Anyway, that paints us as almost absurdly lucky, but I think Bowyer has a knack for making luck happen. I don't think we've been undeserved winners really. It's all about working towards a high quality of chances and giving the opposition poor-quality chances
Again the point of XG seems so wildly misunderstood but not going to go down that endless tunnel.
Interesting that it sort of shows what we know to an extent... our defense has been excellent (a bit fortuitous in places perhaps?) and our attack has been clinical rather than exceptional.
What it doesn't show is some sort of trajectory after our sluggish start and squad overhaul. Portsmouth one of the top teams on XG and we beat them fair and square.
Didn’t XG paint a picture that the not so optimistic amongst us were predicting near the beginning of last season that we were pretty lucky and we’d eventually turn to shit , which is what happened in style .
so maybe it’s adding a word of caution now but I’m a gazillion times more comfortable with us as a team in this league than I was last season . I could see that was a false dawn but this definitely feels different and we are in 2nd gear rather than full throttle as we were earlier on last season .
Anyway, that paints us as almost absurdly lucky, but I think Bowyer has a knack for making luck happen. I don't think we've been undeserved winners really. It's all about working towards a high quality of chances and giving the opposition poor-quality chances
But what's lucky about having the best defence in the league by some clear distance?
We've watched our games, have we been lucky?
People shouldn't put too much value in these stats.
No. Small sample size but the inference from that would be that we are running hot, ie being clinical with our chances whilst opponents are missing theirs, and that we will regress to the mean at some point and suffer a downturn in results.
However, I do think we are better than that table suggests. We put together a squad late and they are still gelling, which has led to some quite sterile attacking performances early on. Our attacking performances are getting a little better each game and I have no doubt we will continue to ascend the xG table.
Without meaning to sound rude to anyone, if you think it's all a crock of shit you probably haven't totally understood what it is trying to say. The whole point of xG is painting a picture of teams' output over time. The fact is, you can be creating very little xG and bely the data by going on a winning win of quite a few games. But it will catch up with you eventually.
I remember these tables being posted last year and being dismissed as a load of shit because, despite us flying at the time, the data painted us as a very poor team. When that's the case, the team nearly always regresses to the mean when variance catches up, as we unfortunately saw.
Alarming stuff. As discussed above, results can paper over the cracks of poor performances but at this rate variance is going to hit like a truck at some point. Bow needs a serious rethink.
- we are marginally better than the league average for xG created. - we are slightly worse than the league average for xG allowed.
- per match, we take fewer shots than the league average - per match, we face more shots than the league average
- we are most the clinical team in the whole division with the best shot conversion ratio (around 6.75 shots per goal vs 8.75 league average).
- we have fifth best shots faced vs goals conceded ratio in the league behind Portsmouth, Lincoln, Gillingham and Fleetwood (around 11.75 shots per goal vs 8.75 league average).
All the above would suggest to me that either we are in a false position and as soon as we regress towards the mean (the defenders let in some goals or the strikers stop scoring or both) we will be sliding down the table quickly.
OR it could suggest that we have an exceptional group of strikers and defenders/keepers for this level and the midfielders need to do a better job of creating more chances / protecting the back four.
What I take from that is that we take fewer shots but are more clinical. Which is Bowyer's main philosophy. He likes his players to pass & pass & pass - open up a defence & get a player in a position to score a well worked goal. Great if you have good forwards who convert 75% of the chances made for them. Problem is we only have 2 of those & 1 can only play the final 30 mins.
Personally I would like us to take more shots - especially from 18- 25 yards. Get players to follow up any rebounds / spilled saves. It's a bit like cricket. If you are only trying to get a batsman out by being caught behind then you are limiting your chances - if you aim at the stumps then you bring bowled and lbw into the equation.
Interesting reading the early xg data for us. Whilst we clearly haven't been good, we've perhaps been a bit unfortunate too. Early table sees our "fair" position in 7th which would be encouraging considering things clearly haven't clicked yet and more incomings on the horizon.
Always good to be near the top right of these charts.
We are 7th in the league when it comes to “shots in the box” per game (behind Oxford, Bolton, Rotherham, Sheff Wed, MKD and Plymouth) while being 2nd in the league for “average number of attackers in the box” per shot taken (behind Crewe).
Shows we are getting the ball into good areas to create opportunities and the tactics being deployed are allowing us to load the opposition’s penalty area when we do get forward.
Comments
Interesting trend that teams are taking less and less (fewer) shots from long range, preferring quality over quantity.
For example, just noticed that the Villa v Saints game had Villa as having a XG of 2 whilst Saints was at less than 1.
Saints win 4-3.
Interesting that it sort of shows what we know to an extent... our defense has been excellent (a bit fortuitous in places perhaps?) and our attack has been clinical rather than exceptional.
What it doesn't show is some sort of trajectory after our sluggish start and squad overhaul. Portsmouth one of the top teams on XG and we beat them fair and square.
so maybe it’s adding a word of caution now
but I’m a gazillion times more comfortable with us as a team in this league than I was last season . I could see that was a false dawn but this definitely feels different and we are in 2nd gear rather than full throttle as we were earlier on last season .
We've watched our games, have we been lucky?
People shouldn't put too much value in these stats.
as with all statistics. Each on their own aren’t much use. But with other data and different stats they can be.
However, I do think we are better than that table suggests. We put together a squad late and they are still gelling, which has led to some quite sterile attacking performances early on. Our attacking performances are getting a little better each game and I have no doubt we will continue to ascend the xG table.
Without meaning to sound rude to anyone, if you think it's all a crock of shit you probably haven't totally understood what it is trying to say. The whole point of xG is painting a picture of teams' output over time. The fact is, you can be creating very little xG and bely the data by going on a winning win of quite a few games. But it will catch up with you eventually.
I remember these tables being posted last year and being dismissed as a load of shit because, despite us flying at the time, the data painted us as a very poor team. When that's the case, the team nearly always regresses to the mean when variance catches up, as we unfortunately saw.
- we are slightly worse than the league average for xG allowed.
- per match, we take fewer shots than the league average
- per match, we face more shots than the league average
- we are most the clinical team in the whole division with the best shot conversion ratio (around 6.75 shots per goal vs 8.75 league average).
All the above would suggest to me that either we are in a false position and as soon as we regress towards the mean (the defenders let in some goals or the strikers stop scoring or both) we will be sliding down the table quickly.
OR it could suggest that we have an exceptional group of strikers and defenders/keepers for this level and the midfielders need to do a better job of creating more chances / protecting the back four.
Personally I would like us to take more shots - especially from 18- 25 yards. Get players to follow up any rebounds / spilled saves. It's a bit like cricket. If you are only trying to get a batsman out by being caught behind then you are limiting your chances - if you aim at the stumps then you bring bowled and lbw into the equation.
Charlton 1-0 Sheff Wed
Oxford 2-2 Charlton
MK Dons 1-1 Charlton
Charlton 1-2 Wigan
Charlton 2-1 Crewe
Fleetwood 1.3 - 1.3 Charlton
Charlton 1.0 - 1.3 Bolton
Charlton 1.2 - 1.6 Portsmouth
Gillingham 0.6 - 1.7 Charlton
Wycombe 0.9 - 0.6 Charlton
Shows we are getting the ball into good areas to create opportunities and the tactics being deployed are allowing us to load the opposition’s penalty area when we do get forward.
Sounds about right.
Love-in for players like Washington will allow that to continue into next year too.