Stat Attack

AFCB attempted 15 crosses, being successful with 5, from 5 separate players.

Crossing.JPG


Our players tried to take on a man 25 times, being successful 12 times. Ouattara made most attempts with 5 successful take ons (from 8) although Rothwell did well with 4 successful attempts from 4.

Take Ons.JPG
 
We created 8 chances (although none were big). Villa created 17 chances, with 5 big. Traore made the most chances (3) despite coming on in the 59th minute and played the through ball putting Solanke through.

Chances Created.JPG

We had 10 attempts (1 big) noting that chances can be provided after saves or a defensive error and not created. This big chance was for Anthony who if I remember correctly dispossessed an opponent. We hit the target 3 times. Villa had 20 attempts, 5 big, and hit the target 9 times.

Attempts.JPG
 
AFCB won 9 of 16 aerials duals. Senesi won 3 from 3, and Lerma won 3 from 4.

Aerial.JPG

Traore and Ouattara made most tackles (7) although Traore had limited game time. As a team, Bournemouth won 20 of 39 tackles.

Tackles.JPG
 
Lerma had most defensive actions with 15. Lerma and Stephens made most interceptions, Billing made most recoveries, Senesi made most clearances and Lerma made most blocks.

IRCB.JPG
 
Matt Stevenson said:
Here’s the xG from a disappointing performance. Although at 75 minutes I certainly hadn’t written off our chances. Villa took the lead early on, a deflected shot from Watkins found Bailey who went past Kelly and squared the ball to an unmarked Luiz in the box (55%). Luiz’s run was clever having come back from an offside position and with defenders not clear as to who should be picking him up. We had a big chance (about 1 in 4) from Anthony in the 10th minute, from the left hand side of the goal. The next half-chance was from Ouattara (rated as 1 in 5) which might be a header that was cleared from the line (being at ground level didn’t help perceiving depth) which was closely followed by Neto stopping well from Watkins (approaching 1 in 3). After this burst of action, not much happened for about 40 minutes, with Villa content to time waste and sit on 1-0. The main highlights being a blasted free kick by Billing that Martinez tipped over and Solanke being put through one on one, but dithered (maybe due to a lack of confidence) which allowed Mings to get back and block, and also heavily reduce the xG.

When we made a sub (Brooks for Smith) the xG was Villa 1.46 AFCB 0.96. Whatever the reason, after this substitution the game turned and the xG until the end of the game was Villa 1.74 AFCB 0.00. Villa had three big chances, the second goal where Ramsey went around Stephens and slotted under Neto’s arm (it was either well planned or not hit correctly) which was rated 37%. The next large chance was from Mings which was well saved by Neto (2 in 5) and then there was Villa’s third goal. A flick on left Buendia unmarked in front of Neto to head in (56%). It was a disappointing capitulation in the last 10 minutes, but before that it was fairly even.

View attachment 10092
Click to expand...
The way we defend set pieces I am surprised that the stattos don't start rating corners against us as a 1 in 5 chance :)

Just out of interest and I apologize if you already have answered this. But it looks like the last goal, rated 56% but seems to show on the graph as 0.7 xG. Does the % correlate to xG somehow differently to e.g. 25% = .25 xG
 
USCherry said:
The way we defend set pieces I am surprised that the stattos don't start rating corners against us as a 1 in 5 chance :)

Just out of interest and I apologize if you already have answered this. But it looks like the last goal, rated 56% but seems to show on the graph as 0.7 xG. Does the % correlate to xG somehow differently to e.g. 25% = .25 xG
Click to expand...

Eagle Eyes there. :)

It is actually two chances here, as Mings' flick on was counted as an attempt and was judged to have its own rating of 0.10 so it was a combination of 0.1+0.56 to make a total for 0.66.

For simplicity, I ignore multiple chances, unless the summed xG goes above 1, but I think it should really only total 0.604 as if Mings had scored you wouldn't get the 0.56 chance. But given the error bars in the xG scores I'm happy to ignore this and save myself some work.
 
Matt Stevenson said:
Eagle Eyes there. :)

It is actually two chances here, as Mings' flick on was counted as an attempt and was judged to have its own rating of 0.10 so it was a combination of 0.1+0.56 to make a total for 0.66.

For simplicity, I ignore multiple chances, unless the summed xG goes above 1, but I think it should really only total 0.604 as if Mings had scored you wouldn't get the 0.56 chance. But given the error bars in the xG scores I'm happy to ignore this and save myself some work.
Click to expand...
Makes sense, thanks for clarifying
 
This tracker reckons last weekend's disappoint loss at Aston Villa as one point dropped, so AFCB sit about 1.5 points off the path to 40 points it describes:
afcb27.png
Five points from the next three matches will keep us close to this pace. That would be 29 points with 8 matches remaining. It's going to be a nerve-wracking finish.
 
Listening on the radio, the first 30 minutes sounded abject, although it was hard to tell whether it was the formation or just that AFCB were playing badly. Within this period, we had not had a shot, whereas Fulham were 1 up, and had smacked the bar. The goal was well worked with Reed teeing up Andreas with the ball going through a sliding Stevens’ legs leaving Neto unsighted (1 in 14). The long-range missile from Robinson that hit the woodwork would have been a wonder goal (rated 1 in 50). Vinicius also had a chance (1 in 8). Just before the break we had a big chance though, the ball rebounding off a Fulham defender to Solanke just outside the 6 yard box, and as later in the game, he couldn’t just sort his feet out to make a real connection. From a small sample size, it could be bad luck or an underlying issue. This was rated 1 in 2 and was by far the biggest chance in the half, at the interval it was AFCB 0 Fulham 1, although xG had it as AFCB 0.66 Fulham 0.47, but Fulham had dominated the early stages. Anthony and Ouattara came off for Tavernier and Christie and the Cherries came flying out. Billing squared the ball and Solanke didn’t make a real contact (1 in 2) and it fell to Senesi (2 in 3) whose prod was cleared off the line. The xG is probably an overestimate as Senesi couldn’t generate any power which wouldn’t have been considered. I’ve taken a multiplicative approach to these two xGs as they sum to above 1. Two minutes later we were level with our own screamer – the ball coming from a corner to Tavernier at the right-hand edge of the box who found the opposite left corner. It reminded me of the Arsenal winner, but this was better (Rated 1 in 25). We were in the ascendancy, in the 54th minute Solanke had a shot blocked (1 in 4) although after this the game was edgy and there weren’t many chances created between the 55th and the 78th minute, before a great first touch from Christie gave him a shooting chance (1 in 20). His low drive was saved / spilled by Leno, and with Robinson waiting for the keeper to gather it Solanke snuck in (70%) to make it 2-1. Lerma had a good chance from a Billing cross (44%) five minutes later, with AFCB seeing this one out largely unscathed bar a chance for James (1 in 7) in the 87th minute. 3 vital points, although a repeat of the first 30 minutes needs to be avoided.

xG.JPG
 
Despite both being hooked at half time, the average positions of Anthony (32) and Ouattara (11) are interesting with a real difference in how high they played with Anthony near to Kelly’s average over the game. Tavernier played further forward as the momentum swung, although it wasn’t clear which caused which. There was a bank of three of Rothwell (14), Billing (29) and Lerma (8) with Smith (15) providing more attacking threat than Kelly (5). With a game on Tuesday there may be changes in the starting 11. Semenyo came on too late to be shown on the plot.

Av Posit.JPG
 
Kelly had most touches in the game by some distance (67), followed by the two centre backs (Senesi (55) and Stephens (54). Solanke had most touches in the oppositions half interestingly Smith was second). This was repeated for touches in the final third. Solanke nearly had as many touches in Fulham’s penalty area as the rest of the team, with 12 out of 26.

Touches.JPG

Touches Pen Area.JPG
 
Kelly, Stevens and Senesi made over 45 passes. Billing and Rothwell made the most in the oppositions half and Billing in the final third although 4 players made 10 or more. Tavernier (10) and Christie (9) were from only 45 minutes each, and were much higher than who they replaced, Anthony (5) and Ouattara (4). The pass completion rate was mixed (77% for the entire team ranging from Anthony (93% to Ouattara(50%) – it wasn’t Dango’s day).

All Passes.JPG

Pass Opp Half.JPG
 
AFCB attempted 12 crosses, being successful with 2 (Anthony and Billing once each). Rothwell and Tavernier had no completions from three attempts.

Crossing.JPG

Our players tried to take on a man 30 times, being successful 16 (Solanke was successful 7 times from 11).

Take Ons.JPG
 
We created 6 chances, and two big chances, supplied by Billing and Lerma. Fulham created 8 chances but none were big.

We had 12 attempts, 5 big, with an equal number of chances (and more big chances) coming from rebounds and opposition error. Lerma and Solanke had 3 each, the big chances fell to Solanke 2, Billing, Lerma, and Solanke 1 each. We hit the target seven times (2 each for Solanke and Tavernier, 1 each for Billing, Senesi and Christie). Fulham had 10 chances, 0 big, hitting the target twice.

Chances.JPG

Attempts.JPG
 
AFCB won 12 of 23 aerials duals in the match with Kelly being impressive with 4 out of 5.

Aerial.JPG

Billing made most tackles (6) winning all of them. As a team, Bournemouth won 17 of 25 tackles.

Tackles.JPG
 
Typically, Lerma had most defensive actions (14). Lerma and Senesi had most interceptions (2), Neto made most recoveries (11), Kelly made most clearances (3) with Lerma making most blocks (3).

IRCB.JPG
 
These are so interesting Matt, thanks for taking the time.

It says an awful lot that Kelly’s position was deeper than Stephen’s. Not seen that before. Our inability to get our left going is infuriating and we will need to to beat the lower teams i feel.
 
Kelly has played very deep in all three games he's started at left back recently. It seems to be a (possibly overcomplicated) 4/3 at the back that changes in and out of possession. Still, six points from three difficult games suggests it's not a terrible idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;