Excellent post Munky and some of the points you raised I mentioned in a post yesterday I think it was - especially re the goals totals of most of the teams in the lower half of the league. Carrabuh is on record on a thread somewhere as saying, "I will not be happy until Hughton is replaced!!" That's his choice and I'm not going to try and convince him otherwise. At the risk of sounding 'like a stuck record' - how many fans wanted to get rid of Ruddy when he first played in goal?? I even remember defending him to a fellow fan at the end of his first season with us!!!
This season we have had an equal number of shots from outside and inside the box -- 70 shots in each case (total 140, i.e. just under 13 shots per game). However, the total for shots outside the box is heavily skewed by the games against Hull and Cardiff, which between them account for 33% of shots from outside (hardly surprising given the pattern of those games). We have registered fewer shots from inside the box than from outside in 4 of the 11 games (Hull, Arsenal. Stoke, Man City). In two matches the numbers are equal (Everton, Chelsea), and in the remaining 5 matches (Saints, Spurs, Villa, Cardiff, WHU) we have registered more from inside the box than from outside. I haven't as yet been able to find figures for other teams for comparison, and to work them out myself for the 19 others would be time consuming. I'll maybe try to produce them for a sample, but if anyone can find them pre-calculated on a stats web site maybe they can let us know.
There are no others that you can say that the system was a contributing factor rather than an individuals skill or defensive lapse. I've looked at the goals are the vast majority have little or no bearing on the wingers in their positioning or making of space because they are rarely (if ever) in an advanced position of the goalscorer or in positions to drag defenders out. Most of our goals are from the central midfield, made by the central midfield. Ollson has been the main creator which you could firmly say was because of the system. I'm not particularly bothered about the lack of goals they have scored, more the good chances they create or spaces they create for others. I certainly wouldn't assume we will change to an orthodox, its been his system from day 1 and we have struggled to score goals since that very same day. I think an orthodox style of play will stop the disjointed nature of our attacks, the central 3 of Tettey, Howson and Fer are working OK together. There is just very little in terms of options for them however when the central striker stays in the area and the wingers remain shy of the penalty area so regularly. There only real option is to shoot.
1. How does that contribute to an argument that inverted wingers work for us? It just means we don't score many goals from free kicks and corners. 2. Again, how does Tottenham relate to ourselves. We have scored 5 of our goals in two games from 11 which is over half. Of those 5 NONE were as a result of the inverted winger system. Two were as a result of the full backs cutting IN! One was a penalty, one was a free kick and the other a central midfielder breaking through an exposed centre. 3. Be confused no longer, the point is we would score more if the emphasis was on the centre doing more of the creating, its not allowed to do as good of a job I think it could because of how the wingers sit back. We put far to much emphasis in the wingers when all of our better work is coming from the centre. They produce far more from less. I think the wingers would link up better with the central areas if they are themselves in better positions. That's the trouble, they very rarely are. The trouble is far to many of the set ups are coming from crosses from crap positions out wide. 4. You think mentioning a few saves is a ringing endorsement to the system. All teams have good saves against teams, we've done it to others, them to ourselves. Swings and roundabouts. 5. Finally, where did Howsons goal come from then? Are you saying the ball in was crafted and on target for the penalty. Your talking nonsense there I'm afraid.
I've now looked at Swansea and Villa for comparison with ourselves, also the number of chances created and goals scored. Here are the figures (all having played 11 league games): Total shots Inside the box Outside the box Chances Goals Norwich 140 70 (50%) 70 (50%) 100 9 Swansea 147 81 (55%) 66 (45%) 109 15 Villa 140 63 (45%) 77 (55%) 102 11 Looked at in absolute terms you would say that all three have plenty of room for improvement, though Swansea are marginally "ahead" of us and Villa (no surprise there I'd say). But looked at relatively, I don't see any support for the view that we are hugely lacking, as is generally made out. On the contrary, things simply ain't THAT bad!
I enjoy seeing these comparisons. One question though is what qualifies the difference between a chance and a shot? I would have thought that any shot would be deemed a 'chance'.
I agree Robbie. Goal scoring hasn't been helped by the injuries to Hooper and RvW either. Fer now seems to have adjusted to the PL and I think will develop more as the season continues. The goals scored by Hooper, Snods and Fer will boost their confidence as well and the growing confidence of Howson also bodes well. To change the system now would be like starting over from scratch, IMO. The Newcastle and Palace games will tell us far more than those already played.
If you believe that the system is not going to change, what is the point of arguing that it should? If we just accept that inverted wingers are now the norm for us (and we are far from unique in that respect), I would imagine we can agree on quite a lot about what needs to happen to make it work better, as per your final sentence. As you say, the necessary fluidity is missing at the moment; there needs to be a lot more lateral movement around and inside the box involving the central striker and wide midfielders. Pilkington gets this more than Snodgrass, who I regard as the main culprit at the moment (accentuated by the over-reliance placed on him by his team mates -- there's too great an imbalance between right side and left side). The whole idea of inverted wingers is to have them play in-field with the central attackers, rather like the left- and right-sided players in the forward three of a 4:3:3. We aren't currently getting that.
Chances created, according to Opta's website, is defined as "assists plus Key passes" where a Key Pass is "the final pass or pass-cum-shot leading to the recipient of the ball having an attempt at goal without scoring". Put another way, a Key Pass is a pass that fails to be an assist because no goal results from it (for example, because the shot is off-target, saved or blocked). So chances created are final passes resulting in a shot whether a goal results or not. The discrepancy between shots and chances arises because many shots are not the end product of an assist or key pass. An example would be if Howson were to pick up a loose ball in midfield, advance into the penalty area and shoot (whether scoring thereby or not). At least that is my understanding, though there is an element of ambiguity in the OPTA definition. Can anyone clarify this further?
