Stat Attack

AFCB won 16 of 23 aerials duals in the match with Outtara and Semenyo being impressive (7 from 8 and 4 from 6 respectively)

Aerial.JPG

Smith made most tackles (5) but only won 1; Zemura won all 4 of his tackles. As a team, Bournemouth won 20 of 29 tackles.

Tackles.JPG
 
Matt Stevenson said:
More late sadness in the Brighton game where we nearly took a point that I’d suspect most would have taken at the start of the day, but which looked less valuable after Everton had beaten Arsenal and Wolves were three up against Liverpool. I’ve given two timelines because of the craziness of the 13th minute. Neto kicking the ball to Undav which resulted in him having 3 shots (one which was excellently blocked by Mepham) with an added xG of 1.47. The second chart shows the multiplicative impact (where it is assumed no additional xG were a goal scored which reduced the xG to 0.87. Apart from this minute, there were only two big chances (greater than 1 in 5) which both fell to Welbeck. The first was a header (3 in 10) that went straight at Neto, the second was a cross slightly too far in front of him that he grazed wide (44%). AFCB’s best chance fell to Lerma who slid into to meet Anthony’s cross but put it inches wide under pressure. Although, there was anther strong penalty appeal - Sky’s live commentary said AFCB were ‘unlucky not to get a penalty’, which along with ‘unlucky to give away a penalty’ are the phrases that partially summarise this season so far. The xG at half time was Brighton 2.61 (or 1.97 depending on how calculated) and AFCB 0.30. The second half was better for Bournemouth, as it was a drab affair with no big chances, the best being Semenyo’s blocked shot and a total of Brighton 0.44 and AFCB 0.67. If we hadn’t conceded late, we’d probably had looked back on a hard fought point, but we did with Mitoma sneaking into space between three Bournemouth players to head in well (1 in 12). Certainly, the decision to substitute Anthony with Vina is a discussion point, (see later) with the xG between Rothwell’s coming on and Vina coming on being Brighton 0.02 and AFCB 0.44. After it was Brighton 0.27 and AFCB 0.08.

View attachment 9765

View attachment 9766
Click to expand...
Always interested in the xG and appreciate your posting of it Matt, even if I am slightly skeptical of it as a metric.

However I'm struggling even more than I usually do here, to marry up the xG with the chances as they came. Granted highlights can be selective, as most certainly is my recollection of a game. But taking AFCB xG in isolation, common sense suggests to me that these efforts are worth more than <1 xG?

 
Hi NSM,

The two stats I saw for AFCB were 0.93 (apologies the graph shows 1.02 which is an error, I'll update this) and 1.18 - the fact that this are (in percentage terms) quite different shows it is subjective and prone to 'error'.

I've only got the breakdowns for individual chances for the 0.93 (which may be underestimating) but here are the scores for the ones on the clip.

Lerma's effort, - 1 in 10, from the commentary you think it should be higher, so I was surprised by 0.10, but there are a keeper and 2 defenders (plus two AFCB players it could hit) in the way, which has probably influenced it. Jeff was stretching too (although this doesn't affect the xG value)

Lerma.JPG

The lack of the pen means no xG added :(

Phil Bill's long range effort is only rated at 0.02, it would need to be a wonder strike or a keeping error for that to go in.

Semenyo's chance was 0.17 (so about 1 in 6), Brighton had a man blocking, who did just that, and I'd imagine that it would need to be rifled inside the left hand post to beat the keeper.

Semenyo.JPG

Zemura's shot was rated 0.09, presumably as he was closed down quickly, and Outtara's follow-up was 0.06 probably because of the wide angle

Zemura.JPG

Outtara.JPG

You could make a case that the xG should have been higher, but I'm not sure I'd have gone for much more than 1.18. The Lerma chance is probably the biggest uncertainty. Live it looked a much better chance than the still suggests.
 
Through 21 matches, the Cherries sit about 6 and a half points off the 40-point pace modeled by this tracker:
afcb21.png

To get to about 35 points, which might be enough, AFCB will have to make up part of this deficit and get back on the modeled pace. That means winning (actually winning) most of the remaining home games and picking up points from most of the remaining away games. That will be no mean feat, time is really very short now.
 
Somebody posted elsewhere the comparison between the first halves of the 9-0 Liverpool loss and this Brighton match. They were almost identical. That result is consistent with the xG plots in this thread. I wrote at halftime that we were lucky to not be down 3-0 or 3-1, and I think the information here supports that. It also supports, to a lesser degree, that something very bad happened late in the game (aside from conceding, obviously). The second half was a plodding affair, but we were holding our own and should have just stayed the course in terms of formation and intent.
 
Wow thanks @Matt Stevenson very thorough.

So we can put some of it down to a lack of... something like composure, confidence or instinct, in and around the box to convert good openings and positions into more realistic efforts at goal?

Also think Lerma and Outtara's efforts are a little under rated by xG personally, but maybe that's just me!
 
Matt Stevenson said:
In general, the average positional map looks unremarkable, with two central defenders, Mepham (6) and Senesi (25), two advanced full backs Smith (15) and Zemura (33) alongside Lerma (8) and Billing (29) who sat deep, with the front four more or less similarly advanced. Christie for Traore seemed a pre-planned sub as we ease Traore in, but Billings injury meant another substitution slot used with Rothwell coming on, but averaging a position behind the centre backs, this showed that we were playing deeper, but looking to hit on the counter, and the xG was in our favour up until the Vina (18) substitution. Vina’s positioning showed how far we retreated with this change and is the only time I can recall an outfield player playing over 10 minutes having an average position in our box. Withdrawing an attacking winger, Anthony (32) for Vina may have changed the momentum of the game.

View attachment 9767
Click to expand...


I always like to look at these things well after the dust has settled and the average position is my first go to of the stats.

Whilst it's an unremarkable chart, it does, off the top of my head at least highlight a change. We haven't held that shape before, or at least not for a long time? I could well be wrong.

Also the Vina sub, wow, usually you wouldn't really look at stats for a player who had such a small period of time on the pitch, but this isolated look really highlights the point! Amazing.

Perhaps, again, if it's not too time-consuming we could have a positional map for the whole team based on a period of the game to highlight this?

Maybe when the general consensus feels like the team dropped deep and tried to park the bus for a certain spell, did that actually translate in the stats etc?

Just a thought, please don't do it if it's to much of a hassle!
 
DJ said:
I always like to look at these things well after the dust has settled and the average position is my first go to of the stats.

Whilst it's an unremarkable chart, it does, off the top of my head at least highlight a change. We haven't held that shape before, or at least not for a long time? I could well be wrong.

Also the Vina sub, wow, usually you wouldn't really look at stats for a player who had such a small period of time on the pitch, but this isolated look really highlights the point! Amazing.

Perhaps, again, if it's not too time-consuming we could have a positional map for the whole team based on a period of the game to highlight this?

Maybe when the general consensus feels like the team dropped deep and tried to park the bus for a certain spell, did that actually translate in the stats etc?

Just a thought, please don't do it if it's to much of a hassle!
Click to expand...

Hi DJ,
Unfortunately, I don't have access to position by time. But Vina being on for 15 mins when injury time is considered shows that we must have dropped deep whilst he was on. Rothwell's position is interesting too. Whilst he looks to have dropped deep, we were still effectively counter attacking if xG is to be believed, but this stopped just after Vina came on.

I've plotted the last six games average position to compare and contrast. I'm not sure how to interpret it, as player injuries (Solanke for one) and quality of opponent (Man U is likely to be tougher than Brentford for example) means there are lots of moving parts. Plus I'm no expert!

Last 6 7th Jan.JPG

I might be trying to read into things that aren't there, but there appears to be a rigidity in the structure at Brighton that wasn't so evident in the previous 5 games.
 
Matt Stevenson said:
Hi DJ,
Unfortunately, I don't have access to position by time. But Vina being on for 15 mins when injury time is considered shows that we must have dropped deep whilst he was on. Rothwell's position is interesting too. Whilst he looks to have dropped deep, we were still effectively counter attacking if xG is to be believed, but this stopped just after Vina came on.

I've plotted the last six games average position to compare and contrast. I'm not sure how to interpret it, as player injuries (Solanke for one) and quality of opponent (Man U is likely to be tougher than Brentford for example) means there are lots of moving parts. Plus I'm no expert!

View attachment 9789

I might be trying to read into things that aren't there, but there appears to be a rigidity in the structure at Brighton that wasn't so evident in the previous 5 games.
Click to expand...

That’s brilliant. I think that clearly shows that we have evolved from a focal point striker and a congested centre of midfield to the Forest & Brighton game where we were in “banks of four”, as you say rigid in shape.
 
Shot Creating Actions for AFCB in those 6 matches (per FBref): 15, 11, 13, 11, 28, 18. That's interesting to me because those totals were higher without the advanced striker. Probably has a lot to do with the quality of the opponent, though.
Tackles + Interceptions: 27, 23, 30, 32, 20, 29. Yeah, I dunno, either. I will say this: it sure would be nice to have Marcus Tavernier back playing.
 
The point today leaves AFCB about 5.5 points off the 40 point pace modeled here:
afcb22.png
Some weeks ago I swapped NUFC into the "Big 6" and took Chelsea out. (Maybe it should have been Liverpool.) Anyway, that means this tracker anticipated zero points from today's match. It's a bonus, if you well. We need to start stacking some Ws, though. Today's performance gave me some hope.
 
Do enjoy the stat analysis 66 although sometimes it seems like giving a post mortem over an already dead corpse.

Would be interested to see our side of the analysis from the stats.

I think most fans suggest we were hard done by to not get 3 points.

What do the 'stats' say?
 
dragonm8 said:
Do enjoy the stat analysis 66 although sometimes it seems like giving a post mortem over an already dead corpse.

Would be interested to see our side of the analysis from the stats.

I think most fans suggest we were hard done by to not get 3 points.

What do the 'stats' say?
Click to expand...
I think you'll have to wait for Mr. Matt's xG roundup for that answer. I predict that will show that we had enough chances to win, and maybe that they didn't have much beyond the goal they scored.
This little tracker isn't really "stats", except that it includes a simple model of where 40 points might come from. I made it so I would know when it's time to panic. It kind of is. :eek!:
 
Kicks_On_66 said:
I made it so I would know when it's time to panic. It kind of is. :eek!:
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t panic just yet. More than a third of the season left, and I’m still confident we will spring two or three big surprises along with winning a few games we’d expect to. I seriously think as things stand today we are a better side than Southampton, Everton, Forest, Leeds and West Ham given our January signings and the return of some quality players from injury.
 
It may only have been a point, but the Cherries went toe to toe with Newcastle (who are in the top 4) and held their own. The xG ended up fairly similar, but Newcastle only had three big chances, two in the same minute, as Bournemouth looked to counter attack at speed. In his pre-match interview Eddie talked about quietening the crowd, for the first half-hour there was little in the way of attempts until AFCB went one-up. Senesi arriving unmarked at the back post to tap in after Ouattara’s attempted header was going wide. Watching on tv it wasn’t clear if Senesi had strayed offside, so I had to delay full celebrations until Newcastle kicked off. Four minutes later Solanke had a headed chance (rated 2 in 5 by xG) but it lacked power and Pope saved comfortably. On the stroke of half time Newcastle equalised, Saint-Maximan just kept the ball in, and then a fortunate bounce as Lerma made a tackle allowed the winger to put Longstaff through, it was a great shot (1 in 12), and an equally good save from Neto but the ball fell to Almiron, who had been left as Zemura needed to cover in centre and he finished well (28%). At half time it was level (xG AFCB 1.16, Newcastle 0.53). There wasn’t too many chances in the second half, but there seemed more intent and a plan from Bournemouth, with Pope needing to clear the ball several times from outside the area as we looked to find Ouattara. The two biggest incidents were when Neto spilled a fairly routine save from Joelinton (1 in 25) to the feet of Longstaff (2 in 3) but made a save and Gordon put the rebound wide (56%). I’ve assumed a multiplicative impact so the xG doesn’t go above 1 for a passage of play. Apart from this, Newcastle rarely threated, although neither did the Cherries, until the 90th minute when a step-over from Semenyo gave Solanke the chance to flick it in (1 in 5). He got the ball past Pope, but Trippier just stopped the ball crossing the line. In my opinion, a draw was a fair result, but the performance was very encouraging.

xG.JPG
 
The average positional map shows a band of players across the midfield, this band was advanced of the two central defenders. In attack there was more focus on the right hand side where Ouattara looked dangerous. The furthest forward attacker was Traore (“”). Pleasingly I presume for the majority of AFCB fans, we didn’t retreat with the substitutions. The average positions of Mepham (6) for Senesi (25), Tavernier (16) for Anthony (32), and Fredericks (2) for Smith (15) were all similar to the man they replaced. Semenyo (24) was slightly deeper than Ouattara (11) but this wasn’t settling for a point as we have recently witnessed.

Av Posit.JPG
 
Traore and Zemura had most touches in the game (58 each), followed by Lerma (50), showing AFCB Traore had 47 touches in Newcastle’s half, the most by an AFCB player in an opponent’s half since Anthony versus Palace. The same applies to touches in the opponents final third.

Touches.JPG


Ten players had touches in Newcastle’s penalty area, Solanke has the highest with 4.

Touches Pen Area.JPG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;