Just found this ... decent read about the O'Neill factor! "The Question: How has Martin O'Neill improved Sunderland? Sunderland's statistics under the Northern Irishman underline how fine the line between success and failure can be. As Billy Beane acknowledged last week, football is a game that remains largely resistant to statistical analysis. Its fluidity, the variety of ways in which it can be interpreted, mean that what is good for one side does not necessarily mean anything for another. As Barcelona pass teams into submission on a regular basis, it has become common to look at pass-completion rates and nod approvingly as they stretch beyond 90%. Yet Zambia won the African Cup of Nations in February with the lowest pass-completion rate of any of the 16 sides in the tournament. What is even more baffling is that, to the naked eye, they appeared a cohesive side who used the ball well. The issue was that they got the ball forward quickly, looking for raking forward passes out of defence that, being high-risk, often went astray. If they did find a man, though, a smart interchange between the astute Christopher Katongo, the rapid Rainford Kalaba and the intelligent Emmanuel Mayuka was often enough to undo opponents. Trying to determine exactly how Martin O'Neill has improved Sunderland since taking over at the beginning of December poses similar conundrums. In one sense, that of results, the statistical difference is obvious. Steve Bruce left after 13 games of this season in which Sunderland took 11 points, leaving them 16th in the table. Defeat to Wolverhampton Wanderers the following Sunday (having taken the lead and missed a penalty) dropped them to 17th. Then O'Neill arrived and, in his 16 league matches, has taken 29 points, lifting them to eighth while inspiring a run to the quarter-finals of the FA Cup in which they face Everton in a replay on Tuesday. Intuitively, Sunderland look a more confident, organised team than they were under Bruce. They look capable of resisting sustained sieges, as they did against Manchester City, for instance, and they break with a greater purpose. The City game, again, is a good example: Sebastian Larsson was so exhausted that after leading a surge from the back he was doubled over in the centre-circle as Ji Dong-won stumbled around Joe Hart to score the winner, but the point is that he did bring the ball out and found James McClean with a pass; with less belief that victory was possible, he might easily just have belted the ball into the corner â and probably been praised for his pragmatism by fans. McClean, who works the left flank with bracing energy, is the only real difference in personnel to Bruce's side. It was Bruce who signed him from Derry City last summer, but he only made his first-team debut under O'Neill, his arrival as a substitute against Blackburn in O'Neill's first game being the moment at which the season turned around. He didn't contribute directly to either goal, but one burst and cross lifted the mood, inspiring the fightback that saw Sunderland win 2-1 having been 1-0 down after 83 minutes. Saturday's goal against QPR was his fourth in 15 league appearances, while his height coming in from the wing has given Sunderland another dimension (one which Bruce tried to introduce on the opposite flank through Ahmed Elmohamady). Sunderland score 1.44 goals a game, the fifth best in the league, under O'Neill, as opposed to 1.15, the 13th best, under Bruce. That again, though, is a result. A difference in process is harder to ascertain. Opta's stats show that Sunderland have fewer shots under O'Neill (the second worst in the league, remarkably) than they did under Bruce; they have less possession (42% as opposed to 47%) and make fewer passes, of which they complete fewer; they put in fewer crosses (the 12th most as opposed to the third most); and they win a lower percentage of their tackles. They do win 50% of duels as opposed to 49% and now make the most as opposed to the third most tackles, but those are marginal differences. The only two basic metrics in which Sunderland have noticeably improved are in the number of fouls committed (down from the seventh worst in the league to 16th). Part of that is down to Lee Cattermole who, despite his performance in the derby when he became almost a caricature of himself, gave masterclasses of controlled aggression in the league win over City and the FA Cup victory over Arsenal. But it also suggests Sunderland's shape is better: fewer of their tackles are desperate lunges. Where the Sunderland of O'Neill are far, far better than that of Bruce, though, is in the productivity of their shooting: 19% of their shots now yield a goal as opposed to 11% before, an improvement from 13th best in the league to second. That might mean that they are creating better opportunities before pulling the trigger, but the fact is that an awful lot of shots in the past four months have flown in from outside the box: David Vaughan's thump and Nicklas Bendtner's free-kick in that first game against Blackburn, for instance, the Vaughan and Craig Gardner strikes at Wigan, Fraizer Campbell's volley against Norwich, Phil Bardsley's goal against Everton in the FA Cup. In fact 49% of all Sunderland's goals have come from outside the box this season which is a slightly troubling statistic in that it is probably unsustainable. Unless O'Neill has found a job-lot of Billy Dane's spare boots that is not the sort of figure than can be produced even by increased practice. Yes, working on long-range shooting may up the percentage a little, but no side can rely on constantly thwacking the ball into the top corner from 25 yards, something that suggests an element of luck in the improvement under O'Neill. Then again, what is often construed as luck is often the result of confidence, which in turn stems from organisation, discipline and a manager's personality. For that, O'Neill can certainly take credit, but again the measure is subjective rather than being discernible by statistics. Under Bruce this season, Sunderland never lost a game by more than a single goal. It's easy to criticise him, and nobody would seriously argue that Sunderland are not a better side under O'Neill, but equally Bruce took Sunderland to sixth at the end of January and in games like the 3-0 win at Chelsea he proved he was not the tactical neophyte many portray him as. Sunderland under O'Neill seem more consistently at the top of their game, but the statistics merely emphasise how fine the margins between success and failure can be."
Some say he can charm the knickers off a nun; some say he descended from the Gods; some say he is such magician, that he was actually Harry Potters real father; some say he feasts on Ambrosia at the table of Zeus himself. All I know is that I am eternally grateful he is our manager now cos I love to Party with Marty.
He will get us there eventually..................and is doing a grand job, and if it goes to plan tonight, he will become a legend... But as we are at it...."some will say, let's not look at how many point from the last 6 league games"...... Just don't expect it all to soon.....
Don't know what you mean Comm - We have 7 points from the last 6 games - sill a better record than "I needed more time" Bruce (who, imo lost it way befor ehis last game in charge) Also looking at "O'neill's bad March" (which a number of his previous clubs fans have said happens) - we have played 4, won 2, Drawn 1 and Lost 1 in the league - and in those 4 we have played 2 teams above us and 2 below) and are unbeaten against teams above us this month (see where I'm going with this one - Man City on Saturday....... Team above us = win or draw - I'd be happy with that!) although I'd swap 3 points on Saturday for a win tonight gladly
I for one wont be expecting more than us competing around the 8th place league spot next season. A comfortable top ten finish, and I will be content (especially if we win the FA cup and are competing in Europe as well) - but bloody ecstatic if we push for a top 6 place. MON is a brilliant manager, but I don't want to be expecting too much from him in his 1st full season in charge. I havent had a season 100% free of relegation fears yet since we came back up to the premier league, I look forward to finally happening next season.
Great article. It just confirms the old saying: there's lies, damn lies and statistics. It leaves you thinking that MON has that 'X Factor' (no, not the crappy show on telly) that makes the difference between good on paper and good in reality. Bruce's squad was both, but he couldn't sustain the good performances that we knew they were capable of last season. He then decided wholesale changes were required for this season and failed to find any way to bring them together. To me, it vindicates the decision to sack Bruce (not that many will argue against it!)
This is exactly what i mean mate... We have 7 points from 18............... Let's just take it one step at a time....
