Possession

[Olallana]

The point I made in the OP is that we do create chances but we've been guilty of not taking them. We're not as impotent as people are making out. In addition, for the 60% + of the time we have the ball in a game, the oppo can't score.

 

Possession counts for a hell of a lot which is why ball retention is a valued part of the game.

 

 

Very true.

People complaining that we dont score with our possession, but no possession with bad end product wont give us more goals than much possession with no end product.

Possession does count, that´s for sure. It´s all about getting more chlinical in the box, other than that we´re a good side at the moment.

[ToreSF]

Thought we played quite direct against against Norwich when we had the chance to.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

Two keys for us making the most of possession:

 

1. Better distribution from the back

2. Better movement up front

 

Sometimes there is poor movement up front, and sometimes the defence really struggle to pass the ball forwards well enough.

 

It's only Ramirez who is going to create something out of nothing - his layoff was lovely for the Jay Rod shot which led to Lambert slashing wide from the rebound.

[Barry Sanchez]

Celtic beat Barcelona with 12% possession this year, that tells you all you need to know about possession.

[Dig Dig]

Celtic beat Ross County with 80% possession this year, that tells you all you need to know about possession.

[Barry Sanchez]

Exactly nothing at all.

[Dig Dig]

Same with them beating Barca with 16% possession. How many times out of a 100 would they win that game with those stats?

[Barry Sanchez]

The only thing it tells me is people will cling on to any piece of infomation as a comfort blanket as opposed to facing the harsh reality of not being good enough.

[Turkish]

The only thing it tells me is people will cling on to any piece of infomation as a comfort blanket as opposed to facing the harsh reality of not being good enough.

 

The only stats that matter are points on the board and how many times the ball hits the onion bag. No team ever won a game based purely on having more posession, or shots at goal.

[Barry Sanchez]

The only stats that matter are points on the board and how many times the ball hits the onion bag. No team ever won a game based purely on having more posession, or shots at goal.

 

I fully agree.

[Dig Dig]

The only stats that matter are points on the board and how many times the ball hits the onion bag. No team ever won a game based purely on having more posession, or shots at goal.

 

Is anyone saying any different? Who is saying that it's more important than points on the board?

 

Purpose of the thread is to discuss the fact that we can't turn dominance of the ball into 3 points. A more general point I'm making is that all successful teams will have higher ball retention stats so it is important. Anything wrong with that?

[Dig Dig]

The only thing it tells me is people will cling on to any piece of infomation as a comfort blanket as opposed to facing the harsh reality of not being good enough.

 

I've said we are not good enough in front of goal. That's the harsh reality.

[Turkish]

Is anyone saying any different? Who is saying that it's more important than points on the board?

 

Purpose of the thread is to discuss the fact that we can't turn dominance of the ball into 3 points. A more general point I'm making is that all successful teams will have higher ball retention stats so it is important. Anything wrong with that?

 

Olallana for one.

[Olallana]

Olallana for one.

 

Hey sweetie, missed me?

 

But for the fun of it. If you can find any quote from me saying that, I´ll give away £100 to any charity you like.

Take your time.

[Turkish]

Hey sweetie, missed me?

 

But for the fun of it. If you can find any quote from me saying that, I´ll give away £100 to any charity you like.

Take your time.

 

 

 

 

Olallana

 

Full Member

 

Join Date: Jul 2012Posts: 609

 

No we have not played better under MP, we have played MUCH better.

For the fun of it I have checked some stats on total shots and shots on goal in our last 15 games.

 

It´s easy to see that under MP we have dominated those stats in every game but the Newcastle one, and even in that one whick most people think was a poor game we had more shots on goal than them.

 

Now we have a team and manager with a bright future cause why do you think teams like Man U, Man C, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea are in the top of the table every year?

Yes, cause they are dominating games and producing more chances than other teams.

 

No, we are not there yet because we lack that final bit of quality but to score goals you have to produce chances and that is what we have been doing the last games much more the last 6 games than earlier this season.

 

Despite results being worse and taking less points you claim we are playing "much better"

[egg]

The only stats that matter are points on the board and how many times the ball hits the onion bag. No team ever won a game based purely on having more posession, or shots at goal.

 

Indeed

[Olallana]

Olallana

 

Full Member

 

Join Date: Jul 2012Posts: 609

 

No we have not played better under MP, we have played MUCH better.

For the fun of it I have checked some stats on total shots and shots on goal in our last 15 games.

 

It´s easy to see that under MP we have dominated those stats in every game but the Newcastle one, and even in that one whick most people think was a poor game we had more shots on goal than them.

 

Now we have a team and manager with a bright future cause why do you think teams like Man U, Man C, Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea are in the top of the table every year?

Yes, cause they are dominating games and producing more chances than other teams.

 

No, we are not there yet because we lack that final bit of quality but to score goals you have to produce chances and that is what we have been doing the last games much more the last 6 games than earlier this season.

 

Despite results being worse and taking less points you claim we are playing "much better"

 

Please tell me where in that quote I am saying "shots at goal is all that matter".

Cause I for one can´t see that.

 

And I´ve said it before. The OP on that thread was "We are playing better under MP - MYTH".

For me that sounds like OP wants to talk about performances rather than results.

But as I said the other day, we can discuss results but wont be much discussion since results are fact. It´s like discussing "Is Oslo the capital of Norway" or "Would you rather sh*g Jessica Alba than Margaret Thatcher".

[Turkish]

Please tell me where in that quote I am saying "shots at goal is all that matter".

Cause I for one can´t see that.

 

And I´ve said it before. The OP on that thread was "We are playing better under MP - MYTH".

For me that sounds like OP wants to talk about performances rather than results.

But as I said the other day, we can discuss results but wont be much discussion since results are fact. It´s like discussing "Is Oslo the capital of Norway" or "Would you rather sh*g Jessica Alba than Margaret Thatcher".

 

I thought it would be obvious. You claim we are playing much better, yet results are worse. Your yardstick for measuring performance is not points gained but shots taken. It's pretty evident from that post.

[Olallana]

I thought it would be obvious. You claim we are playing much better, yet results are worse. Your yardstick for measuring performance is not points gained but shots taken. It's pretty evident from that post.

 

For me it´s pretty obvious I was talking about dominating games in a different way than earlier. (Which for me is about playing like the OP said)

And yes, for me performance and results are two different words with different meaning.

 

But still, I dont in any way say that "shots at goal are all that matter", do I?

I am even saying that we are not there yet due to lack of quality, for me pretty evident that in that sentence "there" is the same as getting results.

[Bucks Saint]

For me it´s pretty obvious I was talking about dominating games in a different way than earlier. (Which for me is about playing like the OP said)

And yes, for me performance and results are two different words with different meaning.

 

But still, I dont in any way say that "shots at goal are all that matter", do I?

I am even saying that we are not there yet due to lack of quality, for me pretty evident that in that sentence "there" is the same as getting results.

 

Wow. A career in politics beckons.

[Turkish]

For me it´s pretty obvious I was talking about dominating games in a different way than earlier. (Which for me is about playing like the OP said)

And yes, for me performance and results are two different words with different meaning.

 

But still, I dont in any way say that "shots at goal are all that matter", do I?

I am even saying that we are not there yet due to lack of quality, for me pretty evident that in that sentence "there" is the same as getting results.

 

You say we are playing "much better" under MP and use shots at goal as evidence to support your claim despite our results being worse. I think anyone that knows that Oslo is the capital of Norway would know that teams performances are based on results and goals, not how many shots they have.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

You say we are playing "much better" under MP and use shots at goal as evidence to support your claim despite our results being worse. I think anyone that knows that Oslo is the capital of Norway would know that teams performances are based on results and goals, not how many shots they have.

 

I wouldn't really say the results are worse though Turkish, and if they are it is only slightly...

 

It seems to me that as far as you're concerned 'performance' includes the result, which OLallana is classing as two different things (I tend to agree that performance and results are different. For instance, I would say our performance in losing 3-2 to Man City was worse than our performance in losing 2-1 to Man Utd, yet both yielded a 1 goal loss).

[Barry Sanchez]

I wouldn't really say the results are worse though Turkish, and if they are it is only slightly...

 

It seems to me that as far as you're concerned 'performance' includes the result, which OLallana is classing as two different things (I tend to agree that performance and results are different. For instance, I would say our performance in losing 3-2 to Man City was worse than our performance in losing 2-1 to Man Utd, yet both yielded a 1 goal loss).

 

 

The bit I look at there is we lost both games and thats where it ends, playing well and losing is still 0 points, the clappers seem to think some Custers last stand over and over again is acceptable whilst we get relegated, for me we could play **** and win all the time if it keeps us in this League.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

The bit I look at there is we lost both games and thats where it ends, playing well and losing is still 0 points, the clappers seem to think some Custers last stand over and over again is acceptable whilst we get relegated, for me we could play **** and win all the time if it keeps us in this League.

 

Well United prove that.

 

However you know as well as I do that is not what the clappers are getting at. You are treating it like it's just a case of black or white, win or lose. I will be far more encouraged by dominating a game, creating chances and losing than being dominated, creating few chances and then losing.

[Dig Dig]

Well United prove that.

 

However you know as well as I do that is not what the clappers are getting at. You are treating it like it's just a case of black or white, win or lose. I will be far more encouraged by dominating a game, creating chances and losing than being dominated, creating few chances and then losing.

 

Be a pretty boring football forum if we can't discuss the certain dynamics which have got us to where we are today.

 

If the result is all that is worth talking about, we should just have a match day thread and a match reaction thread on here and that can be that.

 

I've not made any excuses or apologies for our recent results. We're in a relegation fight as we have been all season and will be until the end. If you can't look at positives and negatives to generate debate then it's all a bit pointless isn't it?

[Doctoroncall]

The bit I look at there is we lost both games and thats where it ends, playing well and losing is still 0 points, the clappers seem to think some Custers last stand over and over again is acceptable whilst we get relegated, for me we could play **** and win all the time if it keeps us in this League.

 

So you must appreciate the efforts of Reep and Hughes?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Be a pretty boring football forum if we can't discuss the certain dynamics which have got us to where we are today.

 

If the result is all that is worth talking about, we should just have a match day thread and a match reaction thread on here and that can be that.

 

I've not made any excuses or apologies for our recent results. We're in a relegation fight as we have been all season and will be until the end. If you can't look at positives and negatives to generate debate then it's all a bit pointless isn't it?

 

Exactly.

[Turkish]

I wouldn't really say the results are worse though Turkish, and if they are it is only slightly...

 

It seems to me that as far as you're concerned 'performance' includes the result, which OLallana is classing as two different things (I tend to agree that performance and results are different. For instance, I would say our performance in losing 3-2 to Man City was worse than our performance in losing 2-1 to Man Utd, yet both yielded a 1 goal loss).

 

We've taken less points and at the end of the day that is all that matters. According to the stats we had 20 odd shots at goal against QPR but it was widely regarded it wasn't a good performance. We've had nearly 50 shots at goal according to stats in the last two games, but scored once and only got one point. Stats only prove so much yet some people love to quote them as some comfort blanket as Barry susinctly describes it.

[Bucks Saint]

We've taken less points and at the end of the day that is all that matters. According to the stats we had 20 odd shots at goal against QPR but it was widely regarded it wasn't a good performance. We've had nearly 50 shots at goal according to stats in the last two games, but scored once and only got one point. Stats only prove so much yet some people love to quote them as some comfort blanket as Barry susinctly describes it.

 

And the key champion of the "shots at goal" comfort blanket, Olallana, has now gone quiet again when challenged, just as he did on the MYTH thread.

[Deano6]

I thought it would be obvious. You claim we are playing much better, yet results are worse. Your yardstick for measuring performance is not points gained but shots taken. It's pretty evident from that post.

 

In your view, is it possible to put in a good performance but not end up winning the match?

[110_Persaint]

Celtic beat Barcelona with 12% possession this year, that tells you all you need to know about possession.

Had to look that up, it was 34%. Safe to say 12% possession in a game will be a Sunday league style one-sided trouncing.

[Dig Dig]

We've taken less points and at the end of the day that is all that matters. According to the stats we had 20 odd shots at goal against QPR but it was widely regarded it wasn't a good performance. We've had nearly 50 shots at goal according to stats in the last two games, but scored once and only got one point. Stats only prove so much yet some people love to quote them as some comfort blanket as Barry susinctly describes it.

 

It's more a debate as to why we only have 1 point despite 66% possession against QPR and 60% possession against Norwich which many more chances than the oppo. Is it tactics, players, both?

 

Don't see anyone taking comfort in that, more over trying to generate debate on a football forum.

 

If we had only had 10% possession and 1 shot on goal in each game yet won, I presume no one would mention those stats because we'd all be happy as larry that we've won and no one, least not Mr Sanchez would ever point it out?

Edited 11 March, 2013 by Dig Dig

[Lallana's Left Peg]

Take less than half the chances we created in the last two games and we're not even worrying about 90% of what is in this thread. At the end of the day we must do better in the final third. I don't know why the last two games we've been so wasteful - whether it is nervousness or apprehension about the situation we're in, but the only thing to worry about is whether this is something we think is going to remain until the end of the season.

 

I suspect it won't, but until we sort it out it'll be a worry since if we can't score we've got no chance.

[110_Persaint]

It's more a debate as to why we only have 1 point despite 66% possession against QPR and 60% possession against Norwich which many more chances than the oppo. Is it tatics, players, both?

 

Don't see anyone taking comfort in that, more over trying to generate debate on a football forum.

 

If we had only had 10% possession and 1 shot on goal in each game yet won, I presume no one would mention those stats because we'd all be happy as larry that we've won and no one, least not Mr Sanchez would ever point it out?

hmm, I wonder what drastic change happened at the club recently? That's right we completely revamped our starting line up with all former regulars now on the bench, therefore it must be the players!

 

Do you really need me to go on another rant about MP's horrendous tactics?

[Dig Dig]

hmm, I wonder what drastic change happened at the club recently? That's right we completely revamped our starting line up with all former regulars now on the bench, therefore it must be the players!

 

Do you really need me to go on another rant about MP's horrendous tactics?

 

No I got it thanks mate.

 

Same players but some have lost their cutting edge in front of goal at a crucial stage of the season for us. This is a more important factor in my mind over tactics at the moment.

 

Do you not think we had enough chances to win the game on Saturday?

[Turkish]

In your view, is it possible to put in a good performance but not end up winning the match?

 

Of course, this happens from time to time, but when it keeps happening you have to wonder what the problem is.

[Olallana]

Of course, this happens from time to time, but when it keeps happening you have to wonder what the problem is.

 

Oh, I´m gonna save this one, for sure!

[Doctoroncall]

Of course, this happens from time to time, but when it keeps happening you have to wonder what the problem is.

 

Being able to put a few of the chances in the goal.

Edited 11 March, 2013 by Doctoroncall
Checked and I was wrong

[110_Persaint]

No I got it thanks mate.

 

Same players but some have lost their cutting edge in front of goal at a crucial stage of the season for us. This is a more important factor in my mind over tactics at the moment.

 

Do you not think we had enough chances to win the game on Saturday?

I think we could have made it much easier for ourselves if we'd changed our tactics to make scoring a goal the priority, rather than bossing the game, controlling possession, containing the opposition and pressing when we didn't have the ball. Under Nigel on Saturday was a perfect opportunity to pull a Stoke - 3 goals before half-time because we went at them right from the off, no patience or possession style football. With this new style of play we've been found out ever so quickly and teams know they are better off sitting back and watching us harmlessly pass the ball around, then hit us on the break or with a simple long ball. We're making it too easy for opponents, we're far too 'nice' in a football sense and allowing defenders to crowd us out and make chances a) hard to come by and b) half-chances because defenders are all over us having watched our every patient move prior to creating the chance.

 

If you can get replays of certain games under Nigel - notably Villa second half, QPR first half, Newcastle, Spurs second half, Stoke first half, you'll notice the clear difference. Our playing style was far, far more likely to result in goals than under the current regime.

[Turkish]

Oh, I´m gonna save this one, for sure!

 

nearly 50 shots at goal the last two games. one goal, one point.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I think we could have made it much easier for ourselves if we'd changed our tactics to make scoring a goal the priority, rather than bossing the game, controlling possession, containing the opposition and pressing when we didn't have the ball. Under Nigel on Saturday was a perfect opportunity to pull a Stoke - 3 goals before half-time because we went at them right from the off, no patience or possession style football. With this new style of play we've been found out ever so quickly and teams know they are better off sitting back and watching us harmlessly pass the ball around, then hit us on the break or with a simple long ball. We're making it too easy for opponents, we're far too 'nice' in a football sense and allowing defenders to crowd us out and make chances a) hard to come by and b) half-chances because defenders are all over us having watched our every patient move prior to creating the chance.

 

If you can get replays of certain games under Nigel - notably Villa second half, QPR first half, Newcastle, Spurs second half, Stoke first half, you'll notice the clear difference. Our playing style was far, far more likely to result in goals than under the current regime.

 

One of Adkins favourite Adkinsisms was "control the football".

 

There were plenty who moaned endlessly about Adkins style being to pretty ticky-tacky.

 

Adkins style is all about possession too. Or have you forgotten that already?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Of course, this happens from time to time, but when it keeps happening you have to wonder what the problem is.

 

The players aren't taking their chances. Simple really.

 

If we are creating, nearly 50 chances in two games (I'm relying on your post for this info) I would suggest the tactics are allowing us to create chances. I find it hard to blame the manager for the players inability to stick the ball in the net.

[Olallana]

nearly 50 shots at goal the last two games. one goal, one point.

 

Good performances keep happening. Performances, not results.

[Turkish]

Good performances keep happening. Performances, not results.

 

You think we played well against QPR?

[Olallana]

You think we played well against QPR?

 

I´ll rate it 6/10, with little or bad end product.

 

Like I said in my first post on that MYTH-thread....

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

One of Adkins favourite Adkinsisms was "control the football".

 

There were plenty who moaned endlessly about Adkins style being to pretty ticky-tacky.

 

Adkins style is all about possession too. Or have you forgotten that already?

 

It doesn't fit in with their agenda to be fair, so they wouldn't recognise that.

[110_Persaint]

It doesn't fit in with their agenda to be fair, so they wouldn't recognise that.

Think I already stated my agenda loud and clear on this forum thank you very much.

[PhilippineSaint]

I wouldn't really say the results are worse though Turkish, and if they are it is only slightly...

 

It seems to me that as far as you're concerned 'performance' includes the result, which OLallana is classing as two different things (I tend to agree that performance and results are different. For instance, I would say our performance in losing 3-2 to Man City was worse than our performance in losing 2-1 to Man Utd, yet both yielded a 1 goal loss).

 

losing 3-2 to Man City must be better than losing 2-1 to Man Utd as although both ended with a 1 goal deficit goals scored column went up by two against Man City and only one against Utd dont goals scored come into the equation somewhere if teams points and goal difference are the same?

 

Taken from League table

Positions: Champions League 1,2,3,4. Europa League 5. Relegation 18,19,20.

Teams receive three points for a win and one point for a draw. The bottom 3 teams will be automatically relegated to the division below.

If two or more teams finish level on points the team with the better goal difference will finish higher.

If two or more teams have the same points and the same goal difference, the team which has scored the higher number of goals will finish higher.

If two or more teams finish level on points, goal difference and goals scored, and the championship, a relegation place or European qualification is at stake, they will then play off to decide who finishes higher.