On Monday 5 January Neil Adams left his post as Norwich City
manager.
The club sat in seventh position in the Championship and had
just been upset (albeit by a very good Preston North End team) in the third
round of the FA Cup two days earlier.
The statement released by the Canaries said Adams had
resigned.
However, reading between the lines I suspect the “discussions
with the board” were not prompted by Adams himself. And that the club has
agreed to re-employ him in the summer also smacks of an alternative form of
compensation to the typical long-term gardening leave.
Either way, regardless of my interpretation or anyone else’s,
clearly one or both parties involved felt someone else could be doing a better
job of getting the Canaries promoted back to the Premier League.
But were they right? How good a job was Adams doing of getting Norwich
promoted.
If you take a look back at my post from after the last set of Championship games played (week 24), we can see Norwich lie three points behind
Brentford for the last playoff spot and ten points behind their great East
Anglia rivals Ipswich for the second automatic promotion spot.
Shot share
But, and this is a big BUT, Norwich have the best overall
shot share (Corsi/TSR) in the whole division by a decent margin, and are third
best in shots on target share – only behind leaders Bournemouth and fourth
place Middlesbrough.
Anyone who has been following these statistics so far will know Norwich have been pretty consistent all season.
The club’s biggest problem has been not having
an outlandishly high PDO score.
Right now the Canaries hold a PDO score of 99.48 (pretty
damn close to average) – with a slightly higher save % than league average, and
a slightly lower shooting % than league average.
Every single team sitting above Norwich in the table has a significantly
higher PDO and, aside from the aforementioned Bournemouth and Middlesbrough,
not a single one of those teams comes close to matching Norwich in shot
statistics.
This shots on target graph shows just how consistently
dominant Norwich have been along with Bournemouth and Middlesbrough.
Notice that by week 14 those three clubs have established
themselves at the top with a significant gap to the nearest challengers.
And Norwich established their settled position early in the
season – by week two in shot share and week seven in shots on target share.
However the story of the Canaries league position is shown
rather nicely in one simple graph:
After starting off with a remarkably high PDO, that regressed
to a more normal level and then well below average during October and November taking the team as low as
eleventh in the table as it dipped to almost 90
But as PDO has rebounded, so has Norwich’s form and league
position.
So, we can see shot performances have not changed over the season
so far, but PDO has been volatile. Of these two factors, the Canaries have had a by-and-large
consistently average shooting %, but saw their save % drop down from far above
average during October and November. Rather than Norwich being the exception,
it seems likely the teams above them are the statistical exceptions and one
would expect them to regress towards the average (100) during the second half
of the season and likely see Norwich climb back up.
But is there anything in the team’s play that could have
accounted for this drop off, or that the board could have seen to consider
Adams unsuitable for the job.
I’ve raided WhoScored’s excellent collection of Championship
statistics to see what I could find.
Attacking
First I looked at attacking data:
We know Norwich are a good shots (1st) and shots
on target (2nd) team and they are also third in dribbles – but perhaps surprisingly they do not win many free kicks per game.
They are joint top in (least) time spent in their own half (just
26%) and time spent in the opposition half (32%). However, they are only middle
of the table in attacking through the middle of the pitch – where typically the
best scoring chances are created.
So aside from taking too great a proportion of shots from distance (which is pretty much made up with the sheer number of shots taken) and erring to the wings a bit too much, there does not seem a lot wrong with Norwich’s attacking performance so far this season.
Looking at these numbers it is hard not to conclude that Norwich are a defensively well-drilled team.
They concede the fewest shots per game (which we already knew from earlier) but also are second best at catching players offside.
The Canaries do allow a sizable proportion of shots from the middle of the pitch, but we can see that only Cardiff are better at forcing opponents to shoot from outside the penalty area.
And when combining that with the low absolute number of shots conceded, it really is quite an impressive display all around.
Sadly WhoScored’s defensive data is rather less rich than its attacking data, but pulling all of these sources together I cannot understand why Neil Adams and Norwich felt it appropriate to part ways.
So that leads me to a limited number of reasons that come to mind for Adams departure:
1) A clash of personalities somewhere in the club – likely between the board and Adams that led to a significant breakdown in the working relationship
2) As suggested by Ben (@stats_snakeoil) the board (or Adams, if we believe the statement) may have believed he would be unable to be successful should they make it to the Premier League
3) An as-yet unnamed personal matter arose meaning Adams wanted to leave his position immediately – although the release appears to suggest it was footballing related
4) Someone (Adams or the board) believed the team really was under-performing (due largely to only having a league average PDO) and the defeat at Preston was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
With no mention of such problems elsewhere (to my knowledge) it seems fair to discard points 1 and 3.
Now, perhaps I’m being too blinkered in my view, but looking at all this data largely skewed in Norwich’s favour, it is hard to believe that anyone could actually believe the team was under performing.
If they did, and that defeat at Preston was the last straw then that seems particularly ill advised. Even the best teams lose games they are favourites for; sometimes on the football pitch shit happens, so deal with it.
If we do not believe this to be the case, then that would leave option 2 – a new name to secure Premier League survival when the club was promoted.
In that case, one would imagine the club would have a big name experienced manager lined-up to take over.
But with young (he’s my age, I can say it!) ex-Hamilton Academicals player-manager Alex Neil now in place, the Canaries appear to be taking somewhat of a leap into the unknown.
That is something Seth Dobson (@226blog) can give a better idea of just what Norwich fans can expect.
| Overall attacking | Shots per game | Shots on Target per game | Dribbles per game | Fouled per game | Action Zones | Own Half | Middle | Opposition Half | Attack sides | Left Side | Middle of the pitch | Right Side |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birmingham | 13.5 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 11.6 | Birmingham | 30% | 39% | 30% | Birmingham | 37% | 26% | 37% |
| Blackburn | 16.2 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 11.3 | Blackburn | 27% | 42% | 30% | Blackburn | 37% | 31% | 32% |
| Blackpool | 11.5 | 3.6 | 6.3 | 11.1 | Blackpool | 32% | 44% | 25% | Blackpool | 40% | 27% | 33% |
| Bolton | 12.8 | 4 | 5.3 | 9.8 | Bolton | 28% | 44% | 28% | Bolton | 38% | 27% | 36% |
| Bournemouth | 16.6 | 6.2 | 7.8 | 12.2 | Bournemouth | 29% | 42% | 29% | Bournemouth | 38% | 24% | 37% |
| Brentford | 13.7 | 5.2 | 7.5 | 11.8 | Brentford | 31% | 38% | 31% | Brentford | 36% | 22% | 42% |
| Brighton | 15.5 | 4.2 | 7 | 11.5 | Brighton | 28% | 44% | 28% | Brighton | 37% | 25% | 38% |
| Cardiff | 12.8 | 4 | 6.8 | 11.1 | Cardiff | 29% | 44% | 28% | Cardiff | 35% | 23% | 41% |
| Charlton | 10.7 | 3.5 | 4.8 | 8 | Charlton | 32% | 42% | 25% | Charlton | 37% | 24% | 39% |
| Derby | 13.4 | 4.8 | 8.5 | 12 | Derby | 28% | 43% | 29% | Derby | 38% | 25% | 37% |
| Fulham | 13.1 | 4.3 | 7.6 | 11.1 | Fulham | 30% | 43% | 27% | Fulham | 33% | 31% | 36% |
| Huddersfield | 14.7 | 5.1 | 5.7 | 10.1 | Huddersfield | 26% | 43% | 30% | Huddersfield | 35% | 23% | 42% |
| Ipswich | 14.5 | 4.8 | 4.7 | 10.7 | Ipswich | 29% | 40% | 32% | Ipswich | 40% | 22% | 38% |
| Leeds | 11.5 | 3.2 | 5.6 | 10.9 | Leeds | 32% | 43% | 25% | Leeds | 33% | 24% | 43% |
| Middlesbrough | 15.1 | 4.8 | 6.6 | 9.9 | Middlesbrough | 28% | 45% | 28% | Middlesbrough | 41% | 26% | 34% |
| Millwall | 13.1 | 4 | 5.8 | 12.2 | Millwall | 28% | 42% | 31% | Millwall | 35% | 28% | 37% |
| Norwich | 17.2 | 5.5 | 8.1 | 8.8 | Norwich | 26% | 43% | 32% | Norwich | 33% | 25% | 42% |
| Nottingham Forest | 14.6 | 4.1 | 7.2 | 11.3 | Nottingham Forest | 30% | 41% | 29% | Nottingham Forest | 40% | 27% | 33% |
| Reading | 12.8 | 3.8 | 5.7 | 12 | Reading | 28% | 43% | 29% | Reading | 34% | 22% | 45% |
| Rotherham | 14.3 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 9.6 | Rotherham | 28% | 42% | 31% | Rotherham | 32% | 33% | 34% |
| Sheffield Wednesday | 13.5 | 3.5 | 7.3 | 10.8 | Sheffield Wednesday | 27% | 43% | 31% | Sheffield Wednesday | 38% | 26% | 36% |
| Watford | 14.5 | 5.1 | 6.2 | 10.5 | Watford | 29% | 44% | 28% | Watford | 37% | 31% | 32% |
| Wigan | 12.3 | 3.5 | 6.5 | 12.9 | Wigan | 26% | 43% | 30% | Wigan | 37% | 21% | 43% |
| Wolverhampton Wanderers | 14.5 | 4.3 | 8.3 | 10.5 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 31% | 42% | 27% | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 37% | 22% | 41% |
Shooting
What about where the team is taking shots from? Perhaps they
are all long range?
Not so. While these figures are not quite so impressive as
the absolute shot numbers and shot share, they are certainly not poor.
Indeed, of the teams above Norwich only Derby take a greater
proportion of their shots from inside the six yard box. However, the Canaries
are just average in shots from within the 18 yard box – with all six teams
above them taking a greater percentage of shots from inside 18 yards.
Perhaps this may partly explain the inflated PDO scores for
those teams?
However, this potential lower quality shooting is made up
for the sheer number of shots that Norwich take, which means they are still
near the top for number of shots taken within all the sectors of the pitch per
game.
If we move along the shooting data table we see the one
concern coming up again – a lower than average shot distribution from the
middle, with a significant bias to the right again.
But the team takes shots which
it is largely accepted are easier to score from than headed attempts.
| Shot Zones | In 6 Yard Box | In 18 Yard Box | Outside of Box | Detailed shots | Total | In 6 Yard Box | In 18 Yard Box | Outside of Box | Shot directions | Left | Middle | Right | Shot accuracy | Total | Off Target | Post | On Target | Blocked | Shots body parts | Total | RightFoot | LeftFoot | Head | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birmingham | 6% | 42% | 52% | Birmingham | 13.5 | 0.8 | 5.7 | 7 | Birmingham | 26% | 56% | 18% | Birmingham | 13.5 | 6.4 | 0.2 | 4.3 | 2.9 | Birmingham | 13.5 | 8.7 | 2.6 | 2.3 | |
| Blackburn | 5% | 53% | 42% | Blackburn | 16.2 | 0.8 | 8.5 | 6.8 | Blackburn | 14% | 69% | 16% | Blackburn | 16.2 | 7.2 | 0.4 | 5.2 | 3.8 | Blackburn | 16.2 | 8.4 | 3.7 | 4 | 0.1 |
| Blackpool | 6% | 42% | 52% | Blackpool | 11.5 | 0.7 | 4.9 | 6 | Blackpool | 18% | 68% | 14% | Blackpool | 11.5 | 4.5 | 0.3 | 3.6 | 3.3 | Blackpool | 11.5 | 5.1 | 4.3 | 2.1 | |
| Bolton | 4% | 57% | 40% | Bolton | 12.8 | 0.4 | 7.3 | 5.1 | Bolton | 20% | 68% | 12% | Bolton | 12.8 | 5.3 | 0.2 | 4 | 3.5 | Bolton | 12.8 | 7.2 | 3.1 | 2.5 | |
| Bournemouth | 6% | 51% | 44% | Bournemouth | 16.6 | 1 | 8.4 | 7.3 | Bournemouth | 14% | 66% | 20% | Bournemouth | 16.6 | 6 | 0.3 | 6.2 | 4.5 | Bournemouth | 16.6 | 7.8 | 6.5 | 2.3 | |
| Brentford | 5% | 52% | 42% | Brentford | 13.7 | 0.7 | 7.2 | 5.8 | Brentford | 18% | 62% | 21% | Brentford | 13.7 | 5.5 | 0.3 | 5.2 | 3 | Brentford | 13.7 | 7.8 | 3.8 | 2 | |
| Brighton | 5% | 48% | 47% | Brighton | 15.5 | 0.8 | 7.3 | 7.3 | Brighton | 22% | 67% | 12% | Brighton | 15.5 | 7.3 | 0.2 | 4.2 | 4 | Brighton | 15.5 | 8.5 | 4.4 | 2.6 | |
| Cardiff | 7% | 49% | 45% | Cardiff | 12.8 | 0.9 | 6.2 | 5.7 | Cardiff | 21% | 62% | 18% | Cardiff | 12.8 | 5 | 4 | 3.8 | Cardiff | 12.8 | 5 | 5 | 2.8 | ||
| Charlton | 4% | 48% | 49% | Charlton | 10.7 | 0.4 | 5.1 | 5.2 | Charlton | 17% | 65% | 18% | Charlton | 10.7 | 4.4 | 0.2 | 3.5 | 2.8 | Charlton | 10.7 | 4.3 | 4.8 | 1.5 | 0.1 |
| Derby | 8% | 51% | 41% | Derby | 13.4 | 1 | 6.8 | 5.5 | Derby | 19% | 63% | 18% | Derby | 13.4 | 5.3 | 0.1 | 4.8 | 3.4 | Derby | 13.4 | 7.1 | 4.6 | 1.7 | |
| Fulham | 6% | 44% | 50% | Fulham | 13.1 | 0.8 | 5.8 | 6.6 | Fulham | 19% | 66% | 15% | Fulham | 13.1 | 5.3 | 0.1 | 4.3 | 3.5 | Fulham | 13.1 | 7.4 | 4 | 1.8 | |
| Huddersfield | 5% | 51% | 44% | Huddersfield | 14.7 | 0.8 | 7.5 | 6.5 | Huddersfield | 21% | 58% | 21% | Huddersfield | 14.7 | 5.9 | 0.1 | 5.1 | 3.7 | Huddersfield | 14.7 | 7.3 | 4.7 | 2.7 | |
| Ipswich | 4% | 59% | 36% | Ipswich | 14.5 | 0.6 | 8.6 | 5.3 | Ipswich | 15% | 68% | 17% | Ipswich | 14.5 | 6.5 | 0.3 | 4.8 | 3.2 | Ipswich | 14.5 | 5.8 | 5 | 3.7 | |
| Leeds | 1% | 46% | 52% | Leeds | 11.5 | 0.2 | 5.3 | 6 | Leeds | 21% | 53% | 25% | Leeds | 11.5 | 4.8 | 0.1 | 3.2 | 3.5 | Leeds | 11.5 | 7.7 | 2.8 | 1 | |
| Middlesbrough | 6% | 56% | 39% | Middlesbrough | 15.1 | 0.8 | 8.5 | 5.8 | Middlesbrough | 20% | 64% | 15% | Middlesbrough | 15.1 | 6.8 | 0.3 | 4.8 | 3.6 | Middlesbrough | 15.1 | 8.5 | 4.3 | 2.3 | |
| Millwall | 6% | 46% | 49% | Millwall | 13.1 | 0.8 | 6 | 6.4 | Millwall | 15% | 64% | 20% | Millwall | 13.1 | 5.5 | 0.3 | 4 | 3.6 | Millwall | 13.1 | 6 | 4.6 | 2.5 | |
| Norwich | 6% | 50% | 45% | Norwich | 17.2 | 1 | 8.5 | 7.7 | Norwich | 17% | 60% | 23% | Norwich | 17.2 | 7.9 | 0.3 | 5.5 | 3.7 | Norwich | 17.2 | 8.7 | 5.5 | 3 | |
| Nottingham Forest | 11% | 44% | 45% | Nottingham Forest | 14.6 | 1.6 | 6.5 | 6.5 | Nottingham Forest | 19% | 64% | 17% | Nottingham Forest | 14.6 | 7.2 | 0.3 | 4.1 | 3.3 | Nottingham Forest | 14.6 | 7.3 | 3.5 | 3.7 | |
| Reading | 11% | 48% | 41% | Reading | 12.8 | 1.4 | 6.2 | 5.3 | Reading | 17% | 66% | 18% | Reading | 12.8 | 5.9 | 0.3 | 3.8 | 3.1 | Reading | 12.8 | 5.8 | 4 | 3 | |
| Rotherham | 5% | 47% | 48% | Rotherham | 14.3 | 0.7 | 6.7 | 6.9 | Rotherham | 17% | 68% | 15% | Rotherham | 14.3 | 6.5 | 0.3 | 4.3 | 3.5 | Rotherham | 14.3 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 3.3 | |
| Sheffield Wednesday | 7% | 43% | 50% | Sheffield Wednesday | 13.5 | 0.9 | 5.8 | 6.8 | Sheffield Wednesday | 16% | 65% | 19% | Sheffield Wednesday | 13.5 | 6.6 | 0.3 | 3.5 | 3.3 | Sheffield Wednesday | 13.5 | 6.5 | 4.5 | 2.4 | |
| Watford | 6% | 51% | 43% | Watford | 14.5 | 0.9 | 7.3 | 6.3 | Watford | 20% | 64% | 16% | Watford | 14.5 | 5.5 | 0.3 | 5.1 | 3.9 | Watford | 14.5 | 8.6 | 4.2 | 1.7 | |
| Wigan | 4% | 56% | 40% | Wigan | 12.3 | 0.5 | 6.9 | 4.9 | Wigan | 23% | 59% | 18% | Wigan | 12.3 | 6 | 0.3 | 3.5 | 2.9 | Wigan | 12.3 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 3.1 | |
| Wolverhampton Wanderers | 7% | 49% | 44% | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 14.5 | 1 | 7 | 6.4 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 18% | 61% | 21% | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 14.5 | 6.7 | 0.5 | 4.3 | 3.4 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 14.5 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 2.4 |
Passing style
So let’s move along to playing style. Did Adams play a long
ball game that was unattractive to watch or could be relatively easily defended
against by better Premier League opponents?
Apparently not – Norwich have played the third most passes
in total and the fourth most accurate short passes. And while they are only
middle of the road in inaccurate short passes, they clearly know what they are
doing when they do choose to play long balls.
This generally short passing style is highlighted by the
team (along with Bournemouth) being some distance ahead in the number of short
key passes played.
It is apparent however, that Adams was probably a fan of
getting crosses into the box, but that he was let down with the accuracy of his
players.
| Passing length | Total | Accurate long balls | Inaccurate long balls | Accurate short passes | Inacc short passes | Crosses | Accurate crosses | Inaccurate crosses | Accurate corners | Inaccurate corners | Accurate free kicks | Inaccurate free kicks | Key passes (length) | Total | Long | Short |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birmingham | 339.3 | 32.9 | 52.3 | 197.1 | 57 | Birmingham | 4.5 | 15.4 | 2 | 2.4 | 5.1 | 6.8 | Birmingham | 10.1 | 2.4 | 7.7 |
| Blackburn | 398.9 | 34.5 | 42.6 | 259.5 | 62.3 | Blackburn | 5.8 | 17.3 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 6.8 | 3.9 | Blackburn | 12 | 2.8 | 9.1 |
| Blackpool | 356.3 | 29 | 46.3 | 225.9 | 55.2 | Blackpool | 3.4 | 10.5 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 7.3 | 5.2 | Blackpool | 8.5 | 1.8 | 6.7 |
| Bolton | 401.4 | 32.3 | 45.8 | 262.5 | 60.7 | Bolton | 4.9 | 17.5 | 2.5 | 3 | 5.4 | 4.3 | Bolton | 9.6 | 2.3 | 7.3 |
| Bournemouth | 499 | 37.2 | 38.8 | 358.3 | 64.7 | Bournemouth | 5.3 | 16.8 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 10.6 | 2.3 | Bournemouth | 13 | 2.1 | 10.9 |
| Brentford | 434.7 | 32.3 | 45.1 | 304.3 | 53.1 | Brentford | 5.5 | 18.4 | 3 | 3.2 | 10.4 | 2.9 | Brentford | 10.7 | 2.2 | 8.5 |
| Brighton | 466.3 | 34.8 | 37.8 | 339.5 | 54.1 | Brighton | 4.9 | 16.1 | 2.6 | 3.5 | 8.2 | 2.3 | Brighton | 11.8 | 2.5 | 9.2 |
| Cardiff | 349.6 | 29.7 | 46.6 | 219 | 54.3 | Cardiff | 4.8 | 13.4 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 6 | 5.2 | Cardiff | 9.3 | 2 | 7.3 |
| Charlton | 390.8 | 33.6 | 47 | 248.3 | 61.9 | Charlton | 3.5 | 14.1 | 1.5 | 2.8 | 5.2 | 3.8 | Charlton | 8.1 | 1.9 | 6.2 |
| Derby | 497.6 | 36 | 32.8 | 369.3 | 59.6 | Derby | 4 | 17 | 2.5 | 3.9 | 9.7 | 2.2 | Derby | 10.7 | 1.3 | 9.4 |
| Fulham | 437.5 | 29 | 43.6 | 314 | 51 | Fulham | 2.9 | 16.6 | 1.8 | 4.1 | 7 | 3.8 | Fulham | 10.2 | 1.8 | 8.4 |
| Huddersfield | 364.4 | 28 | 47 | 235.3 | 54.1 | Huddersfield | 5 | 15.6 | 2 | 4 | 5.5 | 4.8 | Huddersfield | 11.6 | 2.8 | 8.9 |
| Ipswich | 367.8 | 37.5 | 53.8 | 209 | 67.4 | Ipswich | 6.5 | 14.8 | 3 | 3 | 6.8 | 5.1 | Ipswich | 11.1 | 3.2 | 7.9 |
| Leeds | 421.7 | 27.6 | 43.3 | 297.3 | 53.5 | Leeds | 3.1 | 15.2 | 1.2 | 3.2 | 7.8 | 4.4 | Leeds | 8.8 | 1 | 7.8 |
| Middlesbrough | 424.1 | 32.4 | 52 | 285.3 | 54.4 | Middlesbrough | 6.1 | 16.4 | 3 | 3.4 | 6.1 | 3.7 | Middlesbrough | 10.7 | 2.4 | 8.3 |
| Millwall | 403 | 39.5 | 53.1 | 251.3 | 59.1 | Millwall | 4.4 | 14.5 | 2 | 3.1 | 9.6 | 4.5 | Millwall | 9.1 | 2 | 7 |
| Norwich | 466.7 | 39.1 | 42.3 | 326.9 | 58.3 | Norwich | 5.4 | 21.5 | 2.2 | 4.7 | 5.7 | 2.9 | Norwich | 13.1 | 2.3 | 10.8 |
| Nottingham Forest | 380.4 | 33.8 | 47.3 | 248.5 | 50.9 | Nottingham Forest | 6.1 | 19.1 | 2 | 3.5 | 7.1 | 4.1 | Nottingham Forest | 11.1 | 3 | 8.2 |
| Reading | 401.5 | 34.7 | 50.1 | 258.3 | 58.5 | Reading | 5.8 | 18.7 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 6.9 | 5 | Reading | 9.8 | 2.2 | 7.6 |
| Rotherham | 383.8 | 36.5 | 50.8 | 233.8 | 62.8 | Rotherham | 5.7 | 15.4 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 4.7 | 6 | Rotherham | 10.3 | 2.2 | 8.1 |
| Sheffield Wednesday | 364.4 | 30.4 | 46.4 | 232.3 | 55.4 | Sheffield Wednesday | 5.2 | 18.3 | 2 | 3.6 | 7.5 | 4.6 | Sheffield Wednesday | 10.2 | 2.7 | 7.5 |
| Watford | 436.9 | 31.1 | 39 | 306.8 | 59.9 | Watford | 3.9 | 13.9 | 2.1 | 3.5 | 7.9 | 2.9 | Watford | 10.3 | 1.8 | 8.5 |
| Wigan | 402.9 | 31.7 | 44.3 | 268.8 | 58 | Wigan | 5.5 | 18.5 | 2.7 | 3.3 | 8.3 | 3.8 | Wigan | 9.2 | 2.3 | 6.9 |
| Wolverhampton Wanderers | 457.8 | 36.4 | 43.5 | 323.5 | 54.5 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 4.8 | 18.7 | 2.4 | 3.7 | 8.2 | 2.7 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 10.5 | 2.4 | 8.1 |
So aside from taking too great a proportion of shots from distance (which is pretty much made up with the sheer number of shots taken) and erring to the wings a bit too much, there does not seem a lot wrong with Norwich’s attacking performance so far this season.
Defending
So let’s take a look at the defensive side then.
One thing we should probably bear in mind is that because
Norwich have the ball so much – you have to be dominating it to take so many shots
so consistently – their opponents will have it less, mean there will be fewer
chances for Norwich players to make interceptions, tackles etc.
Hence, the absolute numbers will likely be quite a bit lower
than many other teams.
| Defensive Overall | Shots per game | Tackles per game | Interceptions per game | Fouls per game | Offsides per game | Shot direction against | Left | Middle | Right | Shot zones against | In 6 Yard Box | In 18 Yard Box | Outside of Box |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birmingham | 16.7 | 18 | 14.4 | 10.5 | 1.6 | Birmingham | 20% | 65% | 16% | Birmingham | 4% | 55% | 41% |
| Blackburn | 13.9 | 17.4 | 15.2 | 11.3 | 1.7 | Blackburn | 19% | 60% | 20% | Blackburn | 7% | 50% | 43% |
| Blackpool | 16.3 | 18.8 | 16.9 | 13.4 | 1.7 | Blackpool | 20% | 63% | 17% | Blackpool | 5% | 51% | 43% |
| Bolton | 15.6 | 15.7 | 15.8 | 13 | 2.7 | Bolton | 20% | 65% | 15% | Bolton | 6% | 50% | 44% |
| Bournemouth | 11.7 | 17.5 | 15.4 | 10.4 | 1.4 | Bournemouth | 18% | 62% | 20% | Bournemouth | 6% | 47% | 47% |
| Brentford | 15.4 | 17.3 | 13.5 | 9.2 | 1.9 | Brentford | 19% | 62% | 19% | Brentford | 5% | 49% | 45% |
| Brighton | 12.6 | 17.6 | 18.7 | 11.5 | 2.2 | Brighton | 17% | 64% | 19% | Brighton | 5% | 45% | 50% |
| Cardiff | 15.2 | 18.9 | 14.8 | 10.5 | 2 | Cardiff | 17% | 64% | 19% | Cardiff | 4% | 43% | 53% |
| Charlton | 15.9 | 18.1 | 12.8 | 10.5 | 1.1 | Charlton | 16% | 68% | 16% | Charlton | 6% | 48% | 46% |
| Derby | 13.4 | 17.4 | 12.6 | 11.3 | 1.5 | Derby | 20% | 63% | 17% | Derby | 6% | 49% | 45% |
| Fulham | 14.6 | 18.8 | 15.5 | 10.2 | 1.5 | Fulham | 19% | 63% | 19% | Fulham | 7% | 56% | 38% |
| Huddersfield | 14.5 | 17.5 | 15.4 | 10.5 | 1.9 | Huddersfield | 17% | 67% | 16% | Huddersfield | 6% | 51% | 43% |
| Ipswich | 14.3 | 16.3 | 17.4 | 11.3 | 2.3 | Ipswich | 16% | 66% | 18% | Ipswich | 8% | 49% | 42% |
| Leeds | 15.5 | 20.3 | 16.8 | 11.8 | 2.4 | Leeds | 21% | 61% | 17% | Leeds | 6% | 50% | 44% |
| Middlesbrough | 11 | 18.1 | 14.2 | 12.4 | 2.5 | Middlesbrough | 16% | 70% | 14% | Middlesbrough | 8% | 42% | 50% |
| Millwall | 13.3 | 19.2 | 13.5 | 14.2 | 1.8 | Millwall | 17% | 61% | 23% | Millwall | 5% | 54% | 40% |
| Norwich | 10.4 | 14.4 | 13.4 | 11.4 | 2.8 | Norwich | 18% | 65% | 18% | Norwich | 5% | 45% | 51% |
| Nottingham Forest | 12.6 | 18.4 | 12.8 | 12 | 1.5 | Nottingham Forest | 19% | 63% | 19% | Nottingham Forest | 4% | 47% | 49% |
| Reading | 12.9 | 18.1 | 12.4 | 12.9 | 2.3 | Reading | 19% | 62% | 19% | Reading | 8% | 51% | 41% |
| Rotherham | 14.5 | 19.8 | 14 | 10.6 | 1.9 | Rotherham | 17% | 67% | 16% | Rotherham | 7% | 50% | 43% |
| Sheffield Wednesday | 12.2 | 18 | 16.3 | 12.5 | 1.5 | Sheffield Wednesday | 20% | 64% | 16% | Sheffield Wednesday | 6% | 54% | 40% |
| Watford | 14.5 | 16.5 | 14.7 | 10.8 | 2 | Watford | 18% | 64% | 18% | Watford | 6% | 47% | 47% |
| Wigan | 11.9 | 18.1 | 16 | 11.5 | 2.9 | Wigan | 22% | 57% | 21% | Wigan | 6% | 48% | 46% |
| Wolverhampton Wanderers | 13.6 | 16.7 | 11.5 | 11.7 | 2.8 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 18% | 66% | 16% | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 4% | 50% | 46% |
Looking at these numbers it is hard not to conclude that Norwich are a defensively well-drilled team.
They concede the fewest shots per game (which we already knew from earlier) but also are second best at catching players offside.
The Canaries do allow a sizable proportion of shots from the middle of the pitch, but we can see that only Cardiff are better at forcing opponents to shoot from outside the penalty area.
And when combining that with the low absolute number of shots conceded, it really is quite an impressive display all around.
Sadly WhoScored’s defensive data is rather less rich than its attacking data, but pulling all of these sources together I cannot understand why Neil Adams and Norwich felt it appropriate to part ways.
Reasons
So that leads me to a limited number of reasons that come to mind for Adams departure:
1) A clash of personalities somewhere in the club – likely between the board and Adams that led to a significant breakdown in the working relationship
2) As suggested by Ben (@stats_snakeoil) the board (or Adams, if we believe the statement) may have believed he would be unable to be successful should they make it to the Premier League
3) An as-yet unnamed personal matter arose meaning Adams wanted to leave his position immediately – although the release appears to suggest it was footballing related
4) Someone (Adams or the board) believed the team really was under-performing (due largely to only having a league average PDO) and the defeat at Preston was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
With no mention of such problems elsewhere (to my knowledge) it seems fair to discard points 1 and 3.
Now, perhaps I’m being too blinkered in my view, but looking at all this data largely skewed in Norwich’s favour, it is hard to believe that anyone could actually believe the team was under performing.
If they did, and that defeat at Preston was the last straw then that seems particularly ill advised. Even the best teams lose games they are favourites for; sometimes on the football pitch shit happens, so deal with it.
If we do not believe this to be the case, then that would leave option 2 – a new name to secure Premier League survival when the club was promoted.
In that case, one would imagine the club would have a big name experienced manager lined-up to take over.
But with young (he’s my age, I can say it!) ex-Hamilton Academicals player-manager Alex Neil now in place, the Canaries appear to be taking somewhat of a leap into the unknown.
That is something Seth Dobson (@226blog) can give a better idea of just what Norwich fans can expect.
No comments:
Post a Comment