Opposition fans back from the game - 24/25 page 225 onwards

[Vision]

The trouble with a lot of modern managers like Rodgers* is they think possession replaces defensive organisation. Even if you have 60% then the opposition still have 40% of the ball. Watching various Rodgers' teams it's pretty obvious that once they've failed the "recover the ball within 8 seconds" mantra then they don't have a clue about how to stop the opposition.

*See also AVB

[Mr Optimist]

The trouble with a lot of modern managers like Rodgers* is they think possession replaces defensive organisation. Even if you have 60% then the opposition still have 40% of the ball. Watching various Rodgers' teams it's pretty obvious that once they've failed the "recover the ball within 8 seconds" mantra then they don't have a clue about how to stop the opposition.

*See also AVB

I agree to a certain extent but cliched as it is football should be a simple game and if you have possession of the ball the other team cannot score. If you control possession for more of the match you are therefore restricting the number of opportunities for the opposition to hurt you.

Last time we were in the premier league we were relegated because our defence was good enough to stand up to championship attacks for two thirds of a match and get away with it, but in the prem we got worn down by better attacking players and spent long periods of matches chasing the ball.

It is also less tiring to play with the ball then chasing after it. I do agree though possession should not replace defensive tactical ability.

[Winston Smith]

possession of the ball alone doesn't help. It's what you do when in possession that matters. tippy tappy football across your back 4 over and over does absolutely nothing, unless you are a fully fledged member of the Sky Sports watching, Opta stats obsessing, spaccerdome attending, songsheet reading, rumblestick waving mong brigade.

I f***ing hate it when a team loses 1-0 and the fans of the losing team will go on about how they were the better team. nope, the aim was to score more than the opposition and you failed. maybe you did have 65% possession, 87% half sleeve tattoo completion, 45% mullet wearing and 20% Hummer driving players, but just because Sky Sports tells you that counts for something, it doesn't mean it actually does.

[CountryRoyal]

Whilst I'd agree possession is probably the weakest indicator or reflection of how a team performed, it's not without its merit.

More telling is pass % (which isn't often readily available) or more importantly shots/shots on target.

If a team loses 1-0 but have 20 shots, 10 on target compared to the opposition who had 2 and 1 on target, then obviously there would be massive grounds to feel that result was somewhat unjust.

Still, if a team dominates all of the stats, including possession, than that would suggest they were the better team.

[Mr Optimist]

Putting aside your obvious love for the modern game ......

I don't disagree that what ultimately matters is how many times you put the ball in the net compared to the other team. Keeping hold of the ball is though important to control the game and restrict the opposition.

My solution to sky sports and talk sports mongs is simple, I don't listen or watch it anymore!

[Mr Optimist]

Whilst I'd agree possession is probably the weakest indicator or reflection of how a team performed, it's not without its merit.

More telling is pass % (which isn't often readily available) or more importantly shots/shots on target.

If a team loses 1-0 but have 20 shots, 10 on target compared to the opposition who had 2 and 1 on target, then obviously there would be massive grounds to feel that result was somewhat unjust.

Still, if a team dominates all of the stats, including possession, than that would suggest they were the better team.

Yes, but there are certain players that seem to have a 94% pass completion rate but never pass the ball more than 10 yards or anything other than sideways!

[CountryRoyal]

Putting aside your obvious love for the modern game ......

I don't disagree that what ultimately matters is how many times you put the ball in the net compared to the other team. Keeping hold of the ball is though important to control the game and restrict the opposition.

My solution to sky sports and talk sports mongs is simple, I don't listen or watch it anymore!

How's that m8?

And good for you buddy.

Ftr of course what "ultimately matters" is how many goals you score, ffs no one said it wasn't. People are just talking about various ways you might be able to tell how a game went.

Bore off.

[Extended-Phenotype]

I love the way possession is talked about like it's a choice whether to have more or less of it.

[Mr Optimist]

Putting aside your obvious love for the modern game ......

I don't disagree that what ultimately matters is how many times you put the ball in the net compared to the other team. Keeping hold of the ball is though important to control the game and restrict the opposition.

My solution to sky sports and talk sports mongs is simple, I don't listen or watch it anymore!

How's that m8?

And good for you buddy.

Ftr of course what "ultimately matters" is how many goals you score, ffs no one said it wasn't. People are just talking about various ways you might be able to tell how a game went.

Bore off.

Kinell. My note was a reply to Winston not you, alright love x

[TFF]

You can tell the team's playing well when all there is to argue about is whether we were very shit or just a bit shit under Rodgers

[CountryRoyal]

Putting aside your obvious love for the modern game ......

I don't disagree that what ultimately matters is how many times you put the ball in the net compared to the other team. Keeping hold of the ball is though important to control the game and restrict the opposition.

My solution to sky sports and talk sports mongs is simple, I don't listen or watch it anymore!

How's that m8?

And good for you buddy.

Ftr of course what "ultimately matters" is how many goals you score, ffs no one said it wasn't. People are just talking about various ways you might be able to tell how a game went.

Bore off.

Kinell. My note was a reply to Winston not you, alright love x

Err. Yeah I knew that. Obvs.

[CountryRoyal]

You can tell the team's playing well when all there is to argue about is whether we were very shit or just a bit shit under Rodgers

True. On the boro match thread they're arguing about people who were upset because they lost.

[Winston Smith]

If a team loses 1-0 but have 20 shots, 10 on target compared to the opposition who had 2 and 1 on target, then obviously there would be massive grounds to feel that result was somewhat unjust.

Still, if a team dominates all of the stats, including possession, than that would suggest they were the better team.

no, no it wouldn't. that was exactly my point!

If you believe Tim Lovejoy, 'The matchday experience' or even Kingsley Royal then maybe, but no it absolutely wouldn't.

It can mean a lot of things - more in control of the flow of the game, they are creating more chances thus giving themselves more chance to win etc etc. But it doesn't mean they were 'better' as the only thing they were meant to do, they ultimately failed at and the opposition achieved.

[CountryRoyal]

If a team loses 1-0 but have 20 shots, 10 on target compared to the opposition who had 2 and 1 on target, then obviously there would be massive grounds to feel that result was somewhat unjust.

Still, if a team dominates all of the stats, including possession, than that would suggest they were the better team.

no, no it wouldn't. that was exactly my point!

If you believe Tim Lovejoy, 'The matchday experience' or even Kingsley Royal then maybe, but no it absolutely wouldn't.

It can mean a lot of things - more in control of the flow of the game, they are creating more chances thus giving themselves more chance to win etc etc. But it doesn't mean they were 'better' as the only thing they were meant to do, they ultimately failed at and the opposition achieved.

Yes maybe so, but would you not agree that for the majority of cases, the team that controls the game is quite often better?

[Ian Royal]

No necessarily, as they may control it doing nothing of any note, whilst the other team allows them to and repeatedly sucker punches them.

But, you can have a situation where one team is clearly playing better and only a slice of misfortune prevents them scoring, whilst a slice of fortune drops a goal in the other team's lap.

It's a bit silly just saying the team that scores more goals is better, though. That takes all interest and discussion out of the game and ignores the pros and cons of different ways and styles of playing.

[West Stand Man]

If a team loses 1-0 but have 20 shots, 10 on target compared to the opposition who had 2 and 1 on target, then obviously there would be massive grounds to feel that result was somewhat unjust.

Still, if a team dominates all of the stats, including possession, than that would suggest they were the better team.

no, no it wouldn't. that was exactly my point!

If you believe Tim Lovejoy, 'The matchday experience' or even Kingsley Royal then maybe, but no it absolutely wouldn't.

It can mean a lot of things - more in control of the flow of the game, they are creating more chances thus giving themselves more chance to win etc etc. But it doesn't mean they were 'better' as the only thing they were meant to do, they ultimately failed at and the opposition achieved.

Yes maybe so, but would you not agree that for the majority of cases, the team that controls the game is quite often better?

But that is part of the debate. Does the team that has the ball most always 'control the game'. I think we can see that it is not always true that they do control. You can dictate the flow of the game by chanelling the opposition even while they have the ball.

[tmesis]

I've seen so many games where we've won the match with 40% or less of possession that you have to wonder why so much weight is put on possession stats.

It would be interesting to see what % of wins are won by the team with the most possession, and how much extra possession do you need for it to be a factor.

And even then, possession itself is not a means to an end. It's almost become the opposite of the old Charlie Hughes idea, where long ball football came out of the fact that most goals are scored by moves of four passes or fewer. Now you get people who seem the think having 65% possession means you'll dominate the game and almost always win.


You be better off measuring what % of each team's possessions ended with a shooting chance.

Or what % ended with each team having possession in the penalty area.

And from there, what % of possession in the area results in a scoring chance.


You've got to measure effectiveness. It was Boro's ineffectiveness on Saturday that meant they could have a lot of the ball, but rarely look dangerous.

Think back to the 106 team. We didn't necessarily dominate games from start to finish, but every time we went forward you felt we could score. Even after promotion, when we were often dominated in possession stats, we got results - and much of that was because we were so effective going forward.

You could also look at the number of mistakes teams make. Giving the ball away cheaply really hurts teams, causing attacks to break down, and losing the ball at the back makes conceding more likely.


People should also lose the obsession with the idea that a shot on target is a good shot, and one off target is a poor one. A missed open goal or a penalty put over the bar are both "off target", yet are about the best chances you can get in a game.

A badly executed shot says nothing about how good a chance was.

[CountryRoyal]

Yes but all I'm saying is that IF you have more possession, more shots, more shots on target, more corners, better passing...etc etc, more often than not that would suggest you are the better side. Surely?

I'd agree in the championship you can control the flow of the game but still end up losing, more regularly then you would say in the prem or at a higher level where mistakes are rarer and abilities greater.

That's looking at all the statistics in a game, but I've already said that possession alone is a weak indicator. Without trying to contradict myself, it still happens st higher levels of course. Arsenal had 38% against Man U and won, they had 70% against Olympiakos and lost.

Brentford and MK Dons have the highest avg possession this year.....

[tmesis]

Yes but all I'm saying is that IF you have more possession, more shots, more shots on target, more corners, better passing...etc etc, more often than not that would suggest you are the better side. Surely?

It would indicate that on the balance of play you looked the better team, looked more likely to score etc, but taken individually those stats don't point to a great deal.

I'd agree in the championship you can control the flow of the game but still end up losing, more regularly then you would say in the prem or at a higher level where mistakes are rarer and abilities greater.

I'd actually be surprised if there's any more correlation with those stats in the premier league.

Quite simply, I do believe they are just measuring the wrong things, mainly because they've never given it much thought.

As well as football, I quite like Aussie Rules football. Like our football, is a flowing sport which for years also wasn't thought to be a game that could be broken down well with stats.

What they did was to apply some real analysis to the game, and look for things that actually make a telling difference - the things that weren't just a record of what happened, but gave indications around why teams were being effective/ineffective. They make almost no use of possession percentages or pass completion rates, for example. Instead the measure how effective teams/players are, measure how often teams are winning the equivalent of 50/50s, how often they get into dangerous positions. They also look at the % of passes that progress the attack, meaning passes across the back count for nothing.


I'm sure something similar could be done for football, but instead we have thick pundits quoting opta stats, and thick fans arguing their team deserved to win because they had 65% possession.

[Lower West]

You've got to measure effectiveness. It was Boro's ineffectiveness on Saturday that meant they could have a lot of the ball, but rarely look dangerous.

Goals change games. Boro were set up to counter attack on the day. Another day could easily be a different result.