It's been quite a while since my last post, here's hoping I can make it more regular for the rest of the season.
The Severnside derby kicks off the return of the Championship.
Like most local derbies it draws a decent amount of attention and this one has the added Wales vs England element too.
However this one is likely to attract a bit more scrutiny given the events at Cardiff during the international break.
Paul Trollope lasted 11 games in charge and in some respects its surprising he lasted that long.
I'm not usually one for sacking a manager early but in Trollope's case I'm not convinced it was going to work out.
He'd already switched from his initial 5-3-2 formation and tactics, and credit to him for that, but according to the data things were getting worse, not better.
It’s a shame it ended this way as statistically speaking, the season appeared to have started fairly well.
For the first six weeks Cardiff had a decent overall shots on target share above 50% at 11v11 and at level score situations.
However, the Bluebirds' all shot share (Corsi/TSR) only once made it above 50% either under all conditions or at level score situations.
But (poor) shot quality matters.
And when we look deeper into the data we can see why the results did not reflect this limited early season promise.
Trollope's attack, whether by design or simply through not having any other options, had been focused on headed and long range attempts at goal.
While a varied attack can prove profitable (see Brighton), Cardiff have exchanged a sizeable amount of shots from prime positions into headed attempts.
This is not a good exchange to make.
By week 11, Cardiff had taken the third fewest footed attempts at goal in the danger zone (six-yard box and centre of the 18-yard box) in the division - only Rotherham and Ipswich have taken fewer.
Despite being middle of the pack defensively, Cardiff have the joint fifth worst danger zone shot difference - again Ipswich and Rotherham are two of the teams below them.
Looking at the headed attempts at goal, the situation is give-or-take a near perfect mirror image.
Cardiff have the directed the third most headers at goal (behind only Barnsley and Aston Villa), and have conceded the third fewest.
While it may delight commentators to regularly swing the ball into the box, such a one-sided attack does not usually prove effective as headers are much less likely to be scored than attempts from the feet.
Sadly, Cardiff have the second lowest % of their shot attempts being taken from the centre of the 18-yard box (Ipswich lowest).
In fact, Cardiff have been making almost two thirds (63%) of their attempts on goal as headers outside the six-yard box or shots from outside the 18-yard box.
It is entirely possible that taking so many attempts from poor locations is playing a part in the awful shooting % figure.
By contrast, Cardiff have forced just 56% of attempts at goal from these poorer locations.
So instead we have Neil Warnock joining the show.
Personality-wise, Warnock has had something of a love-hate relationship with Cardiff fans. He’s generally been complimentary about the club and its fans, but during his travels around the league he’s managed to rub a lot of Bluebirds up the wrong way.
Still, this isn’t a popularity contest – this is, of course, a results driven business and following guiding Rotherham to safety last year and his wealth of previous experience, Warnock would seem to be an obvious choice.
But how much of last year’s great escape was down to Warnock’s influence and is he likely to have a similar effect on Cardiff?
Well, having gone through the data I’m not convinced Warnock had that big an effect on Rotherham’s survival.
He took over from Neil Redfearn after 30 games with Rotherham battling Bolton, MK Dons and Charlton to avoid relegation.
Credit where it's due?
In the end the Millers completed the task relatively easily (nine points above safety), but I suspect that may be as much down to the awfulness of the other three teams as to Warnock’s magic.
As you can see in the chart below, at level score Rotherham’s all shot share (Corsi/TSR) and unblocked shots share (Fenwick) remained pretty unchanged from Warnock’s start to the end of the season.
There was a slight uptick in shots on target share (green line) but this still never broke the 45% mark – hardly earth shattering but useful at the bottom of the table.
The biggest changes, however, came in the rate Rotherham scored their goals and kept them out.
The Millers’ combined shooting % and save % (PDO) was its lowest of the season (just) when Warnock took over – 17 points below league average.
By the end of the season Rotherham’s PDO had made up 15 points of this difference – with the save % being the main benefactor by more than 10 points.
And it’s so much easier to win games sneaking the odd goal when you’re not shipping them constantly.
Combined with a smaller but important increase of five points in shooting % and Rotherham were just a shade under league average in these key metrics by the end of the season.
So could Warnock have instilled a tactical change to improve these measures?
Well, in all his changes gave Rotherham one extra shot from the centre of the 18-yard box per 7.5 games… so two more shots from this area during his spell in charge than Redfearn would have expected.
But there were ten extra headers inside the six-yard box compared to Redfearn and shots taken from outside the 18-yard box were cut down significantly.
So it is possible this could have accounted for the increase in shooting %.
How about defensively?
Well, aside from a very small drop in the number of headers allowed inside the six-yard box, this does not make great reading.
Warnock’s team conceded more shots per game from the centre of the 18-yard box (+0.5), the sides of the box (+0.24) and outside (+0.9) than Redfearn’s side averaged.
The increase in shots outside the box would be far less of a concern if it meant shots inside the box were being pushed out, but this did not happen.
Of course, the situations may have been different – perhaps Warnock’s defensive system meant opposition players were closed down more frequently when taking shots resulting in poor quality chances.
However, there’s little evidence in my data to suggest anything other than a more normal save % and shooting % driven recovery.
Indeed, at level score under Warnock 35% of shots on target taken were hitting the back of the net and more than 86% of shots on target conceded were saved – both way above league averages of 30%-70%.
For Cardiff fans, it seems that it might be a case of more of the same as regards the aerial based attack, although there may be a focus to not shoot from distance so much.
Also, it is probably fair to say that Cardiff's squad is more talented than Rotherham's (especially given the free agent signings made in the last week) so one would hope Warnock can get more out of this talent.
But perhaps its most notable that in this young season Cardiff have the second lowest shooting % and save %, to give a PDO of just 78.44 – lowest in the entire division by some way.
It’s safe to say the team is due something of a rebound, how much we will have to wait and see.
A football blog dedicated to statistically analysing the Championship
Thursday, 13 October 2016
Monday, 4 April 2016
Why did Middlesbrough buy Jordan Rhodes and is he worth £11m?
Last week Ted Knutson answered a question from Marco Jackson about Middlesbrough’s purchase of Jordan Rhodes.
I’d wondered at the time of the purchase if it was money well spent, especially when Boro were reportedly pursuing Ross McCormack too – a long-time favourite of mine for several reasons.
But Ted’s answer that Rhodes’ data had dropped off and he was posting below average numbers intrigued me. In what way had it changed?
So, I dove in to the WhoScored database to check out his stats.
WhoScored only has data as far back as the 13-14 season, Rhodes’ second at Blackburn, so that does take out his most prolific season in the Championship.
But 13-14 saw him post pretty similar goalscoring numbers to the previous year so it’s probably a fairly safe comparison to make, and we have two consecutive seasons of data at least.
First up, here are Rhodes’ radars from the 2013-14 and 2014-15 full seasons at Blackburn.
As we can see, there’s not too much difference really.
Identical NPGs/90 in each season, his all shot conversion % is higher in 13/14, this dips a bit in 14/15 so he takes more shots per game, but his shooting % from shots on target rebounds instead.
Also noticeable that his key passes/90 fell away almost totally last season, but they weren’t very high to begin with.
All-in-all pretty good numbers for a pretty damn good Championship striker.
So let’s have a look at this season at Blackburn and the data Middlesbrough had to work with when making their decision.
Yikes! Everything went down aside from his all shot conversion %.
Most worryingly, his shots/90 was down by almost a full shot: that’s not the way to correct a scoring slump and falling shooting %.
So what went wrong? And why, bearing in mind these worrying numbers, did Middlesbrough still pursue Rhodes and eventually pay north of £9m?
First we need to understand the attack Rhodes has been a part of the past few years.
As I detailed in an earlier post, both Gary Bowyer and presently Paul Lambert favour an aerial dominated attack – the most aerial attack in the Championship in fact.
In the last two seasons Bower’s Blackburn averaged the most headed attempts /90 in the whole division (4.1 in 2014-15 and 4.0 in 2013-14) with only Ipswich for company (3.9 in 2014-15) and everyone else a full one shot per game behind.
This season they are still ticking along at around 3.7 headed attempts/90, with Ipswich closest at 3.1.
The difference is stark.
Rhodes is a more than capable header of the ball, but he is no Peter Crouch or Andy Carroll. In fact, he’s not even Rudy Gestede, or perhaps more importantly, his partner is no longer Gestede – and that’s the biggest problem as far as I see it.
Rhodes lost his strike partner for around £6m last summer and Rovers have failed to replace him - and its easy to see why.
Gestede was a particularly important player for Blackburn largely because of his physical presence and he was a shot monster - being top in headed attempts and within the top six of all shot attempts by players with meaningful time on pitch both those seasons.
He rarely directly assisted on goals for Rhodes though. Indeed, examining the videos of Rhodes’ goals for the last two seasons it’s hard to spot a Gestede assist in there. (There is, however, some hilariously comical defending at times.)
And the numbers bear this out. But his influence is shown by a moderate key pass total.
However I suspect Gestede was more effective as a decoy, distraction or just a threat in his own right and as a result the pair worked as a unit very well.
His presence alone would have drawn the most attention from opponents’ biggest physical defenders – particularly at set pieces – while he was still able to remain effective. Gestede accounted for 4.2 and 4.0 shots/90 those seasons, more than half of which (2.7 and 2.3 respectively) were headed.
This allowed Rhodes more freedom from imposing defending and a good foil to work off and the pair managed at least seven shots/90 between them both seasons they were together.
But then last summer Villa came calling and being still under a transfer embargo Rovers were unable to resist the cash. That is quite some offensive output to replace in one go.
Rovers tried to do so in the summer (and winter) transfer windows and from within, but have pretty much failed.
Bengali-Fode Koita arrived as did Nathan Delouneso (who has since departed on loan to Bury) as did Tom Lawrence who returned to Leicester City and is now out on loan at Cardiff City.
(It’s probably unfair to put Lawrence in this group as a direct replacement for Gestede, he’s certainly not that type of player, but he was a forward brought in during the summer to bolster the attack.)
Koita was perhaps the least ineffective of the initial trio, managing 1.0 headers on goal/90 in a limited 700 minutes.
But the most effective replacement came from within – Shane Duffy has doubled his headed attempts /90 output this year (from 0.7/90 to 1.4/90) in more than double the playing time too.
Unfortunately Duffy is a central defender.
This obviously means his threat and support to Rhodes is limited to pretty much set pieces only.
Rhodes has done his part, seeing his headed attempts increase by almost a third from last season, but without an effective strike partner for most of the season it’s been a lonely time for him and opposing teams have been able to focus their defensive tactics on shutting him down, without a proficient partner in crime to worry about.
All of which means his actual foot-based attempts have dropped by almost a full shot /90.
And yet Rhodes remained, to all intents and purposes, Blackburn’s top shot taker this season.
So was it still a risk for Middlesbrough to go after Rhodes? Yes. I was querying it myself, especially at the sums involved.
But taking this wider range of data into mind I believe it was a far more calculated risk – along with a lot of hope/expectation that in a better playing environment Rhodes would return to his form of the previous few years.
He’s a proven goalscorer at this level and clearly Middlesbrough believe in that record rather than half a season in a poorly functioning attack - this is obviously evidenced by the £2m of performance related payments in the deal.
And while the cash may seem a large sum, it’s worth remembering Rhodes was bought by Blackburn for £8m and is still only 26 – pretty much in the prime of his career for the next few years.
So yes, a gamble, but not as big a gamble as it seemed at the time I would suggest.
And the question that follows of course… has he performed as Middlesbrough expected?
Well, we know he’s had trouble finding the net, scoring just his second goal this last weekend against QPR, but what about his other numbers?
Well, believe it or not, this radar is probably prettier viewing than the previous one.
Yes, his conversion% and shooting% are through the floor, but his shots/90 is through the roof - he’s managed to out-perform both those seasons at Blackburn considerably.
This is just a small sample size so far and of course Middlesbrough would have expected a few more goals from their (potentially) £11m man, but he certainly seems to be putting in the work and getting the chances, it’s just a matter of a couple falling right for him I suspect.
Here are some more of Jordan Rhodes numbers over the last three seasons to give you an idea of his production at Middlesbrough:
Football is not an exact science as we all know, but after looking at this data so far I think Middlesbrough fans should be a lot happier about their investment.
Perhaps a slightly scuffed shot bobbling over the goalkeeper after a defensive howler (as it did at Loftus Road) is just what Rhodes needs to get himself going again.
Finally, I'd just like to add that of course I don't have access to as much data on the subject as I'd like and with Ted's experience at Brentford I'm sure he picked up some deeper data of Rhodes than just this.
Also thanks to the StatsBomb teams for sharing the radar drawing tool with me too.
And if anyone is interested, the list of Blackburn's top shooters this season is an interesting one to say the least and speaks volumes about why the club finds itself well off the pace despite good shot share numbers.

I’d wondered at the time of the purchase if it was money well spent, especially when Boro were reportedly pursuing Ross McCormack too – a long-time favourite of mine for several reasons.
But Ted’s answer that Rhodes’ data had dropped off and he was posting below average numbers intrigued me. In what way had it changed?
So, I dove in to the WhoScored database to check out his stats.
WhoScored only has data as far back as the 13-14 season, Rhodes’ second at Blackburn, so that does take out his most prolific season in the Championship.
But 13-14 saw him post pretty similar goalscoring numbers to the previous year so it’s probably a fairly safe comparison to make, and we have two consecutive seasons of data at least.
First up, here are Rhodes’ radars from the 2013-14 and 2014-15 full seasons at Blackburn.
As we can see, there’s not too much difference really.
Identical NPGs/90 in each season, his all shot conversion % is higher in 13/14, this dips a bit in 14/15 so he takes more shots per game, but his shooting % from shots on target rebounds instead.
Also noticeable that his key passes/90 fell away almost totally last season, but they weren’t very high to begin with.
All-in-all pretty good numbers for a pretty damn good Championship striker.
So let’s have a look at this season at Blackburn and the data Middlesbrough had to work with when making their decision.
Yikes! Everything went down aside from his all shot conversion %.
Most worryingly, his shots/90 was down by almost a full shot: that’s not the way to correct a scoring slump and falling shooting %.
So what went wrong? And why, bearing in mind these worrying numbers, did Middlesbrough still pursue Rhodes and eventually pay north of £9m?
A striking headache
First we need to understand the attack Rhodes has been a part of the past few years.
As I detailed in an earlier post, both Gary Bowyer and presently Paul Lambert favour an aerial dominated attack – the most aerial attack in the Championship in fact.
In the last two seasons Bower’s Blackburn averaged the most headed attempts /90 in the whole division (4.1 in 2014-15 and 4.0 in 2013-14) with only Ipswich for company (3.9 in 2014-15) and everyone else a full one shot per game behind.
This season they are still ticking along at around 3.7 headed attempts/90, with Ipswich closest at 3.1.
The difference is stark.
Rhodes is a more than capable header of the ball, but he is no Peter Crouch or Andy Carroll. In fact, he’s not even Rudy Gestede, or perhaps more importantly, his partner is no longer Gestede – and that’s the biggest problem as far as I see it.
Rhodes lost his strike partner for around £6m last summer and Rovers have failed to replace him - and its easy to see why.
Gestede was a particularly important player for Blackburn largely because of his physical presence and he was a shot monster - being top in headed attempts and within the top six of all shot attempts by players with meaningful time on pitch both those seasons.
He rarely directly assisted on goals for Rhodes though. Indeed, examining the videos of Rhodes’ goals for the last two seasons it’s hard to spot a Gestede assist in there. (There is, however, some hilariously comical defending at times.)
And the numbers bear this out. But his influence is shown by a moderate key pass total.
However I suspect Gestede was more effective as a decoy, distraction or just a threat in his own right and as a result the pair worked as a unit very well.
His presence alone would have drawn the most attention from opponents’ biggest physical defenders – particularly at set pieces – while he was still able to remain effective. Gestede accounted for 4.2 and 4.0 shots/90 those seasons, more than half of which (2.7 and 2.3 respectively) were headed.
This allowed Rhodes more freedom from imposing defending and a good foil to work off and the pair managed at least seven shots/90 between them both seasons they were together.
But then last summer Villa came calling and being still under a transfer embargo Rovers were unable to resist the cash. That is quite some offensive output to replace in one go.
Rovers tried to do so in the summer (and winter) transfer windows and from within, but have pretty much failed.
Supporting cast
Bengali-Fode Koita arrived as did Nathan Delouneso (who has since departed on loan to Bury) as did Tom Lawrence who returned to Leicester City and is now out on loan at Cardiff City.
(It’s probably unfair to put Lawrence in this group as a direct replacement for Gestede, he’s certainly not that type of player, but he was a forward brought in during the summer to bolster the attack.)
Koita was perhaps the least ineffective of the initial trio, managing 1.0 headers on goal/90 in a limited 700 minutes.
But the most effective replacement came from within – Shane Duffy has doubled his headed attempts /90 output this year (from 0.7/90 to 1.4/90) in more than double the playing time too.
Unfortunately Duffy is a central defender.
This obviously means his threat and support to Rhodes is limited to pretty much set pieces only.
Rhodes has done his part, seeing his headed attempts increase by almost a third from last season, but without an effective strike partner for most of the season it’s been a lonely time for him and opposing teams have been able to focus their defensive tactics on shutting him down, without a proficient partner in crime to worry about.
All of which means his actual foot-based attempts have dropped by almost a full shot /90.
And yet Rhodes remained, to all intents and purposes, Blackburn’s top shot taker this season.
The Middlesbrough dilema
So was it still a risk for Middlesbrough to go after Rhodes? Yes. I was querying it myself, especially at the sums involved.
But taking this wider range of data into mind I believe it was a far more calculated risk – along with a lot of hope/expectation that in a better playing environment Rhodes would return to his form of the previous few years.
He’s a proven goalscorer at this level and clearly Middlesbrough believe in that record rather than half a season in a poorly functioning attack - this is obviously evidenced by the £2m of performance related payments in the deal.
And while the cash may seem a large sum, it’s worth remembering Rhodes was bought by Blackburn for £8m and is still only 26 – pretty much in the prime of his career for the next few years.
So yes, a gamble, but not as big a gamble as it seemed at the time I would suggest.
And the question that follows of course… has he performed as Middlesbrough expected?
Well, we know he’s had trouble finding the net, scoring just his second goal this last weekend against QPR, but what about his other numbers?
Well, believe it or not, this radar is probably prettier viewing than the previous one.
Yes, his conversion% and shooting% are through the floor, but his shots/90 is through the roof - he’s managed to out-perform both those seasons at Blackburn considerably.
This is just a small sample size so far and of course Middlesbrough would have expected a few more goals from their (potentially) £11m man, but he certainly seems to be putting in the work and getting the chances, it’s just a matter of a couple falling right for him I suspect.
Here are some more of Jordan Rhodes numbers over the last three seasons to give you an idea of his production at Middlesbrough:
Football is not an exact science as we all know, but after looking at this data so far I think Middlesbrough fans should be a lot happier about their investment.
Perhaps a slightly scuffed shot bobbling over the goalkeeper after a defensive howler (as it did at Loftus Road) is just what Rhodes needs to get himself going again.
Finally, I'd just like to add that of course I don't have access to as much data on the subject as I'd like and with Ted's experience at Brentford I'm sure he picked up some deeper data of Rhodes than just this.
Also thanks to the StatsBomb teams for sharing the radar drawing tool with me too.
And if anyone is interested, the list of Blackburn's top shooters this season is an interesting one to say the least and speaks volumes about why the club finds itself well off the pace despite good shot share numbers.
Blackburn top shot takers this season (min 300 mins) | Age | Position (s) | Apps | Mins | Total/90 | Out Of Box/90 | Six Yard Box/90 | Penalty Area/90 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bangaly-Fodé Koita | 25 | AM(LR), FW | 14 | 702 | 2.7 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 1.7 |
Jordan Rhodes | 26 | FW | 25 | 2179 | 2.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 1.9 |
Tony Watt | 22 | FW | 9 | 379 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 1.7 |
Chris Brown | 31 | FW | 13 | 474 | 2.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.3 |
Ben Marshall | 24 | D, M(LR) | 37 | 3234 | 1.9 | 1.3 | - | 0.6 |
Shane Duffy | 24 | D(C) | 37 | 3251 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 1.5 |
Simeon Jackson | 29 | AM(L), FW | 11 | 316 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
Jordi Gómez | 30 | D(C), M(CLR), FW | 12 | 896 | 1.7 | 1 | 0.1 | 0.6 |
Tom Lawrence | 22 | AM(CLR), FW | 21 | 1188 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.9 |
Danny Graham | 30 | AM(L) | 11 | 965 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.3 |
Chris Taylor | 29 | AM(CR) | 12 | 557 | 1.5 | 0.3 | - | 1.1 |
Craig Conway | 30 | AM(LR) | 31 | 2478 | 1.3 | 0.8 | - | 0.5 |
Elliott Bennett | 27 | D(CR), M(CLR) | 15 | 1042 | 1.2 | 0.7 | - | 0.5 |
Elliott Ward | 31 | D(CL), DMC | 4 | 301 | 1.2 | - | - | 1.2 |
Hope Akpan | 24 | DMC | 31 | 2496 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.6 |
Darragh Lenihan | 22 | DMC | 16 | 1152 | 1.2 | 0.8 | - | 0.4 |
Matt Grimes | 20 | Midfielder | 8 | 385 | 1.2 | 1.2 | - | - |
Nathan Delfouneso | 25 | AM(LR), FW | 15 | 727 | 1.1 | 0.4 | - | 0.7 |
Corry Evans | 25 | DMC | 26 | 2028 | 0.9 | 0.6 | - | 0.3 |
Thursday, 17 March 2016
Middlesbrough vs Hull City: The Championship's big guns
Friday night features the Championship’s two best teams statistically speaking – Middlesbrough host Hull, in a game that could go a significant way to deciding the promotion fates of these two teams.
However, were the season governed purely on shot-based analytics, rather than the reality of the league table, both teams would be comfortably clear in the top two.
While Middlesbrough have continued on their good form from last season, though arguably at a lesser level in a lower quality league this term, it is Hull that have been a cut above the division.
We can see that Hull started off relatively slowly (given their current standards) but were still above average (50%) in all three 11v11 shot share metrics.
But once Steve Bruce’s team found their stride around week 10 things really took off and the Tigers have never looked back – continually dominating games and outshooting opponents at a near 2:1 pace.
Middlesbrough too had a comparatively sluggish start to the season, but similarly, although to a lesser extent, improved after week 13 and have been hovering around 55% 11v11 shot shares since then.
To emphasise how good these shot share numbers are, the clubs are within the top four with regards to all shot share (Corsi/TSR), unblocked shot share (Fenwick) share and are actually the best two when it comes to shots on target share.
It’s also worth noting as well that there is virtually no difference between the teams now in shooting %, save % and as a result PDO (our catch-all metric for 'luck' and variance). They are both around league average at converting shots on target in to goals (circa 30%), way above the league average (circa 70%) in saving shots on target, and have a PDO of around ten points above average (100) suggesting they have been on the positive side of luck and variance - but no more than each other.
But returning to our shot share metrics, what gives Hull such a significant (approximately 5% points) advantage in all three?
Aitor Karanka’s team has been known for its defensive strength throughout his tenure and Middlesbrough went an ungodly amount of time without conceding a goal earlier in the season, so has Steve Bruce managed to top this?
Well yes. Bruce’s team have quietly bettered Karanka’s defence – at least in terms of shots conceded (by 22 in total; eight fewer from the danger zone, excluding headers).
Combine this with the best attack in the league in terms of numbers and location (most total attempts – 561; most six-yard box shots – 23; second most shots from the centre of the 18-yard box – 113; most danger zone shots – 136; best danger zone shots difference – 65) then Hull City is a pretty formidable beast.
This of course is not totally unexpected given Steve Bruce remained in place after the club’s relegation and retained most of his players as well.
Middlesbrough’s attack is the real difference between the two sides however.
Boro are pretty much league average in total shots taken and while they are slightly above average in terms of attempts from the danger zone, this is nothing to write home about.
However, this is all driven by Karanka’s game-state tactics.
At even score Boro can drive the bus as much as anyone, in fact they are third in Corsi and Fenwick (just behind Hull and Reading in both cases) and fourth in shots on target share.
However, when taking the lead Boro become a far less threatening side, claiming just 47% of all shots taken.
Hull, in contrast, do ease off a little, but still take almost 53% of all shots when one goal up.
And when two goals to the good Hull really drive home their advantage. Boro however remain in the Karanka shell.
These trends are by-and-large replicated for both Fenwick and shots on target share as well.
Indeed, such is the magnitude of Karanka’s switch in style that Boro’s Corsi drops off more than any other team in the top six and only four other sides (Ipswich, Preston, Leeds and Bolton) do worse when taking the lead.
It’s likely this approach by Karanka will not have escaped many regular Championship watchers, but it is reassuring to see this visual theory validated and eye-opening to appreciate how pronounced it is.
With Burnley pulling away of late and set to have at least a four point lead over one of these teams after the match, it is a crucial one for their respective promotion challenges.
However Middlesbrough face (on paper at least) a much tougher run-in, including both other top four rivals – Burnley and Brighton – and it may be an imperative for Karanka’s side to claim all three points in this home fixture.
If Boro do manage to take the lead, it will be telling to see if they revert to their normal tactics and can manage to hold on, or for once appreciate the importance of the game and push on.
It’s impossible to say what would happen if Karanka were to leave Teeside – would a replacement be better or worse, more or less likely to secure promotion. But what is clear is the job Karanka has done in taking Boro to the brink of promotion for two successive years – no easy task.
Stresses and strains happen in high intensity jobs such as managing a football club with high expectation and scrutiny, and it’s surprising these flash points don’t happen in public more often.
If fences have been mended and Karanka achieved a desired break from the office for even one weekend, then it is probably for the best for the club and its promotion chances.
However, were the season governed purely on shot-based analytics, rather than the reality of the league table, both teams would be comfortably clear in the top two.
Pos | Team | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | GF | GA | GD | Pts |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Burnley | 37 | 21 | 11 | 5 | 60 | 30 | 30 | 74 |
2 | Brighton | 37 | 18 | 14 | 5 | 50 | 34 | 16 | 68 |
3 | Middlesbrough | 36 | 20 | 7 | 9 | 47 | 23 | 24 | 67 |
4 | Hull | 36 | 19 | 9 | 8 | 50 | 22 | 28 | 66 |
5 | Derby | 37 | 16 | 13 | 8 | 50 | 35 | 15 | 61 |
6 | Sheffield Wednesday | 37 | 15 | 14 | 8 | 53 | 36 | 17 | 59 |
7 | Cardiff | 37 | 15 | 13 | 9 | 48 | 40 | 8 | 58 |
8 | Ipswich | 37 | 16 | 10 | 11 | 46 | 43 | 3 | 58 |
9 | Birmingham | 36 | 15 | 10 | 11 | 40 | 34 | 6 | 55 |
10 | Preston | 37 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 35 | 34 | 1 | 52 |
11 | Queens Park Rangers | 37 | 12 | 14 | 11 | 46 | 42 | 4 | 50 |
12 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 37 | 12 | 11 | 14 | 45 | 50 | -5 | 47 |
13 | Leeds | 36 | 11 | 14 | 11 | 36 | 41 | -5 | 47 |
14 | Nottingham Forest | 37 | 11 | 13 | 13 | 34 | 35 | -1 | 46 |
15 | Reading | 36 | 11 | 11 | 14 | 41 | 42 | -1 | 44 |
16 | Blackburn | 37 | 10 | 13 | 14 | 36 | 36 | 0 | 43 |
17 | Brentford | 36 | 12 | 7 | 17 | 48 | 58 | -10 | 43 |
18 | Huddersfield | 37 | 11 | 9 | 17 | 48 | 52 | -4 | 42 |
19 | Bristol City | 37 | 10 | 10 | 17 | 34 | 58 | -24 | 40 |
20 | Fulham | 37 | 8 | 13 | 16 | 56 | 63 | -7 | 37 |
21 | Milton Keynes Dons | 37 | 9 | 10 | 18 | 31 | 49 | -18 | 37 |
22 | Rotherham | 37 | 10 | 6 | 21 | 43 | 62 | -19 | 36 |
23 | Charlton | 37 | 7 | 11 | 19 | 34 | 66 | -32 | 32 |
24 | Bolton | 37 | 4 | 14 | 19 | 36 | 62 | -26 | 26 |
While Middlesbrough have continued on their good form from last season, though arguably at a lesser level in a lower quality league this term, it is Hull that have been a cut above the division.
We can see that Hull started off relatively slowly (given their current standards) but were still above average (50%) in all three 11v11 shot share metrics.
But once Steve Bruce’s team found their stride around week 10 things really took off and the Tigers have never looked back – continually dominating games and outshooting opponents at a near 2:1 pace.
Middlesbrough too had a comparatively sluggish start to the season, but similarly, although to a lesser extent, improved after week 13 and have been hovering around 55% 11v11 shot shares since then.
To emphasise how good these shot share numbers are, the clubs are within the top four with regards to all shot share (Corsi/TSR), unblocked shot share (Fenwick) share and are actually the best two when it comes to shots on target share.
It’s also worth noting as well that there is virtually no difference between the teams now in shooting %, save % and as a result PDO (our catch-all metric for 'luck' and variance). They are both around league average at converting shots on target in to goals (circa 30%), way above the league average (circa 70%) in saving shots on target, and have a PDO of around ten points above average (100) suggesting they have been on the positive side of luck and variance - but no more than each other.
But returning to our shot share metrics, what gives Hull such a significant (approximately 5% points) advantage in all three?
Aitor Karanka’s team has been known for its defensive strength throughout his tenure and Middlesbrough went an ungodly amount of time without conceding a goal earlier in the season, so has Steve Bruce managed to top this?
Well yes. Bruce’s team have quietly bettered Karanka’s defence – at least in terms of shots conceded (by 22 in total; eight fewer from the danger zone, excluding headers).
Combine this with the best attack in the league in terms of numbers and location (most total attempts – 561; most six-yard box shots – 23; second most shots from the centre of the 18-yard box – 113; most danger zone shots – 136; best danger zone shots difference – 65) then Hull City is a pretty formidable beast.
This of course is not totally unexpected given Steve Bruce remained in place after the club’s relegation and retained most of his players as well.
Middlesbrough’s attack is the real difference between the two sides however.
Boro are pretty much league average in total shots taken and while they are slightly above average in terms of attempts from the danger zone, this is nothing to write home about.
Cracking Karanka's shell
However, this is all driven by Karanka’s game-state tactics.
At even score Boro can drive the bus as much as anyone, in fact they are third in Corsi and Fenwick (just behind Hull and Reading in both cases) and fourth in shots on target share.
However, when taking the lead Boro become a far less threatening side, claiming just 47% of all shots taken.
Hull, in contrast, do ease off a little, but still take almost 53% of all shots when one goal up.
And when two goals to the good Hull really drive home their advantage. Boro however remain in the Karanka shell.
2+ Corsi | 1+ Corsi | 0 Corsi | 1- Corsi | 2- Corsi | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Hull | 65.7% | 52.7% | 58.7% | 66.7% | 67.4% |
M'boro | 47.9% | 47.3% | 56.7% | 58.3% | 66.7% |
Difference | 17.8% | 5.4% | 2.0% | 8.4% | 0.7% |
These trends are by-and-large replicated for both Fenwick and shots on target share as well.
Indeed, such is the magnitude of Karanka’s switch in style that Boro’s Corsi drops off more than any other team in the top six and only four other sides (Ipswich, Preston, Leeds and Bolton) do worse when taking the lead.
It’s likely this approach by Karanka will not have escaped many regular Championship watchers, but it is reassuring to see this visual theory validated and eye-opening to appreciate how pronounced it is.
With Burnley pulling away of late and set to have at least a four point lead over one of these teams after the match, it is a crucial one for their respective promotion challenges.
However Middlesbrough face (on paper at least) a much tougher run-in, including both other top four rivals – Burnley and Brighton – and it may be an imperative for Karanka’s side to claim all three points in this home fixture.
If Boro do manage to take the lead, it will be telling to see if they revert to their normal tactics and can manage to hold on, or for once appreciate the importance of the game and push on.
Karanka's future
As a final aside, I was intrigued by this week’s discord emanating from the Riverside Stadium and questions over Karanka’s future at the club.It’s impossible to say what would happen if Karanka were to leave Teeside – would a replacement be better or worse, more or less likely to secure promotion. But what is clear is the job Karanka has done in taking Boro to the brink of promotion for two successive years – no easy task.
Stresses and strains happen in high intensity jobs such as managing a football club with high expectation and scrutiny, and it’s surprising these flash points don’t happen in public more often.
If fences have been mended and Karanka achieved a desired break from the office for even one weekend, then it is probably for the best for the club and its promotion chances.
Data table
Position | Team | 11v11 Corsi | 11v11 Fenwick | 11v11 SoT | 11v11 Goals Rate | 11v11 Sh% | 11v11 Sv% | 11v11 PDO | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9 | Birmingham | 0.468 | 0.439 | 0.459 | 0.53 | 27.69 | 79.08 | 106.78 | 55 |
16 | Blackburn | 0.531 | 0.561 | 0.549 | 0.51 | 23.29 | 72.5 | 95.79 | 43 |
24 | Bolton | 0.502 | 0.502 | 0.456 | 0.38 | 24.31 | 66.28 | 90.58 | 26 |
17 | Brentford | 0.487 | 0.476 | 0.458 | 0.45 | 28.29 | 71.11 | 99.4 | 43 |
2 | Brighton | 0.52 | 0.528 | 0.52 | 0.6 | 33.33 | 75.94 | 109.27 | 68 |
19 | Bristol City | 0.492 | 0.518 | 0.504 | 0.39 | 24.11 | 61.87 | 85.98 | 40 |
1 | Burnley | 0.449 | 0.466 | 0.517 | 0.66 | 37.91 | 79.02 | 116.93 | 74 |
7 | Cardiff | 0.491 | 0.485 | 0.513 | 0.56 | 29.94 | 75.17 | 105.1 | 58 |
23 | Charlton | 0.401 | 0.404 | 0.448 | 0.34 | 22.54 | 64.57 | 87.11 | 32 |
5 | Derby | 0.539 | 0.534 | 0.554 | 0.56 | 29.75 | 70.87 | 100.61 | 61 |
20 | Fulham | 0.467 | 0.457 | 0.474 | 0.49 | 33.74 | 68.51 | 102.25 | 37 |
18 | Huddersfield | 0.551 | 0.546 | 0.514 | 0.47 | 30.26 | 63.89 | 94.15 | 42 |
4 | Hull | 0.6 | 0.617 | 0.625 | 0.72 | 29.71 | 80.95 | 110.67 | 66 |
8 | Ipswich | 0.501 | 0.508 | 0.52 | 0.53 | 28.93 | 72.11 | 101.04 | 58 |
13 | Leeds | 0.481 | 0.449 | 0.418 | 0.45 | 29.46 | 73.72 | 103.18 | 47 |
3 | Middlesbrough | 0.541 | 0.552 | 0.572 | 0.69 | 29.11 | 82.2 | 111.32 | 67 |
21 | MK Dons | 0.436 | 0.43 | 0.416 | 0.37 | 25 | 70.06 | 95.06 | 37 |
14 | Nottingham Forest | 0.502 | 0.51 | 0.5 | 0.47 | 18.79 | 78.52 | 97.32 | 46 |
10 | Preston | 0.496 | 0.504 | 0.502 | 0.52 | 27.42 | 73.98 | 101.4 | 52 |
11 | QPR | 0.515 | 0.52 | 0.527 | 0.54 | 28.66 | 72.34 | 101 | 50 |
15 | Reading | 0.604 | 0.598 | 0.558 | 0.49 | 25.81 | 66.67 | 92.47 | 44 |
22 | Rotherham | 0.474 | 0.458 | 0.449 | 0.4 | 29.08 | 64.74 | 93.82 | 36 |
6 | Sheff Wed | 0.507 | 0.508 | 0.538 | 0.57 | 32.17 | 71.54 | 103.71 | 59 |
12 | Wolves | 0.452 | 0.449 | 0.436 | 0.45 | 31.78 | 70.06 | 101.84 | 47 |
Labels:
Championship,
Corsi,
Fenwick,
Hull City,
Middlesbrough,
PDO,
Shots on target,
TSR
Tuesday, 8 March 2016
Championship Week 35: Why Blackburn and Reading's good numbers are hiding fatal flaws
So there’s been a bit of tightening up around the Championship table over the last few weeks.
Looking at the “good-lucky” graphs there’s two teams which have had really strong shot numbers all season but yet find themselves in mid-table obscurity – Blackburn Rovers and Reading.
Indeed Blackburn are currently closer to the relegation zone than the playoffs, and have been in danger of being dragged into that dogfight for much of the season.
That risk was significant enough for Gary Bowyer to be given his P45 with Paul Lambert replacing him.
Reading, on the other hand, started the season on fire hovering around the automatic promotion spots – but then an awful run of form saw them drop into mid-table and earned Steve Clarke the sack.
After two games for interim manager Martin Kuhl, Brian McDermott arrived for his second spell in charge of the Royals.
But fortunes have not really improved and the club apparently made its intention clear to settle for obscurity this season by selling Neil Blackman to promotion chasing Derby.
Of course, Blackburn took a bit more persuading but eventually sold their leading man Jordan Rhodes to Middlesbrough for somewhere between £9m and £12m, depending what you read.
From the aforementioned chart we can see that below average PDO scores have had quite a big say in these two teams’ positions.
But how have they been generating such good shot metrics and is there any likelihood of a last minute push up the table.
For Reading, shot volume certainly isn’t a problem – 535 attempts on goal while only conceding 329 leads the Championship in both categories.
So surely it’s just a matter of time? Well, maybe not.
Breaking down where Reading are taking their shots from gives a much better insight into their poor league position.
Only Leeds United and QPR have taken fewer shots inside the danger zone than Reading (76).
In fact, just 14% of Reading’s shots come from the danger zone – the lowest proportion in the league. In contrast, the Royals have taken 55% of their shots from outside the 18 yard box – the highest in the league.
But was this a tactical strategy heavily leaned on by one of the managers. With Kuhl taking charge of just two games, I’m going to exclude those games and look just at how Clarke and McDermott have performed.
Well, the one really notable change offensively is a slightly more aerial approach under McDermott. His Reading team take one fewer shot per game outside the box than Clarke’s, but have replaced that with one more header from outside the six yard box - in effect, exchanging one low % effort for another.
Overall, when we compare the two managers, McDermott has seen a dip in all shot metrics
The only increase has been a significant jump in save percentage, which has boosted Reading’s PDO to 94, still well below a league average of 100.
Defensively McDermott’s reign has not been a success either as the team are conceding more shots per game from every location except headers outside the six yard box – further evidence of McDermott’s greater emphasis on the aerial perhaps.
So despite these continued well above average shot shares, given the poor locations the vast majority of attempts are coming from, aside from a spell of 25 yard screamers hitting the top corner, I see little hope for Reading to push towards the playoffs.
For Blackburn, who also have very good overall shot share numbers, the problem is that they too are one-dimensional in the wrong respect.
Overall Rovers have a league average attack of 438 (12th) attempts and a pretty stout defence, allowing just 385 attempts (4th best). However they rely on an aerial attack which again produces efforts on goal with a lower likelihood of scoring.
Blackburn have taken the fourth most headed goal attempts within the six yard box (17) and by far the most headed attempts outside the six yard box 117 – Bolton are second in this category with 96 while the league average is just 63.
The aerial strength is also reflected defensively. While they have conceded 10 headers from close range (9th best) they have allowed just 36 from further out – again the best mark.
All this means they have comfortably the best headed attempt difference in the league at +88. (Reading are second at +44.)
Unfortunately the aerial attack is taking just too much priority. Almost one in three (31%) of all Blackburn’s goal efforts are via the head – again way clear of 2nd place (Bolton, 24%).
Lambert joined Blackburn with a reputation rather in tatters after a calamitous spell at Aston Villa and on the surface this isn’t helping as his 11v11 shot share metrics are mostly lower than Bowyer.
However, when we look at it in game state, Lambert’s team is better at driving play when tied than his predecessor, but other game states, especially when leading, are far more mixed.
Ultimately though, it is the continued reliance on an aerial attack that will scupper any hopes Blackburn harboured of a playoff push.
Finally, here's the 11v11 data table to play around with yourselves:
Pos | Team | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | GF | GA | GD | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Burnley | 35 | 19 | 11 | 5 | 54 | 27 | 27 | 68 |
2 | Middlesbrough | 34 | 20 | 7 | 7 | 47 | 20 | 27 | 67 |
3 | Hull | 34 | 19 | 7 | 8 | 48 | 20 | 28 | 64 |
4 | Brighton | 35 | 17 | 13 | 5 | 49 | 34 | 15 | 64 |
5 | Derby | 35 | 16 | 12 | 7 | 47 | 30 | 17 | 60 |
6 | Sheffield Wednesday | 35 | 14 | 13 | 8 | 50 | 36 | 14 | 55 |
7 | Cardiff | 35 | 14 | 13 | 8 | 47 | 38 | 9 | 55 |
8 | Birmingham | 34 | 15 | 9 | 10 | 40 | 32 | 8 | 54 |
9 | Ipswich | 34 | 15 | 9 | 10 | 42 | 40 | 2 | 54 |
10 | Preston | 35 | 12 | 13 | 10 | 33 | 32 | 1 | 49 |
11 | Reading | 34 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 40 | 38 | 2 | 44 |
12 | Queens Park Rangers | 35 | 10 | 14 | 11 | 41 | 42 | -1 | 44 |
13 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 35 | 11 | 10 | 14 | 43 | 49 | -6 | 43 |
14 | Brentford | 35 | 12 | 7 | 16 | 48 | 55 | -7 | 43 |
15 | Nottingham Forest | 34 | 10 | 12 | 12 | 32 | 31 | 1 | 42 |
16 | Leeds | 34 | 9 | 14 | 11 | 32 | 40 | -8 | 41 |
17 | Blackburn | 34 | 9 | 13 | 12 | 33 | 32 | 1 | 40 |
18 | Huddersfield | 35 | 10 | 9 | 16 | 44 | 48 | -4 | 39 |
19 | Fulham | 35 | 8 | 13 | 14 | 53 | 58 | -5 | 37 |
20 | Bristol City | 35 | 9 | 10 | 16 | 31 | 55 | -24 | 37 |
21 | Milton Keynes Dons | 35 | 9 | 8 | 18 | 30 | 48 | -18 | 35 |
22 | Rotherham | 35 | 9 | 5 | 21 | 39 | 59 | -20 | 32 |
23 | Charlton | 35 | 6 | 10 | 19 | 32 | 66 | -34 | 28 |
24 | Bolton | 35 | 4 | 13 | 18 | 33 | 58 | -25 | 25 |
Looking at the “good-lucky” graphs there’s two teams which have had really strong shot numbers all season but yet find themselves in mid-table obscurity – Blackburn Rovers and Reading.
Indeed Blackburn are currently closer to the relegation zone than the playoffs, and have been in danger of being dragged into that dogfight for much of the season.
That risk was significant enough for Gary Bowyer to be given his P45 with Paul Lambert replacing him.
Reading, on the other hand, started the season on fire hovering around the automatic promotion spots – but then an awful run of form saw them drop into mid-table and earned Steve Clarke the sack.
After two games for interim manager Martin Kuhl, Brian McDermott arrived for his second spell in charge of the Royals.
But fortunes have not really improved and the club apparently made its intention clear to settle for obscurity this season by selling Neil Blackman to promotion chasing Derby.
Of course, Blackburn took a bit more persuading but eventually sold their leading man Jordan Rhodes to Middlesbrough for somewhere between £9m and £12m, depending what you read.
From the aforementioned chart we can see that below average PDO scores have had quite a big say in these two teams’ positions.
But how have they been generating such good shot metrics and is there any likelihood of a last minute push up the table.
For Reading, shot volume certainly isn’t a problem – 535 attempts on goal while only conceding 329 leads the Championship in both categories.
So surely it’s just a matter of time? Well, maybe not.
Breaking down where Reading are taking their shots from gives a much better insight into their poor league position.
Only Leeds United and QPR have taken fewer shots inside the danger zone than Reading (76).
In fact, just 14% of Reading’s shots come from the danger zone – the lowest proportion in the league. In contrast, the Royals have taken 55% of their shots from outside the 18 yard box – the highest in the league.
But was this a tactical strategy heavily leaned on by one of the managers. With Kuhl taking charge of just two games, I’m going to exclude those games and look just at how Clarke and McDermott have performed.
Well, the one really notable change offensively is a slightly more aerial approach under McDermott. His Reading team take one fewer shot per game outside the box than Clarke’s, but have replaced that with one more header from outside the six yard box - in effect, exchanging one low % effort for another.
Overall, when we compare the two managers, McDermott has seen a dip in all shot metrics
The only increase has been a significant jump in save percentage, which has boosted Reading’s PDO to 94, still well below a league average of 100.
11v11 Corsi | 11v11 Fenwick | 11v11 Sot | 11v11 GF% | 11v11 Sh% | 11v11 sv% | 11v11PDO | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clarke | 0.64 | 0.64 | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.28 | 0.63 | 0.90 |
Kuhl | 0.39 | 0.34 | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.79 | 0.95 |
McDermott | 0.61 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 0.50 | 0.24 | 0.70 | 0.93 |
Defensively McDermott’s reign has not been a success either as the team are conceding more shots per game from every location except headers outside the six yard box – further evidence of McDermott’s greater emphasis on the aerial perhaps.
So despite these continued well above average shot shares, given the poor locations the vast majority of attempts are coming from, aside from a spell of 25 yard screamers hitting the top corner, I see little hope for Reading to push towards the playoffs.
For Blackburn, who also have very good overall shot share numbers, the problem is that they too are one-dimensional in the wrong respect.
Overall Rovers have a league average attack of 438 (12th) attempts and a pretty stout defence, allowing just 385 attempts (4th best). However they rely on an aerial attack which again produces efforts on goal with a lower likelihood of scoring.
Blackburn have taken the fourth most headed goal attempts within the six yard box (17) and by far the most headed attempts outside the six yard box 117 – Bolton are second in this category with 96 while the league average is just 63.
The aerial strength is also reflected defensively. While they have conceded 10 headers from close range (9th best) they have allowed just 36 from further out – again the best mark.
All this means they have comfortably the best headed attempt difference in the league at +88. (Reading are second at +44.)
Unfortunately the aerial attack is taking just too much priority. Almost one in three (31%) of all Blackburn’s goal efforts are via the head – again way clear of 2nd place (Bolton, 24%).
Lambert joined Blackburn with a reputation rather in tatters after a calamitous spell at Aston Villa and on the surface this isn’t helping as his 11v11 shot share metrics are mostly lower than Bowyer.
11v11 Corsi | 11v11 Fenwick | 11v11 Sot | 11v11 GF% | 11v11 Sh% | 11v11 sv% | 11v11PDO | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gary Bowyer | 0.53 | 0.57 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.22 | 0.76 | 0.98 |
Paul Lambert | 0.54 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.48 | 0.24 | 0.71 | 0.95 |
However, when we look at it in game state, Lambert’s team is better at driving play when tied than his predecessor, but other game states, especially when leading, are far more mixed.
Ultimately though, it is the continued reliance on an aerial attack that will scupper any hopes Blackburn harboured of a playoff push.
Finally, here's the 11v11 data table to play around with yourselves:
Team | 11v11 Corsi | 11v11 Fenwick | 11v11 SoT | 11v11 Goals Rate | 11v11 Sh% | 11v11 Sv% | 11v11 PDO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Birmingham | 0.47 | 0.442 | 0.464 | 0.55 | 28.13 | 79.73 | 107.85 |
Blackburn | 0.538 | 0.562 | 0.554 | 0.52 | 23.13 | 73.15 | 96.28 |
Bolton | 0.49 | 0.493 | 0.439 | 0.37 | 24.62 | 67.47 | 92.09 |
Brentford | 0.487 | 0.477 | 0.466 | 0.47 | 28.86 | 71.35 | 100.2 |
Brighton | 0.524 | 0.529 | 0.522 | 0.59 | 33.33 | 75.19 | 108.53 |
Bristol City | 0.494 | 0.523 | 0.511 | 0.38 | 23.13 | 60.94 | 84.07 |
Burnley | 0.453 | 0.466 | 0.518 | 0.66 | 35.62 | 80.15 | 115.76 |
Cardiff | 0.489 | 0.481 | 0.509 | 0.56 | 31.08 | 74.83 | 105.91 |
Charlton | 0.403 | 0.407 | 0.45 | 0.34 | 22.7 | 63.95 | 86.65 |
Derby | 0.536 | 0.529 | 0.557 | 0.58 | 29.93 | 72.65 | 102.58 |
Fulham | 0.457 | 0.449 | 0.466 | 0.5 | 34.44 | 69.94 | 104.38 |
Huddersfield | 0.547 | 0.546 | 0.511 | 0.47 | 29.17 | 65.22 | 94.38 |
Hull | 0.591 | 0.61 | 0.63 | 0.74 | 29.94 | 81.63 | 111.57 |
Ipswich | 0.506 | 0.514 | 0.528 | 0.53 | 28.19 | 71.43 | 99.62 |
Leeds | 0.481 | 0.451 | 0.415 | 0.43 | 29.13 | 72.41 | 101.54 |
Middlesbrough | 0.54 | 0.552 | 0.573 | 0.7 | 29.3 | 82.91 | 112.21 |
MK Dons | 0.438 | 0.429 | 0.409 | 0.37 | 25.71 | 69.74 | 95.45 |
Nottingham Forest | 0.511 | 0.519 | 0.513 | 0.47 | 18.84 | 77.86 | 96.7 |
Preston | 0.497 | 0.506 | 0.5 | 0.52 | 28.07 | 73.68 | 101.75 |
QPR | 0.517 | 0.519 | 0.516 | 0.51 | 27.78 | 71.11 | 98.89 |
Reading | 0.612 | 0.605 | 0.572 | 0.51 | 25.83 | 67.26 | 93.08 |
Rotherham | 0.478 | 0.462 | 0.45 | 0.39 | 27.61 | 64.63 | 92.25 |
Sheff Wed | 0.503 | 0.507 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 32.84 | 70.59 | 103.42 |
Wolves | 0.453 | 0.448 | 0.429 | 0.44 | 31.45 | 70.3 | 101.75 |
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
Championship Week 32: Burnley's promotion challenge and MK Dons' relegation battle
It’s been quite a while since my last post and for that I apologise, but sometimes life gets in the way. In any case, it’s worth reminding ourselves of how the Championship table looks right now.
Team | Played | Won | Drawn | Lost | GF | GA | GD | Points | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Hull | 31 | 18 | 6 | 7 | 47 | 19 | 28 | 60 |
2 | Burnley | 32 | 16 | 11 | 5 | 50 | 26 | 24 | 59 |
3 | Middlesbrough | 30 | 17 | 7 | 6 | 39 | 16 | 23 | 58 |
4 | Brighton | 32 | 15 | 12 | 5 | 41 | 34 | 7 | 57 |
5 | Derby | 32 | 14 | 12 | 6 | 43 | 28 | 15 | 54 |
6 | Sheffield Wednesday | 32 | 14 | 11 | 7 | 49 | 34 | 15 | 53 |
7 | Cardiff | 32 | 12 | 13 | 7 | 42 | 34 | 8 | 49 |
8 | Birmingham | 31 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 38 | 30 | 8 | 48 |
9 | Ipswich | 31 | 13 | 9 | 9 | 40 | 39 | 1 | 48 |
10 | Preston | 32 | 11 | 12 | 9 | 30 | 29 | 1 | 45 |
11 | Nottingham Forest | 31 | 10 | 12 | 9 | 31 | 27 | 4 | 42 |
12 | Queens Park Rangers | 32 | 9 | 13 | 10 | 38 | 39 | -1 | 40 |
13 | Wolverhampton Wanderers | 32 | 10 | 10 | 12 | 40 | 43 | -3 | 40 |
14 | Brentford | 32 | 11 | 7 | 14 | 43 | 51 | -8 | 40 |
15 | Huddersfield | 32 | 10 | 8 | 14 | 43 | 44 | -1 | 38 |
16 | Reading | 31 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 33 | 33 | 0 | 37 |
17 | Leeds | 31 | 8 | 13 | 10 | 29 | 34 | -5 | 37 |
18 | Fulham | 32 | 8 | 11 | 13 | 50 | 53 | -3 | 35 |
19 | Blackburn | 30 | 7 | 13 | 10 | 28 | 27 | 1 | 34 |
20 | Bristol City | 32 | 8 | 10 | 14 | 29 | 48 | -19 | 34 |
21 | Milton Keynes Dons | 32 | 8 | 7 | 17 | 25 | 44 | -19 | 31 |
22 | Rotherham | 32 | 7 | 5 | 20 | 36 | 57 | -21 | 26 |
23 | Bolton | 32 | 4 | 13 | 15 | 31 | 53 | -22 | 25 |
24 | Charlton | 32 | 5 | 10 | 17 | 26 | 59 | -33 | 25 |
The top six are separated by just seven points with a four point gap to the chasing pack currently led by Cardiff, though both Birmingham and Ipswich have a game in hand on the Bluebirds.
As we’ll see when we start looking at the shot metrics, for all bar one team this gap is pretty well deserved.
At the wrong end of the table a five point gap divides the three relegation spots and MK Dons (more on them later) in the final position of safety.
Looking at the three shot share vs PDO (luck/variance) charts we can see a fair bit of detail in what sees the teams in their respective league positions.
But one of the most telling graphs from my data is how the teams compare at level score. This brings out some very interesting results and may indicate how the end of the season will play out. Certainly it reveals further depth about how the table has come to its present shape.
At the top, Burnley's massive PDO (driven by a vast save %) has been masking a poor overall shot share and this could very well come back to bite them later on in the season. If any team was to "do a Derby" again this year, it would most likely be the Clarets. I have a very big soft spot for Tom Heaton, but sooner or later a few unlikely shots are surely going to start bouncing in and that could well ruin Burnley.
Both Middlesbrough and Hull, while riding high PDO scores, have very good shot share metrics at level score, so that should see them through if they suffer a funk at either end of the pitch.
Meanwhile, at the bottom of the table, it’s noticeable that Bolton and Bristol City (and to a lesser extent Rotherham) are actually not too bad with regards to driving play when at level scores.
Unfortunately, all three of these have suffered horribly in the PDO stakes and this has rather ruined their seasons - if you're getting burned in front of goal when at level score then you've got a mountain to climb just to get a point.
Charlton, by this measure, look dead and buried already, conceding almost two thirds of all shots when at level score.
But despite all three teams’ maladies, an uplift in PDO could bring them into range of safety – and that would leave MK Dons the prime target.
When I left off in November I’d promised a piece on MK as part of my look at the three promoted teams – so consider this a protracted fulfilment of that pledge.
What exactly has changed in that time for MK Dons? Basically nothing, including Karl Robinson’s position as manager.
(As an aside, full credit to the MK Dons board for standing by Robinson this season. Whether it is through choice or simply lack of any better or affordable alternative, it is in many respects commendable to see.)
Back around week 18 they had a shot share of roughly 44%, unblocked shot share of roughly 44% a shots on target share of around 39% and a PDO of 94-ish (all 11v11).
And those metrics are still pretty much the same today – poor by anyone’s standards.
On the weekend they hosted Bristol City in a crucial match and put in a woeful showing – quite possibly the worst shots (it barely makes it into plural) display I can remember all season.
MK Dons managed just three shots all game, all from outside the box... https://t.co/SiVAEQ4QKm @Squawka pic.twitter.com/91ikTgCxSt— Owain Thomas (@Owain_Thomas) February 21, 2016
... and MK Dons didn't even manage a single shot in the first half. https://t.co/6ToPqX2D1I @Squawka pic.twitter.com/NcsdninjC2— Owain Thomas (@Owain_Thomas) February 21, 2016
This was not a team freezing in a big game – their shot attempts have been pretty awful all season.
MK Dons have taken the fewest shots in total (346, league average of 401), fewest shots inside the 18 yard box (169, league average 223) fourth fewest danger zone shots (70, 87 league average) and more than half (51.16%) of that sparse number have come from outside the penalty area.
In short, this is a problem that has been building all year and became magnified in possibly one of the most important fixtures of the season.
I am very open to hearing why their potent attack from last season has dried up.
Of course some of it will be due to superior opposition, but could that really account for such a remarkable step down?
I hesitate to lay the responsibility all at one player, but was Dele Alli really such a pivotal influence that he could effectively drive an entire team’s offensive production?
Certainly his performances at Tottenham have shown his qualities and he would be a loss to any Championship team.
But instinct suggests there should be more to it than that.
Nicky Maynard was signed in the summer to boost the forward options and in the January transfer window two other ex-Bluebirds strikers (Alex Revell and Jay Emmanuel-Thomas) joined him.
Jake Forster-Caskey also re-joined MK on loan from Brighton this winter, so there should be sufficient experience at the club, but yet the poor attacking performances have continued.
If MK Dons are to survive this season, it is likely this will owe much to the misfortune and ineptitude of those who are relegated, rather than their own success.
Finally, what you've all been waiting for, the sortable data tables, enjoy:
Position | Team | 11v11 Corsi | 11v11 Fenwick | 11v11 SoT | 11v11 Goals Rate | 11v11 Sh% | 11v11 Sv% | 11v11 PDO | Points |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8 | Birmingham | 0.471 | 0.44 | 0.466 | 0.55 | 29.31 | 78.95 | 108.26 | 48 |
19 | Blackburn | 0.537 | 0.564 | 0.564 | 0.52 | 21.85 | 73.91 | 95.76 | 34 |
23 | Bolton | 0.495 | 0.494 | 0.446 | 0.38 | 24.39 | 67.97 | 92.36 | 25 |
14 | Brentford | 0.475 | 0.467 | 0.456 | 0.46 | 29.23 | 70.97 | 100.2 | 40 |
4 | Brighton | 0.536 | 0.533 | 0.516 | 0.55 | 30 | 73.77 | 103.77 | 57 |
20 | Bristol City | 0.48 | 0.514 | 0.51 | 0.4 | 23.77 | 63.25 | 87.02 | 34 |
2 | Burnley | 0.449 | 0.463 | 0.508 | 0.65 | 35.82 | 80 | 115.82 | 59 |
7 | Cardiff | 0.484 | 0.475 | 0.504 | 0.56 | 31.3 | 75.19 | 106.49 | 49 |
24 | Charlton | 0.402 | 0.404 | 0.441 | 0.32 | 21.14 | 64.74 | 85.88 | 25 |
5 | Derby | 0.541 | 0.533 | 0.557 | 0.57 | 29.41 | 72.22 | 101.63 | 54 |
18 | Fulham | 0.462 | 0.452 | 0.463 | 0.51 | 35.25 | 70.81 | 106.06 | 35 |
15 | Huddersfield | 0.544 | 0.542 | 0.511 | 0.49 | 31.11 | 65.89 | 97 | 38 |
1 | Hull | 0.588 | 0.605 | 0.617 | 0.74 | 32.67 | 81.72 | 114.39 | 60 |
9 | Ipswich | 0.514 | 0.528 | 0.54 | 0.52 | 28.17 | 69.42 | 97.59 | 48 |
17 | Leeds | 0.474 | 0.449 | 0.424 | 0.44 | 28.42 | 73.64 | 102.06 | 37 |
3 | Middlesbrough | 0.535 | 0.542 | 0.556 | 0.7 | 28.57 | 84.91 | 113.48 | 58 |
21 | MK Dons | 0.436 | 0.424 | 0.388 | 0.34 | 23.91 | 70.34 | 94.26 | 31 |
11 | Nottingham Forest | 0.523 | 0.533 | 0.53 | 0.5 | 19.08 | 78.45 | 97.53 | 42 |
10 | Preston | 0.499 | 0.514 | 0.514 | 0.52 | 27.1 | 73.27 | 100.37 | 45 |
12 | QPR | 0.52 | 0.529 | 0.528 | 0.51 | 27.82 | 69.75 | 97.57 | 40 |
16 | Reading | 0.612 | 0.6 | 0.576 | 0.5 | 24.24 | 67.01 | 91.25 | 37 |
22 | Rotherham | 0.479 | 0.464 | 0.452 | 0.38 | 27.64 | 62.42 | 90.06 | 26 |
6 | Sheff Wed | 0.503 | 0.505 | 0.528 | 0.57 | 35.54 | 69.44 | 104.98 | 53 |
13 | Wolves | 0.461 | 0.459 | 0.443 | 0.46 | 31.03 | 70.55 | 101.58 | 40 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)