A statistical look into our disappointing start to the season.

[MythikRobins]

Disclaimer:  This is a purely statistical look at Bristol City's start to the season, focusing solely on data. It’s important to note that this won't take into account the feel of the game, individual moments of brilliance, or the emotional highs and lows we all experience as fans. Stats are just one way to look at a performance, and while they offer useful insights, they don't tell the full story of what has happened on the pitch. We all understand that the only stat that truly matters in the end is where you finish.

Now that’s out of the way, I just wanted to add a bit of extra context to our start to the season, using a pretty impressive website some of you may have seen before, created by @BeGriffs on Twitter. It allows you to look at hundreds of teams across the world and see how they’re performing across a wide range of statistics. I wanted to highlight a few of ours that I found particularly interesting. Here’s a link to the website if you want to take a look for yourself:

Streamlit (football-match-reports.streamlit.app)

We currently sit 16th in the table with 11 points, 10 goals scored, and 14 conceded. But what do the underlying stats say about our start to the season?

When looking at our underlying statistics start to the season seems to be pretty encouraging in contrast to our results, current standing in the table and fan outlook.

• xGD (Expected Goal Difference) - We’re 8th with 0.32, which shows we're creating more than we're conceding. We aren’t dominating yet, but for a team looking to stay in the top 10, this is a good start.

 

• PPDA (Passes Allowed Per Defensive Action) - We’re 7th, allowing 11.6 passes before we press. This shows we're doing well to disrupt opponents and win the ball back, even if we’re not the most aggressive pressers in the league.

 

• Game Control - Ranking 4th with 129.24 shows we’re one of the best at controlling the flow of the game. This is a big positive because it means we’re dictating how matches go, not just reacting to the opposition.

 

• xPts (Expected Points) - We’re 8th with 1.75, meaning our performances should keep us in the top 10. 

 

A explanation on the "Game Control" statistic provided by "@BeGriffs" :

"The Game Control Index visualizes both the stretches of time a team was in control of a match as well as the magnitude of control they exerted. Other models such as FotMob's are very good as well, they are just different than my model in that they usually don't account for off-ball info.

• On-ball pressure includes shots, passes into good areas, & passes completed in the final third.
• Off-ball pressure includes forcing opponents out of the final third, keeping their possession deep, & intercepting passes."

As the stats seem to illustrate, are we truly just getting unlucky and making too many individual errors each game, or is there a deeper, more qualitative issue that our coaching staff are overlooking? There’s a possibility that, because the underlying data is quite positive towards our performances, this might explain why Manning has been resistant to making larger-scale changes. If this is the case then that suggests to me that we are unlikely to see large-scale change to the way we play and set-up. For better or for worse.

 

Edited October 7 by MythikRobins
Issue with pictures

[Mr Popodopolous]

That is interesting, thanks for posting.

If I had time I might stsrt to go through the average rankings of our opposition in that respect and maybe even the whole division to date.

Cardiff and Sheffield Wednesday seem to have some areas that bely their start.

[Davefevs]

Just to add, I use Ben’s data for my team ranking stuff (and I’m very grateful for him getting Opta data)….but his xG model is his own.  It’s not Opta, nor is it wyscout or Statsbomb.  It scores each chance higher than any of those models.  Ranking wise, it correlates pretty well, but I won’t use it for actual xG / xG conceded values.

I think what Ben’s data shows and something I wrote last week that the data covers a lot of things around control, and Manning’s structured approach means we score well in those areas….it is in the less structured stuff, e.g. transition defence where we get found out, and these are harder to score.

[MythikRobins]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Just to add, I use Ben’s data for my team ranking stuff (and I’m very grateful for him getting Opta data)….but his xG model is his own.  It’s not Opta, nor is it wyscout or Statsbomb.  It scores each chance higher than any of those models.  Ranking wise, it correlates pretty well, but I won’t use it for actual xG / xG conceded values.

I think what Ben’s data shows and something I wrote last week that the data covers a lot of things around control, and Manning’s structured approach means we score well in those areas….it is in the less structured stuff, e.g. transition defence where we get found out, and these are harder to score.

Yeah, I probably should've mentioned this in the post. Although, as you say we don't rank too dissimilarly in some of the other models I've seen. 

I totally agree with your 2nd point and its how a number of teams including us at one point in the past have outperformed what the underlying data has said. Preston and Cardiff last season other good examples.

[BCFCGav]

I think our underperforming xPts and xGD is easily explained by poor finishing. Twine, Armstrong and Mehmeti all come to mind for missing some very healthy chances this season.

For me, game control is a bit of a red herring as you can control a game and lose comfortably I reckon. A game comes down to moments.

Still, hopefully we start to even out against this data and climb the table.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I've looked at certain data and thought back to games and think we can make a case for another 3-4 Points this season. Is it a case of quantity of chances for and against but the quality at either end poor in their box, good in ours- ie created vs conceded.

Albeit we have played certain mid ranking opposition..average Ranking of our pposition to date.

*XPts is 15.67th.

*XGD is 14th.

*PPDA is 11.778th.

*Game Control is 12.22.

[Mr Popodopolous]

I reckon we can be quite middling, top 10 at a push.

Can't see it being much better.

That being on the evidence so far.

Edited October 7 by Mr Popodopolous

[DaveInSA]

Game control is the most useless stat of all time.

I’ve not seen us dictate anything. Rather other teams let us have the ball because they know we’ll never score. 

You can lay an xg of 0.6 for Sinclair and he’ll miss 80% of them. So that in essence becomes an xg of 0.12. 

And.

I posted on another thread that it only takes a second to score a goal.

 

[Davefevs]

18 minutes ago, DaveInSA said:

Game control is the most useless stat of all time.

I’ve not seen us dictate anything. Rather other teams let us have the ball because they know we’ll never score. 

You can lay an xg of 0.6 for Sinclair and he’ll miss 80% of them. So that in essence becomes an xg of 0.12. 

And.

I posted on another thread that it only takes a second to score a goal.

 

What it is useful for is determining team style.  This table is out of date, but…

…possession, passes in opp half, and field tilt, give you an idea of passing style, whilst PPDA and high recoveries give you an idea of pressing, whilst own 3rd losses gives an indication of whether build up is risky or not.  It’s not perfect.  The xG / shots for and against give an indication of chances in both boxes.

What they don’t tell you, or attempt to tell you is that being ranked high for possession or pressing means your better than anyone else, it’s just “how do they play”, not necessarily how good they are.
 

[The Masked Man]

This data tells me we will be lucky to leave Middlesbrough with a point. 

Our ponderous approach to playing out is also going to play right into Leeds hands as the most aggressive pressing team in the league. 

[The Original OTIB]

Call me old fashioned, but my eyes and the table are my markers. Real goals, real points, real feeling and emotion.

[BeggyBlaggers]

6 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Call me old fashioned, but my eyes and the table are my markers. Real goals, real points, real feeling and emotion.

You arent alone with that one.

 

There is no way im looking at stats and thinking 'well thats that then, theres no way we are going down'.

 

Heading to a quarter of the season gone and we have 1 clean sheet. We have conceded 3 goals in 3 of our games and we have failed to score in 3 of our games.

 

We are bang in trouble and the longer it goes on, the worse it will get

[MythikRobins]

23 minutes ago, The Masked Man said:

This data tells me we will be lucky to leave Middlesbrough with a point. 

Our ponderous approach to playing out is also going to play right into Leeds hands as the most aggressive pressing team in the league. 

Middlesbrough are basically notorious at this point for massively underperforming their underlying stats.

[Slack Bladder]

So is the only reason we pass it backwards and sideways is to look like we are controlling a game from our own half?

It's what we do in the final 1/3rd of the pitch that really matters to me

[Mr Popodopolous]

30 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Call me old fashioned, but my eyes and the table are my markers. Real goals, real points, real feeling and emotion.

I get that but it can offer a guide to the medium term future.

Teams don't tend to keep outperforming and underperforming their baseline respectively. It's very rare.

Not just us but a divisional context..some sides may stall and or fall, others may rise up.

Edited October 7 by Mr Popodopolous

[Mr Popodopolous]

We'll probably still be in and around midtable to lower part of Top 10.

Doubt we go down, doubt we notably push on either.

[Merrick's Marvels]

Is there data for how effing dull a team is?

[MythikRobins]

6 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Is there data for how effing dull a team is?

How many passes are made between the centre backs and the goalkeepers per game? 

[Chivs]

We're comfortably in the playoffs for CGAR. I'm writing to the FA for a revaluation of the table used for league position ...

[FNQ]

3 hours ago, MythikRobins said:

xPts (Expected Points) - We’re 8th with 1.75, meaning our performances should keep us in the top 10. 

Our performances should keep us in the top 10? Oh come on your having a laugh.

We almost need an ‘easy on the eye’ chart to sanitise a lot of these numbers..

[MythikRobins]

Just now, FNQ said:

Our performances should keep us in the top 10? Oh come on your having a laugh.

We almost need an ‘easy on the eye’ chart to sanitise a lot of these numbers..

Purely from the underlying data yes its believed we with consistent play at this level should be higher than what we are. Now from being at the games and watching, I'm not sure if we will experience a significant uptick in form as this suggests we might be due for, but as my disclaimer says this post was purely about the stats all the other topics have been done to death in the other threads.

[Merrick's Marvels]

27 minutes ago, MythikRobins said:

How many passes are made between the centre backs and the goalkeepers per game? 

Russell Martin top of that league, surely?

The only one he ever will be.

And don't forget, we beat Southampton 3-0.... according to Tinnion.

Edited October 7 by Merrick's Marvels

[IAmNick]

6 minutes ago, MythikRobins said:

Purely from the underlying data yes its believed we with consistent play at this level should be higher than what we are. Now from being at the games and watching, I'm not sure if we will experience a significant uptick in form as this suggests we might be due for, but as my disclaimer says this post was purely about the stats all the other topics have been done to death in the other threads.

Is there a copy of this data from last season (or ideally a number of previous seasons), so we can see which stats actually seem to correlate well with finishing position?

Otherwise we're basing all this off assumptions. Who's to say PPDA (for example) is a useful metric? In the stats I see Swansea, Luton, and Millwall all in the top 6 in the table above - I'd be surprised if anyone really thought that was likely at the end of the season. So why should we think us, in 7th, is a useful indicator?

In a similar vein Burnley, Watford, and Norwich have all had a good / very good start to the season but are struggling at the bottom of the "Game Control" table.

I guess I'm saying what evidence is there that doing well or poorly in these stats he's produced actually correlates to a good league position. Doing well in a stat in an of itself means absolutely nothing. Who's to say doing well in PPDA or game control means we should be higher than where we are?

Edited October 7 by IAmNick

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Is there a copy of this data from last season (or ideally a number of previous seasons), so we can see which stats actually seem to correlate well with finishing position?

Otherwise we're basing all this off assumptions. Who's to say PPDA (for example) is a useful metric? In the stats I see Swansea, Luton, and Millwall all in the top 6 in the table above - I'd be surprised if anyone really thought that was likely at the end of the season. So why should we think us, in 7th, is a useful indicator?

In a similar vein Burnley, Watford, and Norwich have all had a good / very good start to the season but are struggling at the bottom of the "Game Control" table.

I guess I'm saying what evidence is there that doing well or poorly in these stats he's produced actually correlates to a good league position. Doing well in a stat in an of itself means absolutely nothing. Who's to say doing well in PPDA or game control means we should be higher than where we are?

Burnley actually are a bit Shot shy at both ends, Norwich Idk seem to be riding it a bit and Watford concede a hell of a lot of Shots so they are three to watch.

You can grind it out or ride the wave but for how long?

Edited October 7 by Mr Popodopolous

[FNQ]

11 minutes ago, MythikRobins said:

Purely from the underlying data yes its believed we with consistent play at this level should be higher than what we are. Now from being at the games and watching, I'm not sure if we will experience a significant uptick in form as this suggests we might be due for, but as my disclaimer says this post was purely about the stats all the other topics have been done to death in the other threads.

Fair enough, the stats are someone’s stats .. but Millwall ain’t going to finish in the playoffs and we won’t finish above Burnley, so what’s the point?

[MythikRobins]

17 minutes ago, IAmNick said:

Is there a copy of this data from last season (or ideally a number of previous seasons), so we can see which stats actually seem to correlate well with finishing position?

Otherwise we're basing all this off assumptions. Who's to say PPDA (for example) is a useful metric? In the stats I see Swansea, Luton, and Millwall all in the top 6 in the table above - I'd be surprised if anyone really thought that was likely at the end of the season. So why should we think us, in 7th, is a useful indicator?

In a similar vein Burnley, Watford, and Norwich have all had a good / very good start to the season but are struggling at the bottom of the "Game Control" table.

I guess I'm saying what evidence is there that doing well or poorly in these stats he's produced actually correlates to a good league position. Doing well in a stat in an of itself means absolutely nothing. Who's to say doing well in PPDA or game control means we should be higher than where we are?

I've had to go steal one of @Davefevs' from last season to bring it up quickly. This isn't the whole season this was in April so there were probably some slight changes before the end.

In the context of just PPDA's generally teams that press well were higher up the table. There are some outliers there always is, but the trend is certainly there. 

Side note: Cardiff always amaze me with how hard they overperformed their stats. I guess they couldn't keep that up this season...

 

Edited October 7 by MythikRobins

[Loderingo]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

We'll probably still be in and around midtable to lower part of Top 10.

Doubt we go down, doubt we notably push on either.

We have drawn over half of our games so far.  With 3 points for a win, teams who draw a lot tend to end up about 16th. 

I went back a few seasons to see who i could find having the most draws in recent seasons. Stoke in 18-19 had a whopping 22 draws and ended up 16th

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Loderingo said:

We have drawn over half of our games so far.  With 3 points for a win, teams who draw a lot tend to end up about 16th. 

I went back a few seasons to see who i could find having the most draws in recent seasons. Stoke in 18-19 had a whopping 22 draws and ended up 16th

One or more of them could've been converted to wins but I do take your point.

A further 3-4 Points could be in line with some of our Performances.

Edited October 7 by Mr Popodopolous

[reddoc]

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Unless you're Brentford. Works for them.

[formerly known as ivan]

God I hate the xGD stat! No offence to original poster.

I find it the most pointless stat in football. You either score goals or don’t. You either concede goals or don’t. What’s “expected” doesn’t win you games/get points on the board.

[38MC]

We’ve just come off the back of two home games against teams in the bottom three and achieved two points and scored 1 goal from a centre back. 

In any case do these ‘league tables’ of stats allow for the variable in quality of opposition you’ve faced? Shouldn’t we expect to be in the top 10 as a baseline considering some of our opposition? You can’t ignore we’ve had favourable fixtures. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

24 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

God I hate the xGD stat! No offence to original poster.

I find it the most pointless stat in football. You either score goals or don’t. You either concede goals or don’t. What’s “expected” doesn’t win you games/get points on the board.

Yeah but if you look at it over time, the two often start to align.

That isn't a notable defence of Manning, there are clear tactical flaws among other things, his in-game management, the substitutions often etc.

17 minutes ago, 38MC said:

We’ve just come off the back of two home games against teams in the bottom three and achieved two points and scored 1 goal from a centre back. 

In any case do these ‘league tables’ of stats allow for the variable in quality of opposition you’ve faced? Shouldn’t we expect to be in the top 10 as a baseline considering some of our opposition? You can’t ignore we’ve had favourable fixtures. 

They can do, albeit people need to do it themselves.

Take the average XG, xPts position of the opposition and see..12.5 is smack bang in the middle.

Edited October 7 by Mr Popodopolous

[Malago]

Personally I’ve always preferred counter attacking football.  Play a back 3, 2 holding midfielders, invite teams on, then break with speed.

We have the pace in the squad to do it.  
 

You can control a game with 35% possession if you sent up well.

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 minutes ago, Malago said:

Personally I’ve always preferred counter attacking football.  Play a back 3, 2 holding midfielders, invite teams on, then break with speed.

We have the pace in the squad to do it.  
 

You can control a game with 35% possession if you sent up well.

Agreed.

We're never going to attract the best attacking players in this division, never going to be one of the best footballing teams in the division. So we have to find another way, trying to play like Barca and get promoted is folly.

Playing on the counter and controlling games without possession would also be good practice for life in the Premier League, should we ever fluke promotion, as that would be exactly the challenge every week - how to win while bigger, better teams dominate the ball.

[Mr Popodopolous]

12 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Agreed.

We're never going to attract the best attacking players in this division, never going to be one of the best footballing teams in the division. So we have to find another way, trying to play like Barca and get promoted is folly.

Playing on the counter and controlling games without possession would also be good practice for life in the Premier League, should we ever fluke promotion, as that would be exactly the challenge every week - how to win while bigger, better teams dominate the ball.

What was your take on Brentford who didn't have one of the top budgets a few years ago?

To an extent Leeds under Bielsa although an increasingly major income and yes expenditure plus a top class coach.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Sheffield United under Wilder the first time round very watchable hut not necessarily a 4-3-3 side..no they didn't have one of the top incomes, were not in receipt of Parachute Payments.

[Mr Popodopolous]

@Midlands Robin

They played some of the best football in the League those two sides.. they were not Parachute Payment Clubs. So did Sheffield United, albeit in a different way and lower budget than Leeds definitely.

[Midlands Robin]

I find the stats really interesting and have had fun in the past playing around with numbers and tables. 

One thing I would say though, half way across the Atlantic in April 1912 the Titanic's expected trans Atlantic voyage's (XTaV) was 1.

 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, IAmNick said:

Is there a copy of this data from last season (or ideally a number of previous seasons), so we can see which stats actually seem to correlate well with finishing position?

Otherwise we're basing all this off assumptions. Who's to say PPDA (for example) is a useful metric? In the stats I see Swansea, Luton, and Millwall all in the top 6 in the table above - I'd be surprised if anyone really thought that was likely at the end of the season. So why should we think us, in 7th, is a useful indicator?

In a similar vein Burnley, Watford, and Norwich have all had a good / very good start to the season but are struggling at the bottom of the "Game Control" table.

I guess I'm saying what evidence is there that doing well or poorly in these stats he's produced actually correlates to a good league position. Doing well in a stat in an of itself means absolutely nothing. Who's to say doing well in PPDA or game control means we should be higher than where we are?

2 hours ago, MythikRobins said:

I've had to go steal one of @Davefevs' from last season to bring it up quickly. This isn't the whole season this was in April so there were probably some slight changes before the end.

In the context of just PPDA's generally teams that press well were higher up the table. There are some outliers there always is, but the trend is certainly there. 

Side note: Cardiff always amaze me with how hard they overperformed their stats. I guess they couldn't keep that up this season...

 

Unfortunately the data from above, although also “scraped” from Opta / TheAnalyst has different data points to the Opta ones I use this season.  But beggars can’t be choosers.  The guy in the OP lets me extract his data for free, all I need to do is credit him in my vizzes.

As above I use them more to cross-check treat playing style rather than a guide to league table.  But there are trends. Last season the “greens” (higher ranks) tended to be the teams that finished higher up.  But some of that is down to the resources of those teams.

I started using these to try to add an extra dimension to my player vizzes, ie what style of team does the player play in.  Does that affect his stats.

[Sir Geoff]

This is why we have robotic managers that think they're actually doing a good job.

[spudski]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Unfortunately the data from above, although also “scraped” from Opta / TheAnalyst has different data points to the Opta ones I use this season.  But beggars can’t be choosers.  The guy in the OP lets me extract his data for free, all I need to do is credit him in my vizzes.

As above I use them more to cross-check treat playing style rather than a guide to league table.  But there are trends. Last season the “greens” (higher ranks) tended to be the teams that finished higher up.  But some of that is down to the resources of those teams.

I started using these to try to add an extra dimension to my player vizzes, ie what style of team does the player play in.  Does that affect his stats.

Looking at those green and red patterns, it shows that us and Cardiff bucked the trend.

Lower down... Watford, Sunderland the opposite.

The signs were there.

Look at those teams now...going in the direction the stats were signalling. 

[Abraham Romanovich]

 

[Bristol Oil Services]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What was your take on Brentford who didn't have one of the top budgets a few years ago?

To an extent Leeds under Bielsa although an increasingly major income and yes expenditure plus a top class coach.

Brentford have the ability, the recruitment, to spot talent that barely anyone else does, certainly not us, so that's them. Leeds have a crowd that can supercharge an attacking game, indeed a crowd that demand they play like they are at least on a par with every big club. We don’t have that. And it still didn't work for them.

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sheffield United under Wilder the first time round very watchable hut not necessarily a 4-3-3 side..no they didn't have one of the top incomes, were not in receipt of Parachute Payments.

And lasted two seasons. Then one. They are poor at that level.

[Cowshed]

14 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Agreed.

We're never going to attract the best attacking players in this division, never going to be one of the best footballing teams in the division. So we have to find another way, trying to play like Barca and get promoted is folly.

Playing on the counter and controlling games without possession would also be good practice for life in the Premier League, should we ever fluke promotion, as that would be exactly the challenge every week - how to win while bigger, better teams dominate the ball.

Bristol City are not trying to play like Barcelona. 

So if Bristol City are not going to be one of the best attacking teams in the division because Bristol City are never going to attract the best attacking players, and if Bristol City are never going to be one of the best footballing teams in the division because Bristol City can't attract the footballers, then how do Bristol City attract the best players best suited to playing counter attacking football? 

Counter attacking football requires players with key specific qualities in and out of possession. 

[NDW4CITY]

I haven’t had a chance to read the thread in detail, and I’m open minded about the usefulness of such stats, but looking just at us v Sunderland - they are one place above us in 2 of the categories and we are comfortably ahead in the other 2. Come on! Really??? From the 3 or or 4 times I’ve seen Sunderland play this season, they would wipe the floor with us I’m sorry to say.  Also, do these stats take into account the level of the opponent played so far? If not, it’s a further reason to question the usefulness of the numbers. In any event, I’m predicting the stats may not look so good after 18 games.

[W-S-M Seagull]

8 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I've looked at certain data and thought back to games and think we can make a case for another 3-4 Points this season. 

The thing is Mr P we can also look back at other games and make a case for dropping points. 

V Hull they had chances at 0-0

V Millwall could have easily drawn or lost

V Oxford they missed a golden chance to go 2-0

V Swansea we were terrible 1st half

V Cardiff they missed an absolute sitter and had numerous other chances.

The chances Cardiff and Oxford missed wasn't down to good defending. It was pure luck. If they score those sitters then we could be sat on 7 points. 

Now the counter arguement is that we could have won more games with our chances.

But ultimately those chances we've missed and the chances we've conceded just cancel each other out and despite useless data like 'control of games' we are exactly where we should be. 

The data that appear to have been cherry picked to fit a particular narrative doesn't necessarily align with the data that my eyes sees in the flesh. 

In the case of Liam Manning his data that he provides is very deceitful. 

A lot of talk has happened around our number of shots this season. We have averaged roughly 13 and our opponents have averaged roughly 10.

What doesn't get spoken about is considering the block of fixtures we've had, those shoots for and against are quite poor. 

People can point to our chances as being a positive and that's fine if they want to think that. However it's worth remembering the level of opposition we have faced. 

I expect us to control against the likes of Oxford, Sheffield Wed, Cardiff etc. 

If we go back and look at our shooting stats from the same 9 games last season (or comparable games) then on a very basic level there has been little to no improvement. 

I'd expect most of the stats that have been shared in this thread to get worse as we face a much tougher block of fixtures next. 

It's not simply a case of if we put away our chances we'll do better. We also have big problems with giving chances away too. If we give chances away like we have done against the likes of Leeds etc and it's game over. We are also not likely to have many good chances in those games either. 

[NDW4CITY]

16 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Bristol City are not trying to play like Barcelona. 

So if Bristol City are not going to be one of the best attacking teams in the division because Bristol City are never going to attract the best attacking players, and if Bristol City are never going to be one of the best footballing teams in the division because Bristol City can't attract the footballers, then how do Bristol City attract the best players best suited to playing counter attacking football? 

Counter attacking football requires players with key specific qualities in and out of possession. 

Well said. We somehow need to find that niche style of play that won’t cost a fortune, does not try to replicate (badly) the way the PP teams play and is effective at getting results. I know SL seemed to want to model what Luton did a couple of seasons ago and got derided a bit for trying to emulate the latest unlikely team to get promoted, but actually it was not a bad shout. Nobody could match Luton that season for fight, commitment and determination plus a solid game plan, using players that did not cost a fortune. Problem is we then got Manning and now we’re just trying to be a pale imitation of the better footballing teams, and that’s only going to end in disappointment.

[Mr Popodopolous]

29 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

The thing is Mr P we can also look back at other games and make a case for dropping points. 

V Hull they had chances at 0-0

V Millwall could have easily drawn or lost

V Oxford they missed a golden chance to go 2-0

V Swansea we were terrible 1st half

V Cardiff they missed an absolute sitter and had numerous other chances.

The chances Cardiff and Oxford missed wasn't down to good defending. It was pure luck. If they score those sitters then we could be sat on 7 points. 

Now the counter arguement is that we could have won more games with our chances.

But ultimately those chances we've missed and the chances we've conceded just cancel each other out and despite useless data like 'control of games' we are exactly where we should be. 

The data that appear to have been cherry picked to fit a particular narrative doesn't necessarily align with the data that my eyes sees in the flesh. 

In the case of Liam Manning his data that he provides is very deceitful. 

A lot of talk has happened around our number of shots this season. We have averaged roughly 13 and our opponents have averaged roughly 10.

What doesn't get spoken about is considering the block of fixtures we've had, those shoots for and against are quite poor. 

People can point to our chances as being a positive and that's fine if they want to think that. However it's worth remembering the level of opposition we have faced. 

I expect us to control against the likes of Oxford, Sheffield Wed, Cardiff etc. 

If we go back and look at our shooting stats from the same 9 games last season (or comparable games) then on a very basic level there has been little to no improvement. 

I'd expect most of the stats that have been shared in this thread to get worse as we face a much tougher block of fixtures next. 

It's not simply a case of if we put away our chances we'll do better. We also have big problems with giving chances away too. If we give chances away like we have done against the likes of Leeds etc and it's game over. We are also not likely to have many good chances in those games either. 

Many arguments for and against W-S-M yeah.

The divisional average Conversion rate at both ends could be salient here. We can certainly look at individual games bit some of these metrics are over time- coild be sefied too that vs Blackburn Williams maybe fouled for their 2nd, Swansea their goal could've been disallowed, was there a penelty at Derby?

I believe us go be worse than the average for Conversion and Concession although I'd have to explore this further.

Surely a way of looking at it is in the first instance, checking out relative rankings of our opposition too, individually average or both. E.g. Burnley, Sunderland, Watford are all flattered to varying levels by their numbers.

Agree little to no improvement weighted for everything. I thought prior to Sunday we could've had another 4 Points, now I'm not so sure.

Leeds and Middlesbrough in parisualar look fearsome from an underlying numbers perspective but also tough tough games. Burnley squad wise yes, Underlying numbers more varied. Definitely we've squandered a reasonable start on paper and we are behind the 8-ball.

Edited October 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[RollsRoyce]

5 minutes ago, NDW4CITY said:

Well said. We somehow need to find that niche style of play that won’t cost a fortune, does not try to replicate (badly) the way the PP teams play and is effective at getting results. I know SL seemed to want to model what Luton did a couple of seasons ago and got derided a bit for trying to emulate the latest unlikely team to get promoted, but actually it was not a bad shout. Nobody could match Luton that season for fight, commitment and determination plus a solid game plan, using players that did not cost a fortune. Problem is we then got Manning and now we’re just trying to be a pale imitation of the better footballing teams, and that’s only going to end in disappointment.

In a rather strange twist of fate, in the Luton promotion season, we battered them at home. To the extent Nathan Jones said we had out "lutoned" them.  Luton's Nathan Jones: "We were outfought, outrun and outdone at all the things we are normally good at."

[Sir Geoff]

5 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

In a rather strange twist of fate, in the Luton promotion season, we battered them at home. To the extent Nathan Jones said we had out "lutoned" them.  Luton's Nathan Jones: "We were outfought, outrun and outdone at all the things we are normally good at."

Can't think who our manager was then. He must have been pretty good.

[Davefevs]

23 minutes ago, NDW4CITY said:

I haven’t had a chance to read the thread in detail, and I’m open minded about the usefulness of such stats, but looking just at us v Sunderland - they are one place above us in 2 of the categories and we are comfortably ahead in the other 2. Come on! Really??? From the 3 or or 4 times I’ve seen Sunderland play this season, they would wipe the floor with us I’m sorry to say.  Also, do these stats take into account the level of the opponent played so far? If not, it’s a further reason to question the usefulness of the numbers. In any event, I’m predicting the stats may not look so good after 18 games.

The stats shown are a combination of performance (e,g. Xg) and style (e.g. possession type stuff, pressing).

As we all know there is more than one way to play this beautiful game, so we need to be careful not to misinterpret and / mix style data with performance data, nor cherry pick.

[NDW4CITY]

7 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

In a rather strange twist of fate, in the Luton promotion season, we battered them at home. To the extent Nathan Jones said we had out "lutoned" them.  Luton's Nathan Jones: "We were outfought, outrun and outdone at all the things we are normally good at."

Agreed- early season I assume they were “finding their feet”. Not sure they had too many performances like that  subsequently.

[Sir Geoff]

3 minutes ago, NDW4CITY said:

Agreed- early season I assume they were “finding their feet”. Not sure they had too many performances like that  subsequently.

Vincent Kompany said the same at the end of the season, after Burnley had romped the league

[W-S-M Seagull]

15 minutes ago, RollsRoyce said:

In a rather strange twist of fate, in the Luton promotion season, we battered them at home. To the extent Nathan Jones said we had out "lutoned" them.  Luton's Nathan Jones: "We were outfought, outrun and outdone at all the things we are normally good at."

I've always said our best chance of getting promoted is not by trying to play good football because we'll never have the players to do that, but to be a team that rolls its sleeves up, gets stuck in, is hard to beat etc etc. 

[NDW4CITY]

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The stats shown are a combination of performance (e,g. Xg) and style (e.g. possession type stuff, pressing).

As we all know there is more than one way to play this beautiful game, so we need to be careful not to misinterpret and / mix style data with performance data, nor cherry pick.

Not sure it’s cherry picking - I looked at all 4 categories presented and to me, those relative ratings don’t match with what I’ve seen with my own eyes….

[W-S-M Seagull]

18 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Many arguments for and against W-S-M yeah.

The divisional average Conversion rate at both ends could be salient here. We can certainly look at individual games bit some of these metrics are over time- coild be sefied too that vs Blackburn Williams maybe fouled for their 2nd, Swansea their goal could've been disallowed, was there a penelty at Derby?

I believe us go be worse than the average for Conversion and Concession although I'd have to explore this further.

Surely a way of looking at it is in the first instance, checking out relative rankings of our opposition too, individually average or both. E.g. Burnley, Sunderland, Watford are all flattered to varying levels by their numbers.

Agree little to no improvement weighted for everything. I thought prior to Sunday we could've had another 4 Points, now I'm not so sure.

Leeds and Middlesbrough in parisualar look fearsome from an underling numbers perspective but also tough tough games. Burnley squad wise yes, Underlying numbers more varied. Definitely we've squandered a reasonable start on paper and we are behind the 8-ball.

I agree that we could have more points but I also think we could have less points and when you balance those two things out that ultimately leads me to think we are exactly where we should be. 

I think we'll just end up being quite the same. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

11 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I agree that we could have more points but I also think we could have less points and when you balance those two things out that ultimately leads me to think we are exactly where we should be. 

I think we'll just end up being quite the same. 

 

Oh for sure.

I don't think it going to the underlying numbers would propel us towards Top 6 or or anything, more like a bit higher in midtable, lower Top 10 at the Upper end.

No Prize money for place so pointless in one respect.

Edited October 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[38MC]

1 hour ago, NDW4CITY said:

I haven’t had a chance to read the thread in detail, and I’m open minded about the usefulness of such stats, but looking just at us v Sunderland - they are one place above us in 2 of the categories and we are comfortably ahead in the other 2. Come on! Really??? From the 3 or or 4 times I’ve seen Sunderland play this season, they would wipe the floor with us I’m sorry to say.  Also, do these stats take into account the level of the opponent played so far? If not, it’s a further reason to question the usefulness of the numbers. In any event, I’m predicting the stats may not look so good after 18 games.

Agree totally. For instance when you look at the sides we have played, their relative positions, at home against a team who concede an average of 2 goals a game in our last fixture... you could look at our xG and think 'oh not scored as many as you would expect'... then you come to the realisation that our xG should be higher from the games we've had and should now track down as we face tougher opposition. 

So rather than the stats pointing to 'maybe we've been hard done by', maybe they are saying 'you've generally done pretty shit'. 

[MythikRobins]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

 

The data that appear to have been cherry picked to fit a particular narrative doesn't necessarily align with the data that my eyes sees in the flesh. 

 

I provided the link to the website I believe I’ve picked out the ones that are most important to our team. They aren’t perfect and don’t tell the full story of course, as I mentioned in my disclaimer.

xGD is probably the one I personally hold the most value for here. Generally, if you’re the better side in the game you will limit the opponents chances and maximise yours this should produce a positive xGD. 

Then probably PPDA one of our most important strengths over the last few years has been our pressing.

xPts kinda tied to xGD the full model breakdown is on the website, I just thought it was interesting. 

Game Control. Being higher in this isn’t expressly a good thing however, Mannings desired playstyle is all about control I figured it was important to see if that was being represented by the data. 

 

 

 

[MythikRobins]

19 minutes ago, 38MC said:

Agree totally. For instance when you look at the sides we have played, their relative positions, at home against a team who concede an average of 2 goals a game in our last fixture... you could look at our xG and think 'oh not scored as many as you would expect'... then you come to the realisation that our xG should be higher from the games we've had and should now track down as we face tougher opposition. 

So rather than the stats pointing to 'maybe we've been hard done by', maybe they are saying 'you've generally done pretty shit'. 

Absolutely, more than likely this will look very different over the next 10 games. Might end up doing a follow-up.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a quick look at Opts.

It has our Expected Points at 13.4.

Which us okay but nothing to write home about, one portion of midtable to another.

https://theanalyst.com/2024/10/championship-predictions-opta-supercomputer-october

Probably reducing after the next few games.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Again, relatively favourable start- one bit of midtable to another maybe.

https://footballxg.com/xg-league-tables/

By this model we've played only 2 of the top half too.

Edited October 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[Merrick's Marvels]

3 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Bristol City are not trying to play like Barcelona.

It was a metaphor.

Not a literal comparison. As if.

But I suspect you knew that.

We are trying to play the type of football that is the hardest to coach and perform - Liam Manning's own words.

Why on earth are Bristol City doing that?

Have any other teams of comparable size or resources achieved promotion that way? I suspect not.

Our owner has spent more than 20 years trying to find a way and failed at every turn.

It's time for fresh ideas.

Edited October 8 by Merrick's Marvels

[Cowshed]

1 minute ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

It was a metaphor.

Not a literal comparison. As if.

But I suspect you knew that.

We are trying to play the type of football that is the hardest to coach and perform - Liam Manning's own words.

Why on earth are Bristol City doing that?

Have any other teams of comparable size or resources achieved promotion that way? I suspect not.

Our owner has spent more than 20 years trying to find a way and failed at every turn.

It's time for fresh ideas.

No, I did not know you were using Barcelona as as metaphor. You may have believed that Mr Manning is attempting to play like Barcelona, or Man City or the other comparisons frequently used on the forum. 

Have teams without top resources gained promotion playing differing variants of possession football? Yes. The majority of teams gaining promotion will look to have more of the ball than opponents, build from the first third etc. 

My post contained a question. So if Bristol City are not going to be one of the best attacking teams in the division because Bristol City are never going to attract the best attacking players, and if Bristol City are never going to be one of the best footballing teams in the division because Bristol City can't attract the footballers, then how do Bristol City attract the best players best suited to playing counter attacking football you appear to favour? 

Any system of play will require players with above average skills in key areas of the system. Teams of average across all elements of play don't excel. Your idea, your vison of a successful counter attacking team will require players with key specific above average qualities in and out of possession. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

It was a metaphor.

Not a literal comparison. As if.

But I suspect you knew that.

We are trying to play the type of football that is the hardest to coach and perform - Liam Manning's own words.

Why on earth are Bristol City doing that?

Have any other teams of comparable size or resources achieved promotion that way? I suspect not.

Our owner has spent more than 20 years trying to find a way and failed at every turn.

It's time for fresh ideas.

Brentford 2020-21

Swansea 2010-11

Are two.

[Cowshed]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Brentford 2020-21

Swansea 2010-11

Are two.

And both playing wildly differing versions of possession football. 

Brentford obvious vertical football from a base of possession 

Swansea very short passing in patterns. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

And both playing wildly differing versions of possession football. 

Brentford obvious vertical football from a base of possession 

Swansea very short passing in patterns. 

Yes agreed although did Swansea add a bit more under Rodgers? Under Laudrup they perhaps did for a short period in the PL.

Brentford always struck me as a pretty dominant side verbatim, maybe it wasn't always Possession but they had a lot of that and Shots iirc.

Brentford pressed a lot too didn't they. It's all very well having the ball but if you're a bit passive and wasteful...

https://themastermindsite.com/2021/05/24/thomas-frank-brentford-tactical-analysis-2020-21/

Edited October 8 by Mr Popodopolous

[W-S-M Seagull]

12 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

No, I did not know you were using Barcelona as as metaphor. You may have believed that Mr Manning is attempting to play like Barcelona, or Man City or the other comparisons frequently used on the forum. 

Have teams without top resources gained promotion playing differing variants of possession football? Yes. The majority of teams gaining promotion will look to have more of the ball than opponents, build from the first third etc. 

My post contained a question. So if Bristol City are not going to be one of the best attacking teams in the division because Bristol City are never going to attract the best attacking players, and if Bristol City are never going to be one of the best footballing teams in the division because Bristol City can't attract the footballers, then how do Bristol City attract the best players best suited to playing counter attacking football you appear to favour? 

Any system of play will require players with above average skills in key areas of the system. Teams of average across all elements of play don't excel. Your idea, your vison of a successful counter attacking team will require players with key specific above average qualities in and out of possession. 

Luton didn't get to the premier league with players that had above average skills.

[Cowshed]

12 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Luton didn't get to the premier league with players that had above average skills.

What is your definition of a skill?

The football association and EUFA coaching definition is "something that you can do on demand".

Luton's footballs promotion season starting at the back had defending skill. Their defence was not below average. Up top Morris's ability, the skill to hold the ball up was above average. The wide players had pace and recovery, above average recovery post explosive movements, significant skills Luton utilised to become successful. 

Edited October 8 by Cowshed

[Merrick's Marvels]

25 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Brentford 2020-21

Swansea 2010-11

Are two.

But that's 2 out of how many that have tried to get promotion in all those years.

These are exceptions, not the rule.

And we are not exceptional !

Reasons for Brentford have already been pointed out to you on this thread. They are a unique club, so are not a logical yardstick. (Brighton a similar success story - and the reason for that is well known.)

Swansea? How about there ability to correctly identify 3 or 4 brilliant managers in a row. More than that, 3 or 4 in a row who allowed the team to play pretty much the same way - there was continuity.

We are more likely to pick 3 or 4 duds in a row and have certainly had no continuity of style, recruitment, "philosophy", instead veering from one thing to another depending on the pickly we're in.

 

Edited October 8 by Merrick's Marvels