Swansea win ratio â¦â¦. Career ratio Flynn â¦.â¦. 34.15 â¦â¦â¦. 40.00 (ex Wales) Jackett â¦â¦ 44.23 â¦â¦â¦ 44.23 Roberto â¦. 50.00 â¦â¦.⦠40.17 Sousa â¦â¦ 36.7 â¦â¦â¦... 50.2 Brendon .. 40.63 â¦â¦â¦. 45.16 Laudrup .. 34.52 â¦...â¦.. 44.41 Monk â¦â¦. 29.41 I was surprised Jackett was so high and Flynn so low (ignoring Monk as he's only had 17 games in charge). Also surprised at Sousa who had an awful record at QPR. And despite his reputation for defensive, boring, play with a specially in gaining drawa the two two teams he's been with since us have goal differences of +77 & +46 and win ratios or 59% & 63% Not really scientific because of the leagues, but it's a quiet day.
Post the loss records for completeness... you know, for good measure. You could even break down into league games only if you wish.
Wow , and thats with Monk facing an easier shedule and having a healthy team without injury. You might want to work that in your stats project.
Monk had a considerably easier run of fixtures without injuries - I would hope so. The majority of Monk's opposition finishing in the middle and bottom third of the league. This is comparing Monk's 14 games with Laudrup's last 14. During the same 14 game comparison, the team's performance in Laudrup's last game against West Ham in terms of passes completed, possession and territory were above the average of Monk's 14 games. We fired a guy following a match in which we performed better than Monk's average. Trust me, I couldn't make this up.
Did you "factor in" the fact that against West Ham we played against 10 men for the last half hour. West Ham were happy to boot the ball up the pitch and let Swansea play the ball around in their own half.
Yankee - wasn't West Ham away a match in which we did not produce a single shot on target? We had 8 shots, all off target. "When Carroll got sent off, we had a lot of possession but no big, big chances. We have to admit that." So said Michael Laudrup.
Well this probably explains why we had a territory metric of 53%, equal to Monk's maximum for his 14 games and 8% greater than Monk's average of 45%. The 53% is also 4% higher than Laudrup's average of 49%. The 49% to 45% gap indicates that Laudrup's teams spent more time in the opposition's half of the field despite playing against significantly stronger opposition with an injury depleted squad than did Monk's teams. Most teams are happy to boot the ball down the field and then press to keep us in our own territory. The West Ham game was no different. However, as you can see from the numbers we actually did spend significantly more time in the West Ham end during the game, which would indicate that we were attacking to get back in the game.
Well if you know anything about data - then clearly the match metrics are not going to record or be scaled by how many people were on the field at any one time. But the data is consistent with your observation as I have responded. Also .... did you consider that Shelvey was crocked with a hamstring and spent a good bit of time hobbling around in his own half of the field - therefore nullifying the man advantage. That's not in the data either. No surprise there either.
How did the attempts on target "metrics" compare for the West Ham game versus all of Monk's games in charge?
Shelvey was subbed after 70 mins. If he was indeed crocked and hobbling around then it was very bad management to have kept him on for so long.
I have not compiled those numbers as it is not necessarily indicative of overall performance. A team could put 20 shots on target, yet the opposition keeper could play a blinder, and the team ends up losing 0-1. Look at our game v Fulham in the 2012/13 season - we hammered them all game, didn't score, but lost 0-3 or something like that from three quick break aways and a moment of bad defending.
The metrics I have compiled speak to overall quality of performance, which is what interests me. How, on average, do Laudrup's teams perform compared to Monk's. Shots on target are not indicative of overall quality of performance, neither is the final score. The Fulham example speaks to that.
So the West Ham performance was a good quality one? It must be, because the "metrics" you consider indicative of a good performance were good.
If all you're considering is the "overall performance" why mention the scoreline? Does the scoreline matter? Or does it not matter? Why didn't you say "A team could put 20 shots on target, yet the opposition keeper could play a blinder, and the team ends up with a bad performance". You're trying to use the scoreline to justify shots on target not counting towards a good performance. Does that apply to other "metrics" as well.
Considering so many players didn't want to play for Monk (the ones who have gone) how can t be claimed that Monk had a full squad to play with? I also question the notion that Monk didn't have any genuine injury issue to contend with nor did he have all the easy fixtures as claimed. Didn't Monk have to face to Liverpool twice, Everton twice, Napoli twice, Arsenal, Southampton and Chelsea? So nine of his 17 games were against very difficult opposition that proved a thorn in the side of even the very bet teams in the world. It isn't like Monk had the opportunity to not deliver a win against teams like Petrolul, St Gallen, Kuban and Birmingham... these are teams that we should have beaten easily but either lost to or produced a poor looking draw. Still, Monk did have the higher points to game ratio and that is all that matters in surving the Premier League.
