Football Analytics Team 'defunct' (Merged Thread) (1 Viewer)

BerksBee

Active member
Joined
3 Jan 2015
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
0
Then tell me which of the two has changed from last season, when the team was doing well, Dean Smith or the players?
The players.

The jist of your argument is that the manager should adjust his tactics and formations to suit the opposition, whilst doing so with several new players.
First of all, I'm not making any argument.

Secondly, my response to you was to clarify your misunderstanding of what Knutson was saying with regards to a comment made on here about Smith having 'streaky' periods. You felt that was inconsistent with something he'd said previously. The reverse is actually true, it's entirely consistent with Knutson's analysis of the stats, even though it's only his interpretation of them. No-one is saying he's right I don't think.

The jist of which is this: when Smith has the players available to implement the playing style he wants to play, they can be very successful, aka, end of last season with an attacking three of Jota, Vibe, Canos. When he doesn't have the players available, aka, this season and an inexperienced front three of Watkins, Maupay, Clarke, it's not proving very successful, either with goals scored or high xG chances created. Should he be adjusting his tactics/strategy to take this into consideration is the question?

This is one plausible explanation for why Smith and the teams he coaches and selects go through good periods and bad periods.

But maybe you, too, imagine that DS should be able to accommodate new personnel AND change the tactics, even the ethos, of the club, all within the space of seven League games at the start of a new season?
I don't think anyone is really suggesting or advocating any radical changes to playing style or strategy. But I do agree with Ted Knutson, that the most successful managers have the ability to fine tune and adjust according to the opposition and players available to play. Smith doesn't appear able to do this.

We do seem to be heavily dependant on the fitness and availability of our best players in terms of performance.
 
Joined
20 Nov 2004
Messages
21,957
Reaction score
24
Location
Isleworth
Over analysis kills enjoyment. :thetruth:

Can't wait to watch some blokes kicking a ball at Griffin Park, tomorrow... :hat:
 
Last edited:

paulmaddy

Member
Joined
10 Apr 2000
Messages
796
Reaction score
0
Location
Uxbridge
At risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water, is there anything in the article that would be folly to ignore?
Perhaps "stop shooting from so far out". We're having loads of shots but too many are from unlikely scoring positions.
 

Houghton Bee

Well-known member
Joined
10 Jul 2001
Messages
12,921
Reaction score
41
Location
Houghton Regis
Perhaps "stop shooting from so far out". We're having loads of shots but too many are from unlikely scoring positions.
Tough ask when 25% of our fans are schreeching 'shoot' whenever one of our players crosses the half way line with the ball lol
 

EarleyBee

Active member
Joined
25 Feb 2008
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
3
Location
Reading
The players.


First of all, I'm not making any argument.

Secondly, my response to you was to clarify your misunderstanding of what Knutson was saying with regards to a comment made on here about Smith having 'streaky' periods. You felt that was inconsistent with something he'd said previously. The reverse is actually true, it's entirely consistent with Knutson's analysis of the stats, even though it's only his interpretation of them. No-one is saying he's right I don't think.

The jist of which is this: when Smith has the players available to implement the playing style he wants to play, they can be very successful, aka, end of last season with an attacking three of Jota, Vibe, Canos. When he doesn't have the players available, aka, this season and an inexperienced front three of Watkins, Maupay, Clarke, it's not proving very successful, either with goals scored or high xG chances created. Should he be adjusting his tactics/strategy to take this into consideration is the question?

This is one plausible explanation for why Smith and the teams he coaches and selects go through good periods and bad periods.


I don't think anyone is really suggesting or advocating any radical changes to playing style or strategy. But I do agree with Ted Knutson, that the most successful managers have the ability to fine tune and adjust according to the opposition and players available to play. Smith doesn't appear able to do this.

We do seem to be heavily dependant on the fitness and availability of our best players in terms of performance.
The most successful managers have large squads of players with which to fine tune and adjust according to the opposition, if Smith wanted to make changes I am not sure who you think he is going to call apon? On other current threads many posters are bemoaning constant changes to the starting 11 as a cause of our current slump, personally it appears quite obvious that those changes are being driven by injuries and the renewed availabilty of previously injured players. IMO I can't see that conceding possesion and allowing the opposition to have more attacks against a defence prone to lapses in concentration is going to help us defend better?
 

IDontBeeLieveIt

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2013
Messages
14,722
Reaction score
0
Tough ask when 25% of our fans are schreeching 'shoot' whenever one of our players crosses the half way line with the ball lol
Heh, that's an interesting point, when you think about it.
If all is well, the fans wouldn't be shouting that (not most of them anyway), and in fact this probably a good indicator that enough good chances aren't being created without the need for a xG stats map. ;)
 

Will Bee

Member
Joined
2 Feb 2003
Messages
484
Reaction score
3
I don't fully understand the negativity towards Ted Knutson - I enjoy reading his stuff and following on Twitter he genuinely seems to be happy when we do well.

One question I'd love Ted or other stats people to look at is the degree to which Brentford get better in a given season. I have a theory (hope?) that we have some brilliant data analysts and great coaches who as the weeks go by teach our players to make better decisions while also building up more data on our opposition to put in place more effective tactical gameplans. If this is the case, we could be confident Watkins, Maupay and others will become more consistent in delivering as the season goes on due to that work in the classroom. Certainly Gray scored the majority of his goals later in the one season he was with us and I assume Hogan had a lot of time to work on the mental/xG side of his game while coming back from injury. Similarly, as the strengths and weaknesses of our opposition in the Championship become more apparent we'll hopefully be able to prep our players to take advantage of this.

I may be clutching at straws here but until we get a few wins I need something to hold on to!
 

malagakid

Active member
Joined
10 Feb 2015
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
0
I don't fully understand the negativity towards Ted Knutson - I enjoy reading his stuff and following on Twitter he genuinely seems to be happy when we do well.

One question I'd love Ted or other stats people to look at is the degree to which Brentford get better in a given season. I have a theory (hope?) that we have some brilliant data analysts and great coaches who as the weeks go by teach our players to make better decisions while also building up more data on our opposition to put in place more effective tactical gameplans. If this is the case, we could be confident Watkins, Maupay and others will become more consistent in delivering as the season goes on due to that work in the classroom. Certainly Gray scored the majority of his goals later in the one season he was with us and I assume Hogan had a lot of time to work on the mental/xG side of his game while coming back from injury. Similarly, as the strengths and weaknesses of our opposition in the Championship become more apparent we'll hopefully be able to prep our players to take advantage of this.

I may be clutching at straws here but until we get a few wins I need something to hold on to!
Me either. There are some really stupid comments on here.
 

Ealing Bee

Active member
Joined
5 Jun 2002
Messages
9,052
Reaction score
68
Location
Now Chiswick (proud to be a YIMBY)
... when Smith has the players available to implement the playing style he wants to play, they can be very successful, aka, end of last season with an attacking three of Jota, Vibe, Canos. When he doesn't have the players available, aka, this season and an inexperienced front three of Watkins, Maupay, Clarke, it's not proving very successful, either with goals scored or high xG chances created. Should he be adjusting his tactics/strategy to take this into consideration is the question?
I imagine Maupay and Watkins were signed, and Josh has been coached, in order to fit into BFC's preferred playing style.

Therefore to ask them suddenly to adapt to a different style (as well as the other 8 players) would only make things harder, not easier (imo).

Someone once said something like: "Football is a simple game, made unnecessarily complicated by idiots". (Don't mean you, Berks Bee btw)

As I see it, if you have to replace Canos, Jota and Vibe, playing with the benefit of half a season or more together, with Maupay, Watkins and Clarke, two of whom are new to the team/club, it should hardly be surprising if you struggle to kill off games you've otherwise dominated.

I don't think anyone is really suggesting or advocating any radical changes to playing style or strategy. But I do agree with Ted Knutson, that the most successful managers have the ability to fine tune and adjust according to the opposition and players available to play. Smith doesn't appear able to do this.
This is one of my bugbears. Most fans accept that young players need time to learn their trade, yet surprisingly few apply that to Managers/Head Coaches.

And if you looks at DS's CV, he is still relatively inexperienced as a Manager/Head Coach. Therefore to expect him to have the experience and nous to make even subtle changes effectively at a time when confidence is low, the personnel are new, and injuries are wreaking havoc, is unrealistic (imo). Fair enough if we were getting humped every game - you would expect (demand?) that the manager change things.
But as I see it, DS is making enough demands on his team by making (injury and transfer) imposed changes to his line-up every week, without also asking them to make significant changes to the playing style and tactics. (I say "significant changes " in the sense that they would have to be effective, even if they don't have to be "radical")

We do seem to be heavily dependant on the fitness and availability of our best players in terms of performance.
Well, yeah.

Like 90% of teams...
 

Full Metal Jacket

Active member
Joined
11 Sep 2013
Messages
3,414
Reaction score
0
https://experimental361.com/2017/09/17/scatter-graphics-championship-17-sep-2017/

Very interesting website with latest data and analytics which shows just how wasteful and, indeed, unfortunate we have been so far this season.

Well worth a read.
I think it shows how misleading this simplistic sort of analysis can be. From the article you'd think that we'd been continuously bombing the opposition goal with shots. Hardly the case in the five games I've seen! I suppose it counts as shots" those (many) efforts scarcely worthy of that description. More telling perhaps might be "shots on target" or "saves by opposition keeper". These would give a different impression I think.
 

rebus

Chin Laden
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
25,176
Reaction score
76
Location
Leytonstone / Ilford
Me either. There are some really stupid comments on here.
The issue I have with him is that he is still bitter about getting the boot from Smartodds and is doing one thing that traders and statisticians should never do, and that's being biased about the data and using it to bash someone else, in this case Dean Smith.

It's not just his latest blog post, have a look at his tweets and replies since Smith was appointed, slagging off the coaching methods etc. He doesn't mention him specifically but you know damn well who he's referring too.

Saying we're creating lots of chances and not taking them is not exactly groundbreaking stuff when you look at the league table.
 
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
18,917
Reaction score
23
Location
Berkshire
I think it shows how misleading this simplistic sort of analysis can be. From the article you'd think that we'd been continuously bombing the opposition goal with shots. Hardly the case in the five games I've seen! I suppose it counts as shots" those (many) efforts scarcely worthy of that description. More telling perhaps might be "shots on target" or "saves by opposition keeper". These would give a different impression I think.
We've taken 147 shots in 8 games, 18.34 a game with 48 on target, 6 a game.
 

jbee

Active member
Joined
22 Oct 2003
Messages
3,391
Reaction score
55
Location
Ealing
I think it shows how misleading this simplistic sort of analysis can be. From the article you'd think that we'd been continuously bombing the opposition goal with shots. Hardly the case in the five games I've seen! I suppose it counts as shots" those (many) efforts scarcely worthy of that description. More telling perhaps might be "shots on target" or "saves by opposition keeper". These would give a different impression I think.
We have been. We shoot way way more than every other side and from worse positions as is well documented in several places and certainly tallies with what I've been seeing. Yet somehow some of our fans still think the problem is 'trying to walk it in'. Baffling.
 

AB

Well-known member
Joined
12 Apr 2000
Messages
10,258
Reaction score
167
Location
'Sunny' Leeds
I think it shows how misleading this simplistic sort of analysis can be. From the article you'd think that we'd been continuously bombing the opposition goal with shots. Hardly the case in the five games I've seen! I suppose it counts as shots" those (many) efforts scarcely worthy of that description. More telling perhaps might be "shots on target" or "saves by opposition keeper". These would give a different impression I think.
The final chart with expected goals scored/conceded does that and places us in the bottom right quadrant. Knutson's analysis shows what we already know in that we are taking too many shots from distance. There's just a small tweak in training and experience needed to get us moving in the right direction. Reports seem to be that decision making could be improved so that we pass to a player in the box who is better placed when at the moment we're taking a shot that's difficult to score from. That should start to happen and the sheer volume of attacking effort suggests that when it does we'll score lots. In itself that'll reduce the pressure defensively where we've been effective in limiting opposition chances but have suffered in our results by having more slender leads than we could have done had we made slightly better choices about when to shoot.
 
Joined
20 Nov 2004
Messages
21,957
Reaction score
24
Location
Isleworth
We have been. We shoot way way more than every other side and from worse positions as is well documented in several places and certainly tallies with what I've been seeing. Yet somehow some of our fans still think the problem is 'trying to walk it in'. Baffling.
Clutching at straws, trying to explain our slow start. :shrug:
 

malagakid

Active member
Joined
10 Feb 2015
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
0
I personally disagree with the long range shot comments, including Knutson's. Long range shots quite often create opportunities, rebounds, corners etc.. We used to shoot a lot from outside the box with Warburton and Gray was always ready for a rebound
 
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
18,917
Reaction score
23
Location
Berkshire
I personally disagree with the long range shot comments, including Knutson's. Long range shots quite often create opportunities, rebounds, corners etc.. We used to shoot a lot from outside the box with Warburton and Gray was always ready for a rebound
Can't remember the percentage, I think it was 3% of shots outside the box result in goals ( might have been last season in the prem)
 

Guildford Bee

Well-known member
Joined
16 May 2000
Messages
12,645
Reaction score
108
Location
Epsom, Surrey
Yet we've already scored three (Sawyers against Wimbledon, Maupay against Forest, Yennaris against Wednesday) goals from outside the box this season. And hit the woodwork on at least three (Watkins V Forest, Yennaris V Ipswich, Flo V ???) other occasions.
 

IDontBeeLieveIt

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2013
Messages
14,722
Reaction score
0
I personally disagree with the long range shot comments, including Knutson's. Long range shots quite often create opportunities, rebounds, corners etc.. We used to shoot a lot from outside the box with Warburton and Gray was always ready for a rebound
There's nothing wrong with some long range shots so I agree in that regard (an example of simplistic stats being misleading - if they don't account for this)

Problem is
- when you're resorting to mostly poor quality shots because you've not created high quality chances
- when those long range shots aren't really particularly threatening (less chance of a goal or the other things you mention)

Let's face it, there are long shots we sit watching as a fan thinking "this has a high chance of going in", and others where we all know it's going into row Z or not going to worry the keeper. This could be because of the position, because of the player, because of how much time they have to strike it / someone closing down or not, whether on their strong foot, etc etc.

All long shots are not equal.

I think Knutsons comments are fair generally. I think we've created enough to have a few more points on the board and I don't think he disputes this. I don't think we've hammered every team because I've watched all the matches (bar two now) and that's simply not been the case.
 

Mr Tree

Jack of all trades, master of none
Joined
28 Apr 2000
Messages
34,499
Reaction score
46
Location
Czech Republic
Yet we've already scored three (Sawyers against Wimbledon, Maupay against Forest, Yennaris against Wednesday) goals from outside the box this season. And hit the woodwork on at least three (Watkins V Forest, Yennaris V Ipswich, Flo V ???) other occasions.
Flo v Forest i think. also Maupay vs Sheff Wed.
 
Joined
23 May 2000
Messages
17,403
Reaction score
52
Yennaris hit bar at Sheffield United

Flo and Watkins hit post v Forest

Dalsgaard hit post v Bristol City

Yennaris hit bar v Ipswich

Jota hit post v Wolves

Maupay hit post v Sheffield Wed
 
Joined
11 Jun 2005
Messages
18,917
Reaction score
23
Location
Berkshire
Goal Scorer: Ollie Watkins (2 Goals)
Top Assists: Jota (3 Assists)
Highest Pass Accuracy: Kamohelo Mokotjo (90% Pass Accuracy with 221 Comp. Passes)
Highest Shot Accuracy: Josh Clarke (80% Shot Accuracy with a Total 8 Shots)
Most Completed Passes: Romaine Sawyers (337 Completed Passes with an 86% Pass Accuracy)
Most Chances Created: Romaine Sawyers (19 Chances Created: 0 Assists and 19 Key Passes)
Most Cards: Neal Maupay (2 Yellow Cards and 0 Red Cards)
 

BerksBee

Active member
Joined
3 Jan 2015
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
0
The most successful managers have large squads of players with which to fine tune and adjust according to the opposition, if Smith wanted to make changes I am not sure who you think he is going to call apon?
Indeed. One of our distinct disadvantages compared to the bigger, wealthier clubs in the division is the relative size of our squad of players—ours is a lot smaller than those of the bigger wealthier clubs who are able to withstand injuries to key players far better than we can. But who says the changes have to be player based? He also has the option of changing tactics, strategy and shape—he doesn't have to play exactly the same way regardless of the players he has available. This is precisely what Knutson is referring to.

On other current threads many posters are bemoaning constant changes to the starting 11 as a cause of our current slump, personally it appears quite obvious that those changes are being driven by injuries and the renewed availabilty of previously injured players.
Yes, indeed, many of us feel that way, but again, it self re-enforces the point above—if Smith doesn't have the players available that he needs to play in the way he wants to, should he continue to try and play in that way or should he adjust his tactics according to the players he does have available?

But beyond changes due to injuries, he still doesn't seem to know what his preferred staring XI is. Who's his preferred CB pairing? Is it Bjelland and Egan or is it Barbet and Egan? Likewise for the midfield three, is it Yennaris, Sawyers, Woods or is it Maceachran, Motojko, Sawyers? Or maybe Motojko, Yennaris, Woods? Which is it? These are not enforced injury changes, but they seem to change on a game to game basis.

IMO I can't see that conceding possesion and allowing the opposition to have more attacks against a defence prone to lapses in concentration is going to help us defend better?
It's important to understand how and why we're conceding goals due to our style of play. Playing expansive, possession based, attacking football commits a lot of bodies forward in possession, the starting shape of 4-3-3 effectively changes to 2-1-2-5 in attack and if you lose the ball in that shape, you're very susceptible to counter-attack both through the middle and down the flanks with only the 2 CB's and the DM back in our half. That's fine if the possession and attacking play is producing the goals it should, but it isn't, and we're still conceding them. So, carry on playing that way or change shape to a similar 4-2-3-1 and maintain a more defensive shape going forwards and play more counter-attacking? It doesn't produce as many goals, but it doesn't concede as many either, until the players we need to implement 4-3-3 successfully can come back into the side?
 

The Pipe

Active member
Joined
7 Feb 2005
Messages
9,560
Reaction score
51
Location
churchinford Devon
Please don't just assume: the comment " many of us" could just be you and one other, you are certainly not speaking for me !!
 

malagakid

Active member
Joined
10 Feb 2015
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
0
Please don't just assume: the comment " many of us" could just be you and one other, you are certainly not speaking for me !!
Pointless antagonistic post Pipe, very disappointing. I don't agree with all but many definitely will agree with BerksBee so please give it a break.
 
OP
Banana

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
70,115
Reaction score
545
Location
London
Pointless antagonistic post Pipe, very disappointing. I don't agree with all but many definitely will agree with BerksBee so please give it a break.
I don't understand when people think they are a spokesman for others and use "many of us". It should be reserved for MPs "many of my constituents agree with me that...."
 

malagakid

Active member
Joined
10 Feb 2015
Messages
3,416
Reaction score
0
I don't understand when people think they are a spokesman for others and use "many of us". It should be reserved for MPs "many of my constituents agree with me that...."
I don't mind tbh but kin Pipe could've been a little more polite :)
 

BerksBee

Active member
Joined
3 Jan 2015
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
0
I don't understand when people think they are a spokesman for others and use "many of us".
I simply echoed what the previous poster had said, what's the problem?

On other current threads many posters are bemoaning constant changes to the starting 11 as a cause of our current slump...
Yes, indeed, many of us feel that way...
And why do people feel the need to point out they're not included, and what exactly is that adding to the discussion?
 
OP
Banana

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
70,115
Reaction score
545
Location
London
I simply echoed what the previous poster had said, what's the problem?
"Two of us" is not "many of us". It's not hard, just post your own views. It's like when Fanzines say "on behalf of the fans I'd like to welcome you"....NO. **** OFF!
 

BerksBee

Active member
Joined
3 Jan 2015
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
0
"Two of us" is not "many of us". It's not hard, just post your own views.
Where are you getting the two from? On other threads there were quite a number of people pointing at 'consistency of selection' as being one of the issues. That's not 'two people'. But for some reason I can't find the 'where's it all gone wrong' thread that you started, where those comments were made.
 
OP
Banana

Banana

Occasionally incorrect
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
70,115
Reaction score
545
Location
London
Where are you getting the two from? On other threads there were quite a number of people pointing at 'consistency of selection' as being one of the issues. That's not 'two people'. But for some reason I can't find the 'where's it all gone wrong' thread that you started, where those comments were made.
How many is it?
 

BerksBee

Active member
Joined
3 Jan 2015
Messages
3,168
Reaction score
0
Last edited:

GlasgowBee

Knows **** all about anything
Joined
12 Apr 2000
Messages
5,863
Reaction score
6
Location
Gartham Lock (People's Republic of)
The Ignorance Project set up by Hans Rosling on www.gapminder.org notes the biases and errors that arise from using such phrases as "many".

Daniel Kahnemann and Dan Ariely both write very informative andinteresting books on the physiological cause and psychological impact of such bias.

Think like our owner, nor the actual count or a just say it's your own view.
 

jlove

Well-known member
Joined
17 Dec 2002
Messages
32,320
Reaction score
133
Location
Vaison-la-Romaine
It's sort-of a posting protocol discussion but, similarly, the "it's a well known fact" also conveys a lack of facts, like "they" without identifying who they are. Of passing interest is that it's a well-known fact that MB asks his employees to read the relevant chapters in Daniel Kahnemann's Thinking, Fast and Slow before they join.
 

Downbeat Bee

Well-known member
Joined
2 Jan 2003
Messages
10,189
Reaction score
10
Location
The Wild West
I was a bit taken aback when at the start of the season (Sheff U away one I think) he was adamant McEachran and Mokotjo were a better bet in midfield than Woods. I presume they were signings he identified. We politely disagreed.
 

rebus

Chin Laden
Joined
7 Apr 2000
Messages
25,176
Reaction score
76
Location
Leytonstone / Ilford
I was a bit taken aback when at the start of the season (Sheff U away one I think) he was adamant McEachran and Mokotjo were a better bet in midfield than Woods. I presume they were signings he identified. We politely disagreed.
That just shows his conscious bias towards his own signings, most of whom turned out to be total turkeys. He’s a complete fraud.
 

Downbeat Bee

Well-known member
Joined
2 Jan 2003
Messages
10,189
Reaction score
10
Location
The Wild West
That just shows his conscious bias towards his own signings, most of whom turned out to be total turkeys. He’s a complete fraud.
I remember thinking 'if you think McEachran is more effective than Woods your stats don't work as well as my eyes' (and I say that as someone who gets picked on by bats for my eyesight).

Who else were identified by him? Gogia? Kerschbaumer? Not Proschwitz?
 

hanworthbee

Well-known member
Joined
13 Jun 2005
Messages
27,186
Reaction score
23
Location
Ashford
He also believes we don't utilise the long throw well enough....I think we did make some poor signings when he was around
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom