we are rubbish at it: http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/premier-league-notes-weekends-killer-stats-sep-30 I know I've said this a number of times, but I wanted it on record. Often we try to be a long ball team, but it just doesn't work. I think this has been a major problem for us in the last couple of seasons because it gifts possession to the opposition automatically and therefore loads more pressure on ourselves. I don't think we are much worse at retaining possession than the average PL team, but we are averaging about 46% across all matches and I am sure this is down to us being incapable of holding the ball up. Even Swansea can do it! There are only two choices: (1) we stop hitting long balls; or (2) we start being good at hitting long balls. I prefer (1), but I think there is a time and a place for (2) when under pressure and we need this sorted.
Slightly OT but did you guys see the stats on sky before the Stoke game about our final third possesion being the 2nd highest in the league?
No, that sounds very surprising! Especially given how bad we are at long balls, so not entirely OT...
I don't know why the back 4 do not make themselves more available to receive a short ball from JR. A lot of times they are moving up the field and not giving JR this option. Most of the top teams play this way, from the back,and certainly with the quality we now have at the back we should do it more often. It would also take pressure of JR to find RVW etc with a long punt and for RVW etc to win the ball. It must be down to tactics/orders surely
i agree, this despite pundits and fans thinking otherwise, grant holt was not the battering ram centre forward he's made out to be
i think they do, or am i going mad? when bunn was in sticks he did tend to launch it forward but certainly ruddy looks for the throw before he kicks it. i do find he does tend to do it more when bassong is in the team though
We were the worst at them last weekend: "The Canaries’ tendency for the long ball didn’t appear to work, as Norwich misplaced 38 long passes – more than any other side this weekend." http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/premier-league-notes-weekends-killer-stats-sep-30?
most of them were hollywood attempts by ryan bennett. when the lad keeps it simple he's fantastic but he does have a tendency to go for 'too much'. to be fair, bassong is equally culpable in this department
Err, that's the article I posted JK! But yes, that's the part I was referring to. I was also interest by the N'Zonzi stat - I think he is a very good player and when we were linked this summer I know a lot of fans were not keen, but I thought it would have been a superb buy.
Does it break the stats down in to halves? Because I'll wager we won that unwanted battle purely on the second half where by we stopped passing, partly from stokes very slight improvement but also because even under modestly more pressure we don't keep the ball well and tend to seemingly panick ourselves into hoofing it. Also the other factor again second half, neither side kept the ball for any decent spells of possession as a result there were many more oportunities as the ball changed hands in defensive areas for it to get lumped clear. Bah!
Whole match: 62 long passes (out of 366 passes made) First half: 27 long passes, 8 successful Second half: 35 long passes, 10 successful [Incidentally, Villa recorded the highest percentage of long passes over the weekend games, and their success rate was worse than ours. They made fewer passes overall, and therefore fewer long passes.]
I wonder how they count long passes, though, because I'd wager a large number of those first half passes were sideways across the pitch or diagonal further up the pitch, whereas the second half most would have been from deep in our half.
we made double the number of completed passes villa made the previous week too. didn't matter though - they still beat us 1-0.
Also, robbie, when you say Villa's success rate was worse, do you mean they won a lower percentage of their long balls than we did? I can't imagine that's the case when Benteke's fit.
Long/short is determined by distance not direction. Short = < 25 yards. The minimum width of a football pitch is 50 yds, so a cross-field ball can indeed be "long". Your OP leaves unanswered a rather crucial question in this context namely "When is a team correctly described as 'a long ball team'?". All teams play long balls during a match, with varying degrees of success. But that clearly doesn't make them all 'long ball teams'. Are we a long ball team? Is Villa a long ball team? Is West Ham a long ball team? Is Man Utd (who make quite a lot of long passes) a long ball team? The Numbers Game includes some stats for the 2010--2011 PL season giving the ratio of long to short passes for each team. Four teams had ratios of 0.25 or thereabouts (i.e. a quarter or thereabouts of all their passes were long passes). The teams were Stoke, Blackburn, Bolton and Birmingham. At the other end of the scale, Arsenal stand out with a ratio less than 0.1, followed by Chelsea, Man City and Man Utd (around 0.12). Wigan, West Brom, Spurs and Newcastle have ratios between 0.15 and 0.2. That would suggest that to qualify as a long ball team your long to short pass ratio should be around 0.25. Against Stoke our ratio was 0.17. If that was average (actually probably a bit worse than average) the conclusion has to be the we are NOT 'a long ball team'.
The reason your not a long ball team ? All your players have short legs? I don't know what's the answer please ?
Yes, a successful pass is one which keeps the passing team in possession. It isn't enough just to hit the ball accurately to e.g. Benteke; he has to take possession of the ball, or at least lay it off into the possession of a team mate. At the weekend Villa made fewer long passes than we did, but a slightly higher percentage of them resulted in a turnover (= giving the possession away to the opposition). [Edit] A long pass is often not hit "to" anyone, it is hit into space for someone to get onto. The crucial thing is which team has possession at the end of it.
