Match Ratings vs Soton

[scaramanga]

I'd say the complete opposite.... I'd say it's absolutely fantastic. It means that Benteke won 12 balls coming from goal kicks from Guzan and that is when up against Fazio who's strength is in the air. I would imagine our keeper also took a number of goal kicks long, the difference is that Kane won very few of them.

What a fantastic option that Benteke provides to relieve pressure.

No thanks - what an awful way to play football.

 

[Pirate55]

No thanks - what an awful way to play football.

Yet, so often effective. Unlike our all too one dimentional turgidity. A mixture is required imo.Why cut out one option? No one, as far as I can see, is saying solely lump it up. On the other hand, I think it is only you who are saying crosses and direct football ( except in the closing minutes) should never be employed.

 

[Pirate55]

Fresh legs is one factor, one of many. Not something that invalidates all other factors, like those I mentioned.

Pochettino did something different to what you wanted, that doesn't make it any less daring.

Let me let you in to a secret. Not everything Poch does is always right. He is not the Messiah, at times he can be a very naughty boy! He certainly does not have all the answers and is not 100% guaranteed to get every decision correct.You seem to always argue that there are factors we can't possibly know about to justify any decision he makes. Next season when he will have had two pre seasons and three transfer windows will be key to knowing whether he can deliver.

 

[braineclipse]

Let me let you in to a secret. Not everything Poch does is always right. He is not the Messiah, at times he can be a very naughty boy! He certainly does not have all the answers and is not 100% guaranteed to get every decision correct.You seem to always argue that there are factors we can't possibly know about to justify any decision he makes. Next season when he will have had two pre seasons and three transfer windows will be key to knowing whether he can deliver.

I don't think he's the messiah.

I just think it's rather arrogant to presume that your solution in this particular situation was the daring one and his was not. Is it somehow more daring to bring on a fresh legged sub than to keep on a superior but somewhat tiring player? Is it more daring to change the formation than to keep going with the current formation when you believe that formation is the best solution at this point in time?

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

If we had Benteke I'd be incredibly disappointed if we played that kind of football - especially for a whole match like Captain Bellend's merry bunch did against us.

I'm all for varying styles and there's a place for lumping the ball up there in the final minutes/seconds of a match when you desperately need to score. But to use it as a game plan is just low - even Arsenal don't sink that low any more.

They completed 247 passes in total. 30 of these were long. 12% of the passes they completed were long.

They attempted 363 passes. 72 were long. 20% of the passes they attempted were long.

How do you come to the conclusion from the above data that they lumped the ball to Benteke for the whole game?

 

[scaramanga]

Yet, so often effective. Unlike our all too one dimentional turgidity. A mixture is required imo.Why cut out one option? No one, as far as I can see, is saying solely lump it up. On the other hand, I think it is only you who are saying crosses and direct football ( except in the closing minutes) should never be employed.

Nice reading fail (or intentional use of the straw man - up to you).

Nobody has said that crossing should never be employed, merely that it's very, very low return method of attack. So we shouldn't choose players specifically to cross and we shouldn't set the team up to attack in that way. That doesn't mean that if a player finds himself to the side of the box and there's an opportunity they shouldn't cross, it just means that it shouldn't be the plan to attack that way. I've kept that to as few syllables as possible, I hope I don't have to explain it to you yet again.

Lumping the ball up towards a big, physical striker is not how I want to see my team play. Neither do I want to see them dive, cheat or harass the referee. I understand that all these things are personal preference so if that's what you like watching, fine - I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than watch Pulisball every week.

 

[scaramanga]

They completed 247 passes in total. 30 of these were long. 12% of the passes they completed were long.

They attempted 363 passes. 72 were long. 20% of the passes they attempted were long.

How do you come to the conclusion from the above data that they lumped the ball to Benteke for the whole game?

You're cherry picking. To analyse their style you need to look at attempted passes, not completed.

FourFourTwo has them down as 59 attempted long balls (Whoscored has them at 87) - that's one every minute and a half if they have all the possession. Most recent info I can find tells me that the ball is in play for around 65 mins in a match and Villa had less than 43% of possession. That means they played a long ball every 28 seconds that they had it (or 19 if you use Whoscored). To me, that's a lot - especially if they we winning the ball a lot as they were.

Now if we'd been at our pre-Christmas pressing best and had been forcing a less talented team into resorting to that then I could understand it, but that wasn't what happened. Lumping the ball to Benteke was clearly a game plan, and a horrible one at that.

BTW - if you want to know why there's a discrepancy, as far as I can tell FourFourTwo is listing long balls as hopeful punts into an area, Whoscored includes long passes.

 

[braineclipse]

"Long balls" is a fairly non-descript stat. Both a Huddlestone style sweeping inch perfect 50 yard long pass to a player in space and a hoof-style clearance under pressure are classified as long balls. Calmly switching play from one side of the pitch to the other (say from one full back to the other) is classified as a long ball, as is the case if the same defender just aims it long at a big defender that's pushed up to the edge of the box at the end of a game.

Looking at the most frequent passing venues (player to player) like Scara did might be a bit simplistic, but it's probably not a terrible approximation of passing style either.

I would like to see us add a Benteke or Pelle style target man to our squad in the summer, but I wouldn't want to see us use the target man option as often as Villa have done under Sherwood. I'm not sure Sherwood sees that as his solution long term for Villa either.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

You're cherry picking. To analyse their style you need to look at attempted passes, not completed.

FourFourTwo has them down as 59 attempted long balls (Whoscored has them at 87) - that's one every minute and a half if they have all the possession. Most recent info I can find tells me that the ball is in play for around 65 mins in a match and Villa had less than 43% of possession. That means they played a long ball every 28 seconds that they had it (or 19 if you use Whoscored). To me, that's a lot - especially if they we winning the ball a lot as they were.

Now if we'd been at our pre-Christmas pressing best and had been forcing a less talented team into resorting to that then I could understand it, but that wasn't what happened. Lumping the ball to Benteke was clearly a game plan, and a horrible one at that.

BTW - if you want to know why there's a discrepancy, as far as I can tell FourFourTwo is listing long balls as hopeful punts into an area, Whoscored includes long passes.

That's one way of manipulating the stats to support your argument. I did include attempted in my post by the way.

If a team employed the perfectly acceptable tactic (as you said yourself) of pumping the ball long to a centre forward in the last 5 minutes then you could manipulate the stats the way you have to suggest they pumped the ball forward every 28 seconds throughout the entire game.

Football doesn't work like that though, and there are different periods of different play in every game. For me a fairly high indication is all you can take from this data, I don't think you can conclude that they 'spent the entire game lumping it to him'.

Also, there is a big difference between targetted direct delivery to a CF and 'lumping it up to him' as you describe. But I think you already know that...........

 

[Pirate55]

I don't think he's the messiah.

I just think it's rather arrogant to presume that your solution in this particular situation was the daring one and his was not. Is it somehow more daring to bring on a fresh legged sub than to keep on a superior but somewhat tiring player? Is it more daring to change the formation than to keep going with the current formation when you believe that formation is the best solution at this point in time?

For the simple reason his plan A wasn't working. Anyone with eyes in their head could see that. We hardly created anything all game. Two on target in 90 mins resulting in two goals, one a fluke. Outside that.... Diddlysquat. To think more of the same would work is hardly a brave move to attempt to advantageously affect the game in our favour and win the match.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

"Long balls" is a fairly non-descript stat. Both a Huddlestone style sweeping inch perfect 50 yard long pass to a player in space and a hoof-style clearance under pressure are classified as long balls. Calmly switching play from one side of the pitch to the other (say from one full back to the other) is classified as a long ball, as is the case if the same defender just aims it long at a big defender that's pushed up to the edge of the box at the end of a game.

Looking at the most frequent passing venues (player to player) like Scara did might be a bit simplistic, but it's probably not a terrible approximation of passing style either.

I would like to see us add a Benteke or Pelle style target man to our squad in the summer, but I wouldn't want to see us use the target man option as often as Villa have done under Sherwood. I'm not sure Sherwood sees that as his solution long term for Villa either.

Yes, but Scara picked a single data point (Guzan to Benteke) and used that to suggest that they spent the entire game 'lumping it to Benteke'.

If you look at the rest of the player to player list and the actual passes each player made to Benteke. None of them are 'lumped up to him' in the traditional, big CF standing in the box sense (except for one from Delph)

 

[scaramanga]

That's one way of manipulating the stats to support your argument. I did include attempted in my post by the way.

My bad - just saw that

If a team employed the perfectly acceptable tactic (as you said yourself) of pumping the ball long to a centre forward in the last 5 minutes then you could manipulate the stats the way you have to suggest they pumped the ball forward every 28 seconds throughout the entire game.

Football doesn't work like that though, and there are different periods of different play in every game. For me a fairly high indication is all you can take from this data, I don't think you can conclude that they 'spent the entire game lumping it to him'.

Also, there is a big difference between targetted direct delivery to a CF and 'lumping it up to him' as you describe. But I think you already know that...........

By your very own data you've told us that 1 in every 5 passes was long. Just play that out in your head - imagine 4 passes then a hoof, 4 passes then a hoof, repeat ad nauseum.

Or, worse than that, there were periods in the match where they didn't hoof that often, meaning that at times they hoofed even more than one in 5.

I would very much describe their play as lumping it up to the CF. Just because it was one CF in particular doesn't make it any less "hoofy". This wasn't Huddlestone, Modric or Carrick delicately placing the ball into the path with timing, skill and precision - this was the keeper and the right back sending the ball up the pitch into the opposition half for Benteke to battle for in the air. Ugly, ugly "football".

 

[Pirate55]

Nice reading fail (or intentional use of the straw man - up to you).

Nobody has said that crossing should never be employed, merely that it's very, very low return method of attack. So we shouldn't choose players specifically to cross and we shouldn't set the team up to attack in that way. That doesn't mean that if a player finds himself to the side of the box and there's an opportunity they shouldn't cross, it just means that it shouldn't be the plan to attack that way. I've kept that to as few syllables as possible, I hope I don't have to explain it to you yet again.

Lumping the ball up towards a big, physical striker is not how I want to see my team play. Neither do I want to see them dive, cheat or harass the referee. I understand that all these things are personal preference so if that's what you like watching, fine - I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out than watch Pulisball every week.

So, let me get it right. You think we shouldn't PLAN to cross, but if a player somehow finds himself without such pre-meditated planning to be in a crossing position ( how did that happen btw??) then it would be ok in those exceptional and unplanned for circumstances, to then cross. But equally, if there is no such plan in place, would other players expect this unplanned for action? Would they know what to do?

Crossing from wide positions should be an integral part of our PLANNED game plan imo as part of a wide variety of our attacking options. Similarity, playing the long ball up to a striker, or even occasionally playing over the top into space should also be part of our planned attacking options. To simply not plan different options for aesthetic or philosophical reasons is just madness.

 

[braineclipse]

Yes, but Scara picked a single data point (Guzan to Benteke) and used that to suggest that they spent the entire game 'lumping it to Benteke'.

If you look at the rest of the player to player list and the actual passes each player made to Benteke. None of them are 'lumped up to him' in the traditional, big CF standing in the box sense (except for one from Delph)

No, actually not a single data point. A single data point in comparison to other data points. Guzan to Benteke was their most frequent pass. Had there been 3-4 passing avenues between midfielders and defenders for example totaling more passes than the Guzan to Benteke that data would not support Scara's claim.

Had Scara picked out the 12 passes from Guzan to Benteke and used that as a basis for his argument ignoring all other passes played that would be looking at a single data point.

For the simple reason his plan A wasn't working. Anyone with eyes in their head could see that. We hardly created anything all game. Two on target in 90 mins resulting in two goals, one a fluke. Outside that.... Diddlysquat. To think more of the same would work is hardly a brave move to attempt to advantageously affect the game in our favour and win the match.

You're completely missing (or bypassing) my point. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[scaramanga]

No, actually not a single data point. A single data point in comparison to other data points. Guzan to Benteke was their most frequent pass. Had there been 3-4 passing avenues between midfielders and defenders for example totaling more passes than the Guzan to Benteke that data would not support Scara's claim.

Had Scara picked out the 12 passes from Guzan to Benteke and used that as a basis for his argument ignoring all other passes played that would be looking at a single data point.



You're completely missing (or bypassing) my point. Let's just agree to disagree.

Actually I used two - the second most common pass was from their right back to Benteke (not as positionally limited as a keeper but unlikely to be intricate short passes either).

 

[scaramanga]

So, let me get it right. You think we shouldn't PLAN to cross, but if a player somehow finds himself without such pre-meditated planning to be in a crossing position ( how did that happen btw??) then it would be ok in those exceptional and unplanned for circumstances, to then cross. But equally, if there is no such plan in place, would other players expect this unplanned for action? Would they know what to do?

How do you think it would happen? Last time I saw, opponents tended not to just step aside and allow our team to walk through the middle. Of course they would know what to do - it's just all about judgement (which is why employing people like Townsend is a bad idea).

Crossing from wide positions should be an integral part of our PLANNED game plan imo as part of a wide variety of our attacking options. Similarity, playing the long ball up to a striker, or even occasionally playing over the top into space should also be part of our planned attacking options. To simply not plan different options for aesthetic or philosophical reasons is just madness.

No, it really shouldn't (unless we have an excess of energy and possession and wish to waste large amounts of both).

We should be buying players and setting up the team in a manner that utilises the most effective attacking methods (short through balls in and around the box) the most, working down to the least effective (crosses and long balls). Why would any team plan to use a playing style proven to be less effective than all of the others? The only outlier here is Pulisball (currently known as Allardyceball) but I certainly don't want us playing that kind of football. Again though, that's personal preference - you can enjoy whatever you choose.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

No, actually not a single data point. A single data point in comparison to other data points. Guzan to Benteke was their most frequent pass. Had there been 3-4 passing avenues between midfielders and defenders for example totaling more passes than the Guzan to Benteke that data would not support Scara's claim.

Had Scara picked out the 12 passes from Guzan to Benteke and used that as a basis for his argument ignoring all other passes played that would be looking at a single data point.

He is doing that though. As I said, look through actual pass maps from the list that Scara provided. Out of Bacuna - Benteke, Delph - Benteke and Richardson - Benteke, there is only one single pass from Delph to Benteke that could possibly be described as 'sending the ball up the pitch into the opposition half for Benteke to battle for in the air'. The rest are either short balls into feet or cross field balls when Benteke has pulled wide.

Actually I used two - the second most common pass was from their right back to Benteke (not as positionally limited as a keeper but unlikely to be intricate short passes either).

Look at the pass map. The only long balls he played to him were three cross field passes and the cross which resulted in the goal. Even you can't be seriously trying to class that as 'lumping the ball up to Benteke for him to challenge in the air'. The other top pass combinations don't suggest it either.

 

[scaramanga]

Look at the pass map. The only long balls he played to him were three cross field passes and the cross which resulted in the goal. Even you can't be seriously trying to class that as 'lumping the ball up to Benteke for him to challenge in the air'. The other top pass combinations don't suggest it either.

Of course I am - just because the forward isn't in or on the opposition box, it doesn't mean that passing the ball a long distance for him to win in the air isn't "lumping it up".

It's certainly not using skill, talent or any of the things that make football enjoyable. It's just using the strength/height of a striker to get the ball up the field - ugly, ugly football.

 

[braineclipse]

How do you think it would happen? Last time I saw, opponents tended not to just step aside and allow our team to walk through the middle. Of course they would know what to do - it's just all about judgement (which is why employing people like Townsend is a bad idea).


No, it really shouldn't (unless we have an excess of energy and possession and wish to waste large amounts of both).

We should be buying players and setting up the team in a manner that utilises the most effective attacking methods (short through balls in and around the box) the most, working down to the least effective (crosses and long balls). Why would any team plan to use a playing style proven to be less effective than all of the others? The only outlier here is Pulisball (currently known as Allardyceball) but I certainly don't want us playing that kind of football. Again though, that's personal preference - you can enjoy whatever you choose.

Disagree a bit on crosses, as I imagine we do on long balls. Although I agree about wanting a balanced approach.

I do want players that are better crossers, particularly our full backs I would really want to do better. Eriksen is very GHod, Chadli, Lamela and Townsend alright at least.

What to me is important though is the way we work our way into a crossing positions. I'm not a fan of the "pumping a ball into a crowded box" type crossing that I imagine is the kind of crossing you're talking about as boring. Particularly if it's from quite far out. Both the Lamela and second Pelle goal vs. Southampton were good crossed goals for me because of the way space was worked and how there was space and movement in the box when the cross came in. To do that we need to move the ball quickly and with accuracy and crossing can become a valuable attacking option. To succeed with the kind of crossing I imagine you're not a fan of I think we would require players that are too specialized and it wouldn't be great.

Similarly I want us to use long balls to our advantage. As we have at times in the past, though we're often not good enough at it. Thought Pochettino used Lambert as a good target man under Pochettino and I would like us to have the same option. I think that a good target man option can help open up space for technical, pretty football too. And finding a target man that is also good with the ball at his feet should be doable.

 

[Millsy_Yiddo]

Of course I am - just because the forward isn't in or on the opposition box, it doesn't mean that passing the ball a long distance for him to win in the air isn't "lumping it up".

It's certainly not using skill, talent or any of the things that make football enjoyable. It's just using the strength/height of a striker to get the ball up the field - ugly, ugly football.

Even if you are right and these were lumped balls for him in the air (my feeling is that they weren't, more likley targetted switches of play to feet or balls in behind our full back for him to run onto), that's 3 out of 28 passes from those three players combined, 4 if you include the Delph one. Still don't think that equates to 'lumping the ball up to Benteke the whole game'.