.....
I used to use a corner routine for the first corner of the day where I would place the ball down at the corner flag. As I was taking a couple of steps back, the best header of the ball in the team would make a massive run to the near post, while I stood there looking bemused at him. He would bollock me for not putting the ball in, and I would generally tell him to fudge off and we would have a little go at each other. Everyone would then stomp back to their original position. He would then feint to make the same run to the near post (along with all the other team members in the box) before peeling off to the far post where I would hit the corner. We scored a few from it, and generally ended up with a header on target.
After Round 20:
Interestingly the Tards have dropped a few notches:
| Team | R16 | R17 | R18 | R19 | R20 |
| Tards | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.45 |
| Nix | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| Perth | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| Bling | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.35 |
| AU | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.34 |
| Roar | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.31 |
| City | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.24 |
| Jets | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.23 |
| CCM | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.21 |
| WSW | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.19 |
Nix:
Goals per shots on target after Round 21:
| Team | R16 | R17 | R18 | R19 | R20 | R21 |
| Tards | 0.47 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.47 |
| Nix | 0.42 | 0.42 | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| Perth | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 |
| Bling | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.36 |
| AU | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.34 |
| Roar | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.34 |
| City | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.27 |
| Jets | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| CCM | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.22 |
| WSW | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.21 |
So with 6 rounds to go Tards and Nix stay above the historical high while CCM and WSW still can't get above the historical low.
Did you mean this: http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/mar/...?
I found it pretty devoid of analysis to be honest.
The premise, you'd guess based on the headline, was control of danger zones. But there was no explanation of that theory really.
The single example used to back up the headline was a time when Perth doubled up on Bonevacia (because he's a beast) leaving McGlinchy free. I'm not sure that substantiates a cunning "control of danger zones" argument.
The rest of the piece was unconnected statistics, quotes from randoms, and some purring "Ernie is a genius" suckuppery.
Hardly heavy-hitting analysis imho.
On one level I agree with you Smithy - it was less in-depth than I had anticipated. However I think you are doing them a slight disservice...
They did cover (albeit briefly) that, in addition to the example you quote, the way the Phoenix are "controlling the danger zones" is that when Bonevacia leaves the central forward midfield position WeeMac fills the gap and when Riera leaves the defensive screen position, Lia moves in to fill the gap.
And I thought they were trying to say that these two pairings covering the two danger zone areas was what they were saying was the core of the Phoenix dominance...
Apart from the Leopold Method, when has anyone ever attempted to analyse a Nix game?
There's usually some great discussion on the threads here (sandwiched in between "Lia is shark" and "Boyd should be starting" comments) and a journeyman piece by Worthington, a better effort by Daniel Richardson and a rather tame report on the A-League site (but the stats are excellent).
It's nice to see this sort of article and hopefully we see more as we move towards the finals.
Apart from the Leopold Method, when has anyone ever attempted to analyse a Nix game?
There's usually some great discussion on the threads here (sandwiched in between "Lia is shark" and "Boyd should be starting" comments) and a journeyman piece by Worthington, a better effort by Daniel Richardson and a rather tame report on the A-League site (but the stats are excellent).
It's nice to see this sort of article and hopefully we see more as we move towards the finals.
This is certainly true. It was a lot more of a good attempt than the pro forma bullshark we usually have to put up with.
From 2 Jan:
Good stuff J82.
To recap, in the past two seasons, no team has cracked 39% or gone below 23%, so improvement on the part of CCM and WSW is actually the thing I'd be most confident predicting. 17/20 have nestled in between the 25-32% range.
With the Nix, it wouldn't totally shock me if they ended in the high range of the 35-40% area, and that's because Ernie discourages shooting outside the box, the Nix by and large take quality shots and that's the bit of context which can be added to this stat.
However, I'm still comfortable predicting that they will slide from the 43% mark they have currently, but yeah - a mark rebuffing the historical trends wouldn't be out of the realms of possibility.
(I'm actually more intrigued if CCM and WSW can stay that low, as that would be even more of an historical outlier. Will be interesting to keep track for sure).
It's interesting because that previously teams have fallen within that band by the 11th or 12th round so it's probably surprising we and victory aren't there yet.
I see a lot of talk from WSW fans that they just need to shoot more. These stats indicate it's not that simple.
OK, so I get that these historical data points are consistent with other leagues (which have longer seasons and more games). I would like to know why all teams average out to a narrow(ish) band.
Why would we expect "good" teams to tail off later in the season and "poor" teams to lift their game?
Surely a team that has a high conversion rate should be able to maintain that unless there are injuries to the main goal scorers or their team mates who supply the balls, or do other teams learn how to counter these teams later in the season?
With 5 rounds to go there has actually been bugger all movement in the top two and bottom two teams.
Despite the Leopold Analysis crediting the high ratio to Burns (which is clearly true in the early stages), the Nix still continue to remain above the historic levels with or without Burns.
Still - could see a form dip by Nix and the Tards in the last 5 games.
Goals per shots on target after Round 23:
| Team | R18 | R19 | R20 | R21 | R22 | R23 |
| Tards | 0.48 | 0.48 | 0.45 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.48 |
| Nix | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.42 |
| Perth | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.38 | 0.37 |
| Bling | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.36 |
| AU | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.34 | 0.33 |
| Roar | 0.31 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.33 | 0.24 |
| City | 0.24 | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.27 | 0.28 | 0.28 |
| Jets | 0.26 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.24 | 0.23 |
| CCM | 0.22 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.22 | 0.22 |
| WSW | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.19 | 0.21 | 0.21 | 0.25 |
Nix are now getting close to the 0.39 historical high, but Tards still remain well above. Meanwhile WSW have jumped above the historical low but Jets slide down to join CCM:
And here are the stats heading into the final round. Nix have dropped down below 0.39 in the last two rounds (a result of the three games in a row without any goals). Tards still well above and will probably finish this way.
Just wondering, IIRC we have beaten every team at least once. Have we managed to do this before? I also saw someone say that no other team has come back from 2-0 at half time and won before in the HAL.
Have yet to do the final tally up but the Leopold Analysis linked on the home page is a good read.
Final Stats:
Nix dipping below the historic high of 0.39 in the last three rounds but really showing a form slump from R23 onwards (very few goals in the last few games so no surprise that they drop so far).
Tards maintain a very high conversion rate as per the Leopold Analysis.
At the bottom end WSW just fall below the historic low and CCM, Jets and City also finish well down.
So Tards buck the trend and are ridiculously efficient in converting shots into goals throughout the season. Nix also remained efficient until the last few rounds and perhaps could have stayed up closer to the Tards but for injury to Griffiths and some poor penalties!
Sorry Junior. There is no place on these forums for well constructed and highly accurate facts!
Please stick to wild speculations and general stupid or I will report you and get you banned.
Please stick to wild speculations and general stupid.
OK. We're really shark and can't score in a place that is easy to score in.
And Dura's beard is responsible.
Leave Dura's Flavour Saver alone!!!
Too late!
Good stuff J82. Would have loved to keep track of it if not for university (pfft, what's it any good for....) so appreciate you keeping the stats going.
No Fresh Prince, No Stats Party