Nerdorama

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
saintanton

saintanton

Old
May 31, 2011
40,445
26,420
113
Right folks.
Having dipped me toe in the Statto Sea yesterday, I've now gone Full Nerd with this and compiled the list of attack v defence since The Dawn Of Time, i.e - the beginning of the Premier League.
This doesn't mean I've got the bug, btw, just bugged by continually having to present an argument which is painfully obvious to me, without the stats to back it up.
So, in the 25 years since football began, the highest scorers have been champions 15 times, the tightest arseholes defence has won it 10 times. 5 times the champions had both accolades, and 5 times neither.
This means that a team with attacking prowess but not so good in defence has won twice as many PL titles as those with the reverse credentials. 10 to 5.
Of course, these are bald statistics, and the reality is more complicated, but this should* bed the myth once and for all, that a strong defence is essential to success.

* Bet it doesn't though. <laugh>
I await to see the many ways in which I'm wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Germlands Nozzer, Lucaaas, Zanjinho and 4 others
saintKlopp said:
Right folks.
Having dipped me toe in the Statto Sea yesterday, I've now gone Full Nerd with this and compiled the list of attack v defence since The Dawn Of Time, i.e - the beginning of the Premier League.
This doesn't mean I've got the bug, btw, just bugged by continually having to present an argument which is painfully obvious to me, without the stats to back it up.
So, in the 25 years since football began, the highest scorers have been champions 15 times, the tightest arseholes defence has won it 10 times. 5 times the champions had both accolades, and 5 times neither.
This means that a team with attacking prowess but not so good in defence has won twice as many PL titles as those with the reverse credentials. 10 to 5.
Of course, these are bald statistics, and the reality is more complicated, but this should* bed the myth once and for all, that a strong defence is essential to success.

* Bet it doesn't though. <laugh>
I await to see the many ways in which I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
How many times in that period have the club with the best GD, not won the League mate?
 
Defensive teams don't lose games because they conceeded less.
Offensive teams win games because they score more.

Score lines in games will be higher, obviously, when an attacking team plays.

The more goals scored the less likely it will be a draw.

Do the maths.

0 goals scored. One possible permutation. 0-0 100% chance of draw.

2 goals scored. Three permutations 2-0, 1-1, 0-2. 33% chance of draw.

4 goals scored. 4-0, 3-1, 2-2,1-3,0-4 only a 20% chance of a draw.

In fact, the more goals scored, the less likely the result is a draw.

If all teams were evenly matched and played 38 games that all ended in draws, they would get 38 points each.

If all teams were evenly matched and played 38 games that never ended in a draw, they would average 59 points each.


There is a distinct advantage to having fewer draws, even if it means you lose more games. Statistically, being set up to attack plays the numbers better than a team set up to defend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InBiscanWeTrust
Tobes said:
....of those 8, how many had the tightest defence that season?
Click to expand...

Three.

Utd won it in 2003 with the tightest defence whilst Arsenal had the best GD. Also in 2009 when Liverpool had the best GD. Then Chelsea won in 2015 with the tightest defence whilst City had the best GD.

Rest of the time (Blackburn, Utd 97, Arsenal 98, Leicester, Chelsea 17) the league winner didn't have the best GD or tightest defence. Arsenal, Leicester and Chelsea didn't score the most goals either.
 
Swarbs said:
Three.

Utd won it in 2003 with the tightest defence whilst Arsenal had the best GD. Also in 2009 when Liverpool had the best GD. Then Chelsea won in 2015 with the tightest defence whilst City had the best GD.

Rest of the time (Blackburn, Utd 97, Arsenal 98, Leicester, Chelsea 17) the league winner didn't have the best GD or tightest defence. Arsenal, Leicester and Chelsea didn't score the most goals either.
Click to expand...
So in 20 out of 25 years, the league winners have either had the best GD or the tightest defence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jimmy Squarefoot
We don't need to have the best defence - we need a really good defence to compete.

A really good defence allows you to attack with more freedom as well.
 
Tobes said:
....of those 8, how many had the tightest defence that season?
Click to expand...
Ffs Tobes, I'm nerded out.
What's it matter? The stats show that you don't need the best defence to be successful, that's all. I only did it to prove that to the people who say we can't win whilst the defence is a bit dodgy. Obviously having both is best, but if you have to have one or the other, the better attack wins more often.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tobes
Tobes said:
So in 20 out of 25 years, the league winners have either had the best GD or the tightest defence.
Click to expand...

Yes. And in 19 out of those 25 years the league winners have either had the best GD or the best attack.

Although over the last three seasons none of the title winners have had the best attack or GD, and only Chelsea in 2015 had the best defence by one goal. So, imo, it is more important to be able to close out games consistently and get wins, whether through a clean sheet or outscoring the opponent, rather than relying too much on either defence or attack.
 
You may not need the best defence but you cannot go conceding 40 plus goals and win the league. Chelsea won the league but Spurs had a better defence but the Chavs were not far off the best defence.

A good defence helps you grind out those games where the strike force fails. When Chelsea went 1 nil up you had to be confident they would win the game. With Liverpool you need the final whistle and the highlights show to be done to make sure we don't concede.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ademuzzy, Jimmy Squarefoot and Tobes
Tobes said:
So in 20 out of 25 years, the league winners have either had the best GD or the tightest defence.
Click to expand...
That's sort of how it works.

As saint said GD doesn't tell the whole story anyway. In 93/94 utd won the league with GF 80, GA 38. Newcastle came 3rd with GF 82, GA 41. The second best GD didn't achieve 2nd place why, because Newcastle lost 7 more games than utd. Haven't looked but guessing a lot of high scoring losses - which is why it's only part of the picture. Again as saint says it's painfully obvious, score more concede less but emphasis on score more <ok>
 
Related fact: in 1992/93 Norwich came 3rd in the PL with a GD of -4, one point ahead of Blackburn with +22

That meant no Europe for Blackburn

[HASHTAG]#bigpoint[/HASHTAG]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sir Tennisball
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back