Stats 23/24

Zabarnyi had most defensive actions with 17 followed by Neto with 16 and Senesi with 15. Cook made most interceptions, Neto made most recoveries, Zabarnyi made most clearances and joint most blocks with Senesi (two).

IRCB.JPG

According to Opta AFCB made one error that led to a chance (and a goal) which was Zabarnyi’s slip.

No player made more than two fouls or was fouled more than twice.

Fouls.JPG
 
Moore and Zabarnyi had the highest xGs (0.22 and 0.21 respectively – note the big difference between understat and Opta for the rating of Zabarnyi’s chance). No one else was above 0.1. Sinisterra, Moore, Philip and Ouattara and Solanke had the bulk of the xA all being above 0.15.

xG and xA.JPG

AFCB had an xGc of 2.49 and let in 3, so did worse than expected although this stat is noisy on a sample of 1.
 
Here is the plot against league position. This will change in the next few games from AFCB's perspective with the games against Wolves and Burnley.

Capture.JPG

A straw that we may be able to grasp following the defeat at Everton is that Everton's underlying xG figures had been strong (see the preview stats). Based on one xG table Everton should (if things had gone as expected) be in 7th. This table shows that we have so far played only one team in the bottom half (surprisingly West Ham). From understat.com

Capture2.JPG
 
Matt Stevenson said:
A straw that we may be able to grasp following the defeat at Everton is that Everton's underlying xG figures had been strong (see the preview stats). Based on one xG table Everton should (if things had gone as expected) be in 7th. This table shows that we have so far played only one team in the bottom half (surprisingly West Ham). From understat.com
Click to expand...
 
Here's the stats from yesterday's game. I've decided to add a TLDR at the top of the stats too.

But first the simple statistic. We are 2 points better off than the corresponding games last season. It's beginning to look worrying as we are unlikely to beat Liverpool and Spurs later in the season.

The TLDR

At half time we had been the better team, although there were few chances

Cook’s send off stifled all our attacking threat

Only 7 touches in the opposition penalty area - the previous lowest was 23 which was away at Liverpool

We were only successful with 1 cross from 14

We only won 8 of 29 aerial duals

Philip posted impressive stats although was credited by Opta for the mistake which led to the goal, although many would be looking towards Neto.
 
Last edited:
Yet again this was 0 points, but it felt like a kick in the teeth. The xG timeline shows that Wolves had a big chance in the 5th minute, but this wasn’t from Neto’s shot but from the follow up after poor play by our Neto where Hee-Chan got his head on the ball (rated 1 in 2). After this Wolves had an xG of 0.11 before half time. AFCB had Solanke’s goal (rated 3 in 5) which seems high but also half chances (about 1 in 8) for Solanke. The game was dull, but we were 1-0 and at half time it was AFCB 0.95 and Wolves 0.75. % minutes into the second half it had all gone wrong. Wolves broke and Cunha scored with a good finish (rated 1 in 14) then Cook saw red multiple times. He first hacked down Hee-Chan, then as they went into alpha-male mode put his head forward. Whilst the Wolves’ forward wouldn’t have been hurt it was a clear red. From that moment on, our xG was 0.07 whereas Wolves’ piled forward adding 1.52, with the biggest chance falling to Hee-Chan who slashed a half follow wide after Neto had parried it into a dangerous area (rated 1 in 3). For all the chances, it was still 1-1 at 88 minutes and we might have earned a battling point. But, and I’m being generous here, Neto sensed we could win it and played a goal kick to Philip on the edge of the box, he didn’t control it well, turned and with the ball stuck under his feet was bundled over. It was a debatable foul, but the ref didn’t give it and two quick passes later Kalajdzic was through tucking it inside Neto’s left post (rated 1 in 2). Kelly’s reaction towards Neto spoke volumes. At the final whistle, the XG was AFCB 1.02, Wolves 2.30 (understat) and AFCB 0.63 Wolves 2,35 (Opta).

xG timeline.JPG
 
The data I can access doesn’t allow average positions to be split by time, so the starting formation will be distorted by Cook’s sending off. The back 4 was as expected, Cook (4) being in front of Philip (29) must be due to Philip dropping deep after the send-off. Brooks (7) and Scott (14) were substituted soon after we went to 10 men, so their positions should be accurate, these were replaced by Christie (10) and Rothwell (8). Outtara (11) directly replaced Tavernier (16) presumably due to his pace on the counterattack. Just before the Wolves winning goal, Moore (21) replaced Solanke (9) presumably with the intention of holding the ball up and being good at set pieces and Senesi (25) replaced Kerkez (3) with Kelly (5) moving to left back, according to the Solent commentary.

Av Pos.JPG
 
Kelly had most touches with 56 followed by Philip (51). Philip had most touches in the opposition half with 31. Tavernier had had most touches in the final third with 21 out of his 33 touches.

Touches.JPG

We only had 7 touches in the opposition’s penalty area, Solanke having 4. This is extremely low, the previous lowest value was 23 away at Liverpool.
Pen Area Touches.JPG
 
Kelly attempted 41 passes followed by Zabarnyi (36). Philip and Brooks attempted most in the opposition’s half (18) with Tavernier attempting most in the final third (12) with Brooks close behind.. We averaged 75% completion, with Tavernier and Philip of the starting 11 having the best returns 88% and 84% respectively.

All Passes.JPG

Passes Opp Half.JPG
 
AFCB attempted 14 crosses, being successful with 1 (from Kerkez). I’m presuming crosses must be aerial, as Philip assist to Solanke was not counted.

Crossing.JPG

Our players tried to take on a man 25 times being successful 8 times. There were no stand-out performers for AFCB in this respect with our 32% success rate disappointing, Kerkez will be disappointed with zero from 3 attempts.

Take Ons.JPG
 
We created 6 chances (none big). Wolves created 18 chances with two of them big. Hee-Chan’s effort in the 73rd minute and Kalajdzic‘s goal.

Chances Created.JPG

We had 7 attempts (one big) noting that chances can be provided after saves, deflections or a defensive error and not created. We hit the target four times. Wolves had 21 attempts, 4 big, and hit the target 7 times.

Attempts.JPG
 
AFCB won only 8 of 29 aerials duals. Between them, Solanke, Philip, Kelly and Kerkez won 2 out of 17

Aerial.JPG

We won 18 out of 27 tackles with Philip winning 3 from 3

Tackles.JPG
 
Philip had most defensive actions with 15. Philip made most interceptions, Neto made most recoveries, Philip and Kelly made most clearances whilst 5 players made 1 block each.

IRCB.JPG

According to Opta, AFCB made one error leading to a shooting chance and goal. This was the madness in the 89th with the mistake being credited to Philip, although many would claim that the decision by Neto to pass him the ball was the initial mistake.
 
Four players conceded 2 fouls, with three of our players being fouled twice.

Fouls.JPG
The Opta expected goals had Solanke (0.48) as most likely to score for AFCB with Rothwell next highest on 0.06. For assists, only Philip (0.56) and Brooks (0.11) were above 0.10. AFCB had an xGc of 2.35 and conceded 2.

xG and xA.JPG
 
Interesting stats. Obviously distorted by the red card but 7 touches in the opposition area at home to Wolves is frankly an embarrassment. This to me is more worrying than our defence, we look utterly devoid of attacking impetus and ideas. We don't even shoot from distance and very ponderous around the area. We can complain at not getting penalties, but if you literally touch the ball 7 times in their area in 100 minutes, it's not likely we'll ever get a penalty.

Attacking is supposed to be AI's strength. I'd forgive us looking like an absolute sieve in midfield if we were at least creating chances.
 
Matt Stevenson said:
Yet again this was 0 points, but it felt like a kick in the teeth. The xG timeline shows that Wolves had a big chance in the 5th minute, but this wasn’t from Neto’s shot but from the follow up after poor play by our Neto where Hee-Chan got his head on the ball (rated 1 in 2). After this Wolves had an xG of 0.11 before half time. AFCB had Solanke’s goal (rated 3 in 5) which seems high but also half chances (about 1 in 8) for Solanke. The game was dull, but we were 1-0 and at half time it was AFCB 0.95 and Wolves 0.75. % minutes into the second half it had all gone wrong. Wolves broke and Cunha scored with a good finish (rated 1 in 14) then Cook saw red multiple times. He first hacked down Hee-Chan, then as they went into alpha-male mode put his head forward. Whilst the Wolves’ forward wouldn’t have been hurt it was a clear red. From that moment on, our xG was 0.07 whereas Wolves’ piled forward adding 1.52, with the biggest chance falling to Hee-Chan who slashed a half follow wide after Neto had parried it into a dangerous area (rated 1 in 3). For all the chances, it was still 1-1 at 88 minutes and we might have earned a battling point. But, and I’m being generous here, Neto sensed we could win it and played a goal kick to Philip on the edge of the box, he didn’t control it well, turned and with the ball stuck under his feet was bundled over. It was a debatable foul, but the ref didn’t give it and two quick passes later Kalajdzic was through tucking it inside Neto’s left post (rated 1 in 2). Kelly’s reaction towards Neto spoke volumes. At the final whistle, the XG was AFCB 1.02, Wolves 2.30 (understat) and AFCB 0.63 Wolves 2,35 (Opta).

View attachment 12116
Click to expand...
Thanks for putting the effort in to do the 'stats'

How on earth was Wolves first goal rated 1 in 14.

It was a good strike, but I don't see it as a 1 in 14, morelike a 1 in 6.

What was Christie's powder puff pass to the goalkeeper rated at?

Surely that's a 1 in 5?
 
dragonm8 said:
Thanks for putting the effort in to do the 'stats'

How on earth was Wolves first goal rated 1 in 14.

It was a good strike, but I don't see it as a 1 in 14, morelike a 1 in 6.

What was Christie's powder puff pass to the goalkeeper rated at?

Surely that's a 1 in 5?
Click to expand...


Christie I got 0.04xG, 0.11xGOT and Cunha 0.06xG 0.2xGOT.

To answer your question it seems like most shots from that distance with that much congestion are largely off target. When they're not your odds are pretty damn close.

EDIT: This is not quite true. I did some number crunching as I think you can infer the chances of being on target using xG and xGOT. Christie's chance is about 64% chance of being on target and Cunha's about 77%
 
Last edited:
Basically the stats suggest that shots from distance are rarely successful, which is why you have so many teams playing the percentages and appearing to try and walk it into the net.

They forgot of course that any chance you don’t take is 0% of coming off…how about that for some motivational billshi* for for 9am on a Monday morning…
 
dragonm8 said:
Thanks for putting the effort in to do the 'stats'

How on earth was Wolves first goal rated 1 in 14.

It was a good strike, but I don't see it as a 1 in 14, morelike a 1 in 6.

What was Christie's powder puff pass to the goalkeeper rated at?

Surely that's a 1 in 5?
Click to expand...

I can't verify / validate the xG stats as I don't have access to the database. For Cunha's goal, the commentator on Sky says 'What a fantastic goal' although Kris doesn't on Solent.

Here's a screenshot of when the shot was taken. Aarons has the left side of the goal covered so it has to be hit with pace in the right corner. It's not exactly in the corner but the pace beats Neto. If it had been 1 in 8 I wouldn't have raised an eyebrow, but the model will have error and we could only looking at the difference between 0.07 and 0.12

Capture.JPG
Christie's effort was ranked at 1 in 25 on understat. I've not seen it so can't comment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;