• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Jose Mourinho - SACKED

billyiddo said:
Conceding 3 goals in one game when you've also conceded 2 goals in 3 others is not skewing the data in a way that a 7 goal game is
Click to expand...

eh?
United have conceded 2 goals in games too
The issue is to remove an outlier you have to be consistent. The word would be freak result or one off wouldn’t it?
As such I’d argue that our result vs West Ham was as much a freak as the united and pool losses
 
Bedfordspurs said:
eh?
United have conceded 2 goals in games too
The issue is to remove an outlier you have to be consistent. The word would be freak result or one off wouldn’t it?
As such I’d argue that our result vs West Ham was as much a freak as the united and pool losses
Click to expand...

Liverpool conceding 7 goals...

You'd ignore that as an anomaly if you were looking to take something meaningful from their gosls conceded numbers.

You suggested doing the same with our West Ham goals conceded but it's not the same, as explained.
 
billyiddo said:
Agreed, you get these outliers pop evey so often
Click to expand...
Yep
And over a season they happen so why would anyone remove them from a data set when comparing
I know you didn’t but it seems odd to me
We could argue it say let’s remove goals conceded from penalties that were given before they changed the interpretation of the rule
That actually would fit within a model as it can’t balance over a season for example
And for what it’s worth your comments about crosses is very valid
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Yep
And over a season they happen so why would anyone remove them from a data set when comparing
I know you didn’t but it seems odd to me
We could argue it say let’s remove goals conceded from pelanties that were given before they changed the interpretation of the rule
That actually would fit within a model as it can’t balance over a season for example
And for what it’s worth your comments about crosses is very valid
Click to expand...

Depends what you're trying to look at/understand from the numbers tbf
 
billyiddo said:
Depends what you're trying to look at/understand from the numbers tbf
Click to expand...
Thought it was goals conceded
And as I say you could remove goals that other teams can actually concede due to a rule change
For us that’s two goals straight away
I believe I’m right in saying there are some other examples of other clubs but not one got stung with that ruling as much as we did
 
@billyiddo has a point about removing outliers, the issue is two things

- Let's say Pool had 1 game where they conceded 7, the rest conceding 1 or 2, and one (not true, but example) where they kept clean sheet, to remove the 7 fairly, you would have to consider removing the clean sheet (top and bottom outlier)
- Bigger issue is sample size, too small to really make a conclusion. You would be better off looking at top 6 teams mid year performance re GA over last five or more seasons and seeing if this season is an anomaly (I suspect it is with all but two teams in league average more than 1 GA per game)

Personally I find looking at stats in isolation an incomplete picture

- Sure, lets look at crosses, but what about set pieces, what about short/long passes, player take ons?
- In a full 90 minutes, if you took the attacking opportunities created, how do they fit into all the buckets, what is the percentage breakdown, what is the success rate of each?
- Add in variables like if you force the opposition to be narrow or wide, does that have any effect on the success of cross vs. attacking through middle?
- You can plan x number of crosses per game as a tactic, but the variable may end up being who is crossing and who is in the box more than the tactic itself.
 
Finney Is Back said:
I don't like that last paragraph.... Surely it is absolutely necessary to record the number of goals scored indirectly from crosses to be able to ascertain the value?
Click to expand...
Not my data
But it does contradict itself by saying you can’t allow for errors for crosses in their data yet says you should plan to exploit their mistakes
 
metalgear said:
1% conversion to goals from crosses seems right. But teams get a better return playing us. CBs need to win those headers in front of the goal. it's their basic job!

Leicester 2-0 win with 35% possession and locked out Chelsea. Its a valid strategy we need better players.

Sent from my SM-T865 using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...
I can remember when Jonny Evans was available on a freebie and a fair few posters on here turned their nose up at getting him, I think mainly because he isn't devilishly handsome like Gazzaniga or have a cool foreign name like Sanchez. He would have been a very good, solid signing though.
 
Last edited:
seaside spur said:
All the top sides kept a clean sheet on this round of fixtures. They had much more testing fixtures and some had to absorb more crosses and defensive pressure from superior players and teams than Sheff Utd. They were all dogged and resilient and all defended set pieces and aerial crosses extremely well.
We didn't !
Sheff Utd not only scored from a header but they had two good headed chances as well. Sheff Utd can't score for toffee ,except against a rank 10 man Geordie outfit from the pelanty spot.
We are diabolical aerially and although Mourinho has clearly tried to sort this out by immediately putting Dier back to CD and also buying Rodon who is being eased in and probably wasn't Mourhino's first choice ( or second) but so far it's not been enough.
Look at all the other top teams and their central defenders , even footballing teams like Emirates Marketing Project have finally sorted out the weakness they had there by buying Diaz and bringing Stones back in. They also have a very decent defender aerially in Laporte, waiting in the wings.
Man Utd - Maguire, Lindelof
Liverpool - Van Dyke, Matip
Arsenal - Luiz , Holding, Gabriel
Leicester - Evans , Tungay ?
Everton - Keane , Mina , Holgate ?

We are badly lacking a commanding centre half aerially and it's costing us dearly.
Click to expand...
It is not a popular opinion on here but I think Dier is definitely a weak option in the air. He seems to end up in situations where he is marking nobody with the opposition having a free player in the centre of the goal too often and also jumps and misses the ball too often. The problem is that Sanchez is also weak in the air and it is not Alderweireld's strength either. It may be that pairing Dier with a player who is truly dominant in the air will improve us. Maybe it is time to have a proper look at Dier and Rodon as a pair without having Davies as a third centre half to help babysit Rodon?
 
billyiddo said:
Of our 5 open play goals conceded this season only the ones v Fulham and Sheffield Utd have come from crosses - had a look on Whoscored and we've defended about 400 crosses so far this sesson.

Doesn't seem much of an issue on the face of it?
Click to expand...
Doesn't that mean that just about every single other goal we have conceded has come from a cross though? (corners and free kicks) (Pretty sure that the own goal against West Ham was also a cross as well? And Leicester's second goal as well?
 
MKSpur said:
How does 400 crosses defended compare with other teams?
For the purposes of this discussion I think a corner or a free kick from the side would also be considered a cross. I’m not sure if the issue is the quality of our defenders in the air or an expected result given the volume of crosses we concede.
The positive for me is if we are funnelling our opponents attacks for this to be the main method of their attack and ergo our most likely method to concede, it should be one of the easier issues to address, as opposed to conceding from a variety of root causes.
Click to expand...
Indeed.... A big gnarly bastard of a centre back and we'd probably halve our goals conceded from that mode of attack.... Shouldn't really be too hard to address when considered like that.
 
billyiddo said:
I think you need to keep set pieces and open plsy goals seperate - as set pieces are dedicated phases of play which teams set up specifically for.

400 open play crosses, 2 goals conceded - 0.5% ? Actually a good record...
Click to expand...
If we look at our goals conceded have any actually come from anything other than a cross?

Liverpool's first (unlucky deflection).
Leicester's first (stupidly conceded penalty from Aurier).
Man Utd's opener.

I'm struggling to think of any more?
 
billyiddo said:
Ha, i may have tome on my hands atm but I'm not looking through everyone else's chalkboards to see that.

Metalgear said the conversion rate for crosses is 1% - we're conceding at a rate of .5% so on the face of it there's no issue in this area.

Set pieces i believe we're average for goals conceded in the league, that's just outright goals conceded though and not weighted against how many corners/attacking free kocks you face
Click to expand...
I would imagine that 1% also includes crosses coming in directly from corners and free kicks though. As I said before to really be useful the stat needs to include the goals scored indirectly from crosses (i.e. Saudi Sportswashing Machine's penalty, Toby's own goal, Sanchez's own goal, even West Ham's equaliser).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back