JK -- but see earlier posts on this thread about that article. In particular the point that the article uses transfermkt valuations of players, not the actual price paid. Home grown players have lower valuations on transfermkt, but if you want to actually sign Jordan Rhodes, or Ashley Williams, or whoever, you will undoubtedly pay a premium (compare the fee we agreed for Alderweireld with what would persuade Swansea to let Williams go).
That seems very logical. Another point is that shooting from distance early in the game might be useful in testing the discipline of the opponent's defence, tempting them out and creating more space behind. While on this general subject, who remembers the away game against Doncaster in the Championship when Lambert set us up with 3 at the back and Coppinger had a field day shooting from outside the box (ended 3:1 to Doncaster).
Tall = Good? Taller = Better? For anyone missing carrabuh during his self-imposed exile -- though he couldn't resist reappearing today to give his verdict on hevvykevvy's thread just in case anyone was tempted to think we currently have a half decent team (no prizes for guessing what the verdict was ) -- here is a bit of fun from the statisticians at soccerbythenumbers The conclusion is that on the whole height pays -- unless you are lucky enough to have the Messis, Xavis, and Iniestas of this world playing for you.
Something odd in the Prem this season,goals scored per game : 2012/3 2013/4 Man United 2.3 1.5 Man City 1.8 0.7 Chelsea 2.0 1.0 Arsenal 1.9 2.0 Spurs 1.7 1.0 Everton 1.5 0.7 Liverpool 1.8 1.0 WBA 1.4 0.25 Swansea 1.3 1.0 West Ham 1.2 0.7 Newcastle 1.1 0.7 Norwich 1.1 0.7 Fulham 1.3 0.7 Stoke 0.9 0.7 Southampton 1.3 0.7 Villa 1.2 1.2 Newcastle 1.2 0.7 Sunderland 1.1 0.7 Relegated/Promoted 3 1.1 1.1 Raises the questions (1) Is this a trend (2) If it is why? One possible theory is that there has been a big emphasis on defence with theories that not conceding is more important than scoring.Have Premiership managers taken this on board? Or will we now see a rash of 4-3 results and see the averages return to normal? My own theory is that 38 games played is enough to suggest that something is up.
@Cruyff's Turn The 2012/3 figures are for the season as a whole, right? If so I would say the difference probably reflects nothing more than the fact that most teams haven't yet settled down, with many having seen big changes in squads and several managerial changes. If you look at the two teams to buck the trend, Arsenal and Villa, those are the two teams which have experienced the least disruption/most continuity. Also Liverpool have been without Suarez, which probably is reflected in their lower average so far this season. Be interesting though to see if the trend is maintained.
I see what you are saying,but the converse could apply unsettled teams = more goals conceded.I can see no reason why the goals scored is so low.Saints and West Ham will be even lower after their 0-0.
Well, I'm not sure I agree that you might expect more goals conceded with teams still settling down. Both aspects of play surely require similar levels of familiarity and integration within the team? On the more general point, I don't believe there's a manager in the PL (or any other top flight league for that matter) who doesn't think that not conceding is of prime importance. They will all subscribe to the view that if you can avoid conceding, your chance of winning any game is increased. Just look at the stats about the percentage of games that are won by the team that scores first. Even Barcelona, who you might say epitomise the dictum that the best form of defence is attack, don't actually believe precisely that. What they believe is that the best way to defend is to defend in your opponent's defensive third, and that is in essence a matter of keeping possession and winning it back quickly when you lose it. The only teams to rely on outscoring the opposition IMO are those with no alternative, i.e those who recognise that they are poor defensively. Incidentally, what a poor game Saints v WHU was. Would anyone really expect either of them to have fared any better against Spurs yesterday than we did?
Quite honestly half the teams in the prem would have ben taken apart by Spurs yesterday and conceded more than two goals.Ithink a few of us are getting into pant wetting mode early.
Very true. But surely the most worrying thing is that we didn't have the personnel or the tactical nous to do a scooby about it - it was the 'rabbits caught in the headlights' scenario that worried me much more than the result.
Very odd statistical quirk: The usual spread of goals scored is a classic "bell" graph with games where 3 goals are scored the most common followed by 2 &4,then 1, with 5 and 0 roughly equal.Of the 39 games played to date only three have ended with 3 goals.Six have finished 0-0 and no less than thirteen 1-0 or 0-1.
Given that only 5% of the season's total PL games have been played, just how odd is that distribution though Cruyff? (Just asking about the statistical measure of reliability for a 5% sample.)
Why not look at it the other way round, Cromer? Having the personnel and nous to keep the score down to 1 great goal from open play plus a second which punished a keeper error isn't disheartening. Last season we would probably have lost that game 5:1 and our goal diffence would be -4 after four games, not -2. Lawro may be an awful pundit in many people's book, but he has more sense than a lot of those who laugh at him. Quote: "Norwich have strengthened, but so have everyone else", i.e. if people think Norwich have genuinely moved up a level, they are mistaken, because the quality in the division as a whole has improved relative to last season.
It's odd to an extent is the best answer I can give.The weeks goals totals are Week1: 22 Week2: 20 Week 3:11 Week 4:16 (SwanseavLiverpool to play) the average per 10 games last season was 27.9.I would say that the chances of each week being less than the average is about 6% but that of course would allow say 27 goals per week. So,about 109 goals should have been scored in the 39 games played to match the 2012/13 average.We have seen just 69,about 63%.I would say that the chances of that happening without other factors is virtually nil.The present average is about 15% lower than the next lowest in 115 seasons of top flight football.
I checked the goals scored in the first 4 rounds last season, and the average was 29 per week, total 116. So pretty much in line with the season as a whole. There were several pastings early on though (us 5:0 at Fulham, QPR beaten 5:0 by Swansea, Saints thrashed 6:1 at Arsenal, and several other unusually high scoring games. Does look as if managers have set out to avoid a thrashing -- look at how tight Bruce has kept Hull, so far, and even Holloway's Palace have defended well (he's obviously learned from last time with Blackpool).
There was this report about how staying up was more likely for teams with tighter defences and I do wonder if managers have taken this to heart.The only thing I would say about that is that if everyone does it then it's going to have no effect.My view on this is that it's pish actually and that the most likely result will be the kind of spectacle that we saw at St Mary's yesterday with the implications that has for the game as entertainment.
