How Are We Second?

[Snowball]

Some interesting stats on WhoScored, a few that surprised me, one I find hard to believe.

We are second on goals scored. That's real. That coincides with our rating of second

But our great defence (and clearly, so far it is with one scrambled goal conceded)... yet the stats say we are 19th for aerials won.



We are top of the league for dribbles, for most fouled team, 2nd for rating, 3rd for pass completion, 7th for shots on target, 4th for goals scored, all this despite being bottom of the league for total shots per game. Blackburn are currently shooting almost 3 x Reading.

Interestingly, we are averaging less than 50% possession and are 14th for that.

Rankings

Attack

Rank
01 Dribbles
01 Most Fouled
02 Rating
03 Pass %
04 Goals
07 Shots on Target
07 Caught Offside
14 Possession .... surprise, thought we'd be higher
24 Shots per Game ... "bottom of the league"



Very interesting to see how Bristol and Reading are so similarly in the shots-from stats

27% of our shots are from outside the box (Bristol 27%) (Blackburn 47%)
73% of our shots are are inside the area (Bristol 73%) (Blackburn 53%)
66% of our shots are inside the area (but not six yard box) (Bristol 64%) (Blackburn 47%)
07% are from inside the six yard box (Bristol 9%) (Blackburn 5%)



=================================================

DEFENCE

Defensively, we are hard to score against, for sure!

02 Shots conceded 10.3 (Don't know if there are stats for where the opposition shoots from)
02 Tackles 19
08 Discipline 8th Worst (surprises me)
12 Interceptions
19 Aerials Won (Surprised, guess it shows how well Laurent-Rhino are doing)
22 Number of Reading Fouls (that is 21 teams foul more than us)

[Snowball]

I don't think of us as a defensive side, especially with all our
skilful players, but the stats ATM suggest we play a very tight game

But for that scrambled goal against us we'd be top on GD

Some might think we are vulnerable to a dry spell because
we don't have that many shots, but, ATM it all looks part of a game plan

[Zip]

Snowers. Aerials won. Is that 19th as in better than only 5 teams?
The least number of shots is a real surprise. It must be incredibly rare for a team doing so well to have had fewer shots than the rest of the League.

[Snowball]

Snowers. Aerials won. Is that 19th as in better than only 5 teams?

We have 18 aerials won, yes 19th best. BUT I'VE JUST REALISED this isn't a percentage.

Maybe we simply stop more crosses, so there are less headers to win!


36.3 1. Rotherham
34.3 2. Cardiff
33.5 3. Birmingham
32.3 4. Preston
31.5 5. Middlesbrough
31.3 6. Millwall
29.3 7. Stoke

18.0 19. Reading

16.5 20. Blackburn
16.0 21. Huddersfield
15.5 22. Norwich
14.8 23. Coventry
13.5 24. Derby

[Zip]

Snowers. Aerials won. Is that 19th as in better than only 5 teams?

We have 18 aerials won, yes 19th best. BUT I'VE JUST REALISED this isn't a percentage.

Maybe we simply stop more crosses, so there are less headers to win!


36.3 1. Rotherham
34.3 2. Cardiff
33.5 3. Birmingham
32.3 4. Preston
31.5 5. Middlesbrough
31.3 6. Millwall
29.3 7. Stoke

18.0 19. Reading

16.5 20. Blackburn
16.0 21. Huddersfield
15.5 22. Norwich
14.8 23. Coventry
13.5 24. Derby

Only 18 aerials win over four games seems very low to me. That’s only just over four a game.

[Snowball]

Snowers. Aerials won. Is that 19th as in better than only 5 teams?

We have 18 aerials won, yes 19th best. BUT I'VE JUST REALISED this isn't a percentage.

Maybe we simply stop more crosses, so there are less headers to win!


36.3 1. Rotherham
34.3 2. Cardiff
33.5 3. Birmingham
32.3 4. Preston
31.5 5. Middlesbrough
31.3 6. Millwall
29.3 7. Stoke

18.0 19. Reading

16.5 20. Blackburn
16.0 21. Huddersfield
15.5 22. Norwich
14.8 23. Coventry
13.5 24. Derby

Only 18 aerials win over four games seems very low to me. That’s only just over four a game.

I think that's an average of 18 per game

It is (just checked)

[Zip]

We have 18 aerials won, yes 19th best. BUT I'VE JUST REALISED this isn't a percentage.

Maybe we simply stop more crosses, so there are less headers to win!


36.3 1. Rotherham
34.3 2. Cardiff
33.5 3. Birmingham
32.3 4. Preston
31.5 5. Middlesbrough
31.3 6. Millwall
29.3 7. Stoke

18.0 19. Reading

16.5 20. Blackburn
16.0 21. Huddersfield
15.5 22. Norwich
14.8 23. Coventry
13.5 24. Derby

Only 18 aerials win over four games seems very low to me. That’s only just over four a game.

I think that's an average of 18 per game

Oh I see.

[Snowball]

The least number of shots is a real surprise. It must be incredibly rare for a team doing so well to have had fewer shots than the rest of the League.

Yep, less shots than Wycombe




19.0 Blackburn (Freaky, ATM)

15.0 Brentford

14.0 Norwich

13.3 Nottingham Forest
13.3 Preston
13.3 Bournemouth

12.3 Middlesbrough

11.8 Derby
11.8 Stoke

11.3 Barnsley
11.3 Swansea

11.0 Bristol City <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
11.0 Cardiff

10.8 Coventry
10.8 Watford
10.8 Huddersfield

10.0 Rotherham
09.8 Queens Park Rangers
09.5 Birmingham
09.5 Millwall

08.5 Sheffield Wednesday
08.0 Luton
08.0 Wycombe

07.3 Reading

But that's not the whole story.

Looks like we are doing an Arsenal, trying to walk it in, score the perfect goal etc

First we seem to be defensive (stats-wise) but it's almost like the players are under orders not to waste possession with 30 yards shots

When you look at shots-on-target rather than shots, notice the top two clubs, Bristol and Reading are 6th and 7th, not brilliant, but "top-six quality)... Combined with only conceding 2 goals (Bristol) or one goal (Reading) and you have the league's top two.

Blackburn are banging in 19 shots a game but only 8.5 are on target (44.7%)

Bristol are shooting 11 times, on target 4.5 = 40.9%

Reading are only shooting 7.3 times but on target 4.3, a whopping 58.9% on target

8.5 Blackburn 44.7% of shots on target
6.0 Bournemouth
5.3 Preston
5.0 Norwich
4.8 Middlesbrough

4.5 Bristol City
4.3 Reading...... 58.9% of shots on target (Goals are 1.75 per game, a conversion rate of 24%, VERY high)

4.0 Queens Park Rangers
4.0 Cardiff
4.0 Swansea



2.3 Stoke
2.0 Rotherham
1.8 Wycombe
1.5 Barnsley

[Snowball]

We are currently scoring from 1 in 4 of all shots.

I think it was Ipswich who topped the league for a while with a similar
"crazy" conversion rate. When the rate reverted to average they dropped
down the table and were eventually relegated.

But I don't think our scoring is "freaky". We are getting no extra luck.

I think we are running a tight game (certainly suggested by our goals against column)
and, instead of wasteful long-shots, we are working good chances.

Because they are better than average chances, more go in.

[Nameless]

But how many ‘aerials’ did we lose ? As an absolute number it isn’t totally meaningless, typical rubbish football pretend statistic.
If there were only 18 ‘aerials’ to win then it is a good number !
How there can be a ranking on such a pointless thing I fail to see....

Plenty of the other numbers are nonsense as well.

[Snowball]

Shots on target


Barnsley looked not-half-bad against us, but the stats say
different. They flatter to deceive

Shots on target.


2.3 Stoke
2.0 Rotherham
1.8 Wycombe
1.5 Barnsley


They have had just six shots on target in 4 games.

Less shots on target then Reading's GOALS

[Franchise FC]

We are currently scoring from 1 in 4 of all shots.

I think it was Ipswich who topped the league for a while with a similar
"crazy" conversion rate. When the rate reverted to average they dropped
down the table and were eventually relegated.

But I don't think our scoring is "freaky". We are getting no extra luck.

I think we are running a tight game (certainly suggested by our goals against column)
and, instead of wasteful long-shots, we are working good chances.

Because they are better than average chances, more go in.

Not sure Ben Foster would necessarily agree that we’ve had no extra luck

[TiagoIlori]

We’ve played some very good teams defensively- Cardiff and Watford don’t concede many. Derby we could’ve scored more than we did we looked very good attacking wise. Barnsley we weren’t at our best but good teams win those kind of games, don’t forget we were denied a goal scoring opportunity when they got both of their men sent off.

Sure we look a bit predictable at times but our manager has just come in and ripped up the playbook we had under Bowen, I’m stunned people talking about us aren’t taking that into account because we are not going to be playing free flowing football immediately.

[Snowball]

But how many ‘aerials’ did we lose ? As an absolute number it isn’t totally meaningless, typical rubbish football pretend statistic.
If there were only 18 ‘aerials’ to win then it is a good number !
How there can be a ranking on such a pointless thing I fail to see....

Plenty of the other numbers are nonsense as well.

I agree you need both numbers.

If you are talking crosses into the box, and there are 20 per game and you "only" win 18, then you're giving away 2 chances (or half-chances)

OTOH you might be winning 35 aerials but out of FIFTY crosses and are thus conceding 15 chances

There are "detailed" stats which I've not looked at yet. Maybe they deal with crosses allowed etc.

[Zip]

We are currently scoring from 1 in 4 of all shots.

I think it was Ipswich who topped the league for a while with a similar
"crazy" conversion rate. When the rate reverted to average they dropped
down the table and were eventually relegated.

But I don't think our scoring is "freaky". We are getting no extra luck.

I think we are running a tight game (certainly suggested by our goals against column)
and, instead of wasteful long-shots, we are working good chances.

Because they are better than average chances, more go in.

Not sure Ben Foster would necessarily agree that we’ve had no extra luck

Not really. The shot did take a deflection but Puscas was in the six yard box having turned the defender so it was a great chance.

[Snowball]

We are currently scoring from 1 in 4 of all shots.

I think it was Ipswich who topped the league for a while with a similar
"crazy" conversion rate. When the rate reverted to average they dropped
down the table and were eventually relegated.

But I don't think our scoring is "freaky". We are getting no extra luck.

I think we are running a tight game (certainly suggested by our goals against column)
and, instead of wasteful long-shots, we are working good chances.

Because they are better than average chances, more go in.

Not sure Ben Foster would necessarily agree that we’ve had no extra luck

All sides get "luck" and "bad luck" but I don't think anyone could say we are currently overloaded with luck. Most of our shots are from inside the box (a very high percentage leading to more-likely goals)

[Nameless]

But how many ‘aerials’ did we lose ? As an absolute number it isn’t totally meaningless, typical rubbish football pretend statistic.
If there were only 18 ‘aerials’ to win then it is a good number !
How there can be a ranking on such a pointless thing I fail to see....

Plenty of the other numbers are nonsense as well.

I agree you need both numbers.

If you are talking crosses into the box, and there are 20 per game and you "only" win 18, then you're giving away 2 chances (or half-chances)

OTOH you might be winning 35 aerials but out of FIFTY crosses and are thus conceding 15 chances

There are "detailed" stats which I've not looked at yet. Maybe they deal with crosses allowed etc.

But are ‘aerials’ headers from crosses ? Is every header an ‘aerial’ and do they only include contested headers ? What about headers from long balls in open play ? What if the ball pings around the area and each team has a couple of headers ? And it will be nd very much on how you play. We tend to play along the ground and don’t have wingers pinging in crosses so inevitably we’ll have fewer ‘aerials’ in attack.

[Snowball]

But how many ‘aerials’ did we lose ? As an absolute number it isn’t totally meaningless, typical rubbish football pretend statistic.
If there were only 18 ‘aerials’ to win then it is a good number !
How there can be a ranking on such a pointless thing I fail to see....

Plenty of the other numbers are nonsense as well.

We are third-best in the league for aerials won 56% won, 44% lost.

These will be balls up to Joao or Puscas as well as our attacking corners, so not just balls attacking our box

Best Five Teams (Aerials % Won)

62.0% Cardiff
61.2% Birmingham
56.3% Reading 18 Won, 14 lost
56.1% Preston
52.3 % Bristol City

So you can calculate number of aerials lost if you know number won and percentage won.

Of the top five READING lose the least actual number of aerial duels

Their percentage won is top five, but the
number of crosses into the box etc is lower

14 Lost - - - 18.0 Won - - - 32.0 Total Duels Reading
18 Lost - - - 19.5 Won - - - 37.5 Total Duels Bristol
21 Lost - - - 34.3 Won - - - 56.3 Total Duels Cardiff
21 Lost - - - 33.5 Won - - - 54.5 Total Duels Birmingham

If all these were opponents attacking our box, we'd be the best at clearing crosses

I'm guessing that the total number of duels (won and lost) indicates how much
the game is played in the air.

Surprise, Surprise, Cardiff and Birmingham lump it more often.

[Snowflake Royal]

Snowers. Aerials won. Is that 19th as in better than only 5 teams?
The least number of shots is a real surprise. It must be incredibly rare for a team doing so well to have had fewer shots than the rest of the League.

This all ties in with the xgoals posse.

We've bucked that trend many a time. We shoot less and score a high percentage because we mainly try to shoot when in a good position. We take relatively few big pot shots from distance.

We're just one of the teams that shows even the best predictive stats in football aren't actually very reliable and shouldn't get the gospel treatment many give them.

[Snowball]

But are ‘aerials’ headers from crosses ?

NO. It will include crosses into our box, punts up the middle towards their hold-up number nine
and
The reverse, our punts to Joao or Puscas, our corners and free kicks into their box

Is every header an ‘aerial’ and do they only include contested headers ?

They are DUELS, so contested.

What about headers from long balls in open play ?

Already dealt with. Duels = contested. If it's a ball pinged to a totally unmarked No 9, then there is no duel.

What if the ball pings around the area and each team has a couple of headers ?

Then each side gets 2 successful aerial duels, so for that passage of play 50%

And it will (depend) very much on how you play. We tend to play along the ground and don’t have wingers pinging in crosses so inevitably we’ll have fewer ‘aerials’ in attack.

Yes, as I mentioned above. So the more Side A plays it on the ground, for that game the total aerial duels will be reduced. Then, you factor in what happens when the other side goes high and long or employs wingers who constantly cross.

In Reading games so far there are less aerial duels (whoever wins them) but we are very decent in the air and win 56.3% of those duels.