Stats Comparison - The Big 4 in England

redspider

I just looked at some of the stats provided by Optastat/Sky of the "Big 4" (Liverpool, Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea) in England and did a comparison.

See the two tables attached in image format.

The 2nd table normalizes some figures to take into account the differences in games played.

Stats, damn stats and lies, as the saying goes, and I am the first to put holes in arguments made with statistics. However, there are conclusions that can be drawn from these measurements, and which back up what is seen on the pitch week-in and week-out.

Liverpool have the most shots per game at 13.8.
Liverpool have the most shots per game on target at 5.94.
However, Liverpool have the lowest conversion of shots to goals, at 10%.

This shows that Liverpool's midfield etc are creating chances but are not putting them away. In fact, Chelsea and Man U have a 60% better conversion rate at 16% and Liverpool's is one of the lowest in the top-flight. Liverpool observers will have seen this with numerous misses by Crouch, Morientes and Cisse. For those fans that think that the strikeforce is ok, having one of the worst in the top-flight is well below what Liverpool's target should be and is holding them back.

Arsenal made 40% more short passes than Liverpool, so the adage that Arsenal will try to pass it through you is of course correct. Not a surprise.

Liverpool however do the most long passes, no doubt due to the presence of Alonso and Gerrard who are exponents of such skills but also due to Crouch who acts as the perfect target for such passing from defenders.

Chelsea and Arsenal are the best at pass completion, well the latter no doubt supported by the amount of short passes they do.

Man U do nearly twice as much crossing (27 per game) as Arsenal (15 per game) !! When was the last time you saw Henry run down the left wing to the by-line and cross the ball in? I have never seen it!

Liverpool are the most accurate crossers, barely.

Chelsea tackle the least. Hard to believe with their defensive line-up and with Makelele.

Liverpool are the most effective tacklers (24 per game), so this is a great sign of team contribution from the likes of Alonso, Hamann when playing, the defenders and Sissoko and Traore!
Man U are the best at blocking, clearing, intercepting

Arsenal foul the most. No doubt Wenger will claim that its the refs, but Wenger allows dirty play to exist in his team so he has no one to blame but himself. Arsenal get the most yellow cards, barely.

Liverpool foul the least ....

What are your thoughts?

redspider

mike65

While I like stats, ultimatly I don't care who many goals are scored just so long as fewer are conceeded and I certainly don't give a fig who scores them. Neither does Rafa and thats as it should be.

I'm not suprised Pool have the most shots at goal ,every game the opponents goalie gets in some exellent practice! Sometimes I think Liverpool shoot to often as it allows the keeper the warm up nicely whereas as Reina must worry about being caught cold some matches.

Mike.

redspider

There seems to be little interest in the stats I posted on this forum. Its funny how people are very interested in one football measurement such as goals in a game (as in a 2-1 scoreline for example), yet seem to see the other types of measurements as "just stats".

I think in Liverpool's case there is clearly a case of poor finishing and that is also seen perhaps in many goalie saves, as many of the shots are too close to the keeper to be goals.

All of the forwards are guilty of this mis-firing, Morientes, Cisse and Crouch and take your pick as to who is worse. But for me, they are all below the standard that a team like Liverpool is aiming for.

And the stats back this up!

redspider

Dont be at yourself

Exactly, they're telling us what is already plainly obvious. As such, not much scope for discussion.

redspider

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Exactly, they're telling us what is already plainly obvious. As such, not much scope for discussion.

Except that many people have opinions/perceptions that are not backed up by the stats, such as:

Man U are the most attacking team
Man U are the most adventurous
Chelsea are the best tacklers
Chelsea are a dirty team
Crouch is doing ok, if he got the supply
etc
etc

No individual can watch the full 90 mins in detail of all matches so at best we all have perceptions and stats can help to fill in the gaps.

But if stats tell us what is obvious, we all would just look at the stats and not discuss anything .....

redspider

therecklessone

Got a link to your source?

Wouldn't mind seeing the stats for those of us who live off the scraps from the table.

redspider

therecklessone wrote:

Got a link to your source? Wouldn't mind seeing the stats for those of us who live off the scraps from the table.

If you check the Preview page for a fixture on the Skysports website, it will list the stats for each team at the end. eg:

http://home.skysports.com/list.asp?hlid=349418&cpid=8

Sky dont normalise the stats on a per game basis, so watch out for that.

redspider

therecklessone

Ta.

Davei141

redspider wrote:

Except that many people have opinions/perceptions that are not backed up by the stats, such as:

Crouch is doing ok, if he got the supply

:rolleyes:

His true agenda is revealed.

Pigman II

redspider wrote:

There seems to be little interest in the stats I posted on this forum.

Actually I'm very interested in stats (in fact i'm even doing a degree in statistics atm) and no offence to you but I just don't think you present your info in a very interesting or relevant way. You seem to revel in the numbers and frequently write long disections about them but imho anyway you don't seem to understand how they came about or what they even mean.

You can't just simply say 'Liverpool have had most shots on goal but don't have the corresponding goal tally so it must be down to poor finishing/strikers' without asking where/when and how these attempts came about.

I don't watch many of their games but what if (for example) a team are under orders to always shoot from 25+ yards at every opportunity and have very accurate strikers of a ball from midfield then therefore they are of course going to have 'more shots' and 'more shots on target' BUT consequently very few of these attempts (by their very nature) are going to result in goals.

Or another way of looking at it is, what if you're already winning 2-0 after 30 minutes (like a lot of the best sides do) then take your foot off the gas for the remaining 60. That will affect your goal attempt + on target ratios too.

The reason people here are only interested in the statistic of 'goals' is because they are the only stat that really matters in this game. Everything else is just window dressing.

Chucky the tree

redspider wrote:

There seems to be little interest in the stats I posted on this forum. Its funny how people are very interested in one football measurement such as goals in a game (as in a 2-1 scoreline for example), yet seem to see the other types of measurements as "just stats".

this has to be a joke? You wonder why people care about a scoreline, yet dont care how many short passes there team has made? riiiiiiiiiight.

redspider wrote:

I think in Liverpool's case there is clearly a case of poor finishing and that is also seen perhaps in many goalie saves, as many of the shots are too close to the keeper to be goals.

All of the forwards are guilty of this mis-firing, Morientes, Cisse and Crouch and take your pick as to who is worse. But for me, they are all below the standard that a team like Liverpool is aiming for.

And the stats back this up!

redspider

Can you dig up cisse,morientes and crouches attempts on goal compared to other strikers from the top teams? that might make it more accurate, but not really.

Crouch - 6 goals in 8 games is the only stat i care about, how excactly is he mis-firing? and how is that not good enough for liverpool?

redspider

Davei141 wrote:

His true agenda is revealed. (re: Crouch)

No, that wasnt the agenda I wanted to raise. I didnt want to raise or start anything. I guess its pointless at times laying out some stats and seeing if a discussion ensues. I didnt even want to get involved in a discussion as I just dont have the time for it and thought that others might start discussing something of interest.

redspider

redspider

Pigman II wrote:

Actually I'm very interested in stats (in fact i'm even doing a degree in statistics atm) and no offence to you but I just don't think you present your info in a very interesting or relevant way. You seem to revel in the numbers and frequently write long disections about them but imho anyway you don't seem to understand how they came about or what they even mean.

You can't just simply say 'Liverpool have had most shots on goal but don't have the corresponding goal tally so it must be down to poor finishing/strikers' without asking where/when and how these attempts came about.

I don't watch many of their games but what if (for example) a team are under orders to always shoot from 25+ yards at every opportunity and have very accurate strikers of a ball from midfield then therefore they are of course going to have 'more shots' and 'more shots on target' BUT consequently very few of these attempts (by their very nature) are going to result in goals.

Or another way of looking at it is, what if you're already winning 2-0 after 30 minutes (like a lot of the best sides do) then take your foot off the gas for the remaining 60. That will affect your goal attempt + on target ratios too.

The reason people here are only interested in the statistic of 'goals' is because they are the only stat that really matters in this game. Everything else is just window dressing.

Of course I understand how the numbers come about. As I said I am the first to put holes in stats if they are mis-quoted in arguments to support a point. You say that goals are the only stat that matter. Well, in the league the only measurement that matters is not goals but points. It doesnt matter if you win 1-0, 2-0 or 10-0, a team will get the same points.

Its true that if a team was under instructions to shoot from wherever they they could put up their shots-on-goal and attempts value. Its also true that teams once they go ahead can sit back and attack less. So these are factors and the stats need to be balanced to keep these factors, if they did apply, in mind. You could of course factor in scores as they affect the stats, but I dont have access to that data.

> I don't watch many of their games
I do and its interesting to see what statistics they have produced.

I would lke to see better stats, such as "chances that should have been scored". The probem with this one is that its very subjective. Football is a chaotic sport and scores are rare, in comparison to most sports such as say Basketball, Tennis, Olympic Handball, GAA, etc.

You can be the best team on the park, as perhaps backed up by the stats, yet you can easily lose. So even though 1-0 may be to some the only stat that matters and the three points, for managers and players alike, its not.

redspider

redspider

Chucky the tree wrote:

this has to be a joke? You wonder why people care about a scoreline, yet dont care how many short passes there team has made? riiiiiiiiiight.

You're picking out just one measurement. The point was that many people focus on the result only, and will follow-on that the winners were better than the losers, the losers played poorly, the winners played good, etc, etc. Whereas in reality on the pitch thats not what happens at all.

Chucky the tree wrote:

Can you dig up cisse,morientes and crouches attempts on goal compared to other strikers from the top teams? that might make it more accurate, but not really. Crouch - 6 goals in 8 games is the only stat i care about, how excactly is he mis-firing? and how is that not good enough for liverpool?

No, I havent researched those numbers, but have you? Maybe you can dig them up?

So, the only stat you care about is Crouch's 6 goals in 8 games. What about all the other games when he didnt score? Is he either brilliant or absolute crap to you? Is he "off" and then "on"?

Football isnt like that. Players play more rounded roles than just scoring, its a team game. Crouch's team effectiveness has been discussed.

> how excactly is he mis-firing?

By all the chances that he has missed. Have you not seen him miss any? Hmmm ....


Anyway, as I said above, I wasnt aiming to have major discussions myself on any of the stats raised. I just thought it would generate some discussion but it seems it doesnt. Thats ok.

Most posters here would seem to be interested in such mind-blowing and knowledge-heavy inputs as:

"My team scored, wa-hay. Brilliant!"

That is primary school yard material.

redspider

colster

redspider wrote:

Liverpool have the most shots per game at 13.8.
Liverpool have the most shots per game on target at 5.94.
However, Liverpool have the lowest conversion of shots to goals, at 10%.

This shows that Liverpool's midfield etc are creating chances but are not putting them away. In fact, Chelsea and Man U have a 60% better conversion rate at 16% and Liverpool's is one of the lowest in the top-flight. Liverpool observers will have seen this with numerous misses by Crouch, Morientes and Cisse. For those fans that think that the strikeforce is ok, having one of the worst in the top-flight is well below what Liverpool's target should be and is holding them back.

The stat that Liverpool have more shots (+ on target) could mean that they shoot a lot from long range but are pretty accurate.

redspider wrote:

Chelsea tackle the least. Hard to believe with their defensive line-up and with Makelele.

Maybe it's because they have more possession of the ball so don't need to tackle as much.

Pigman II

redspider wrote:

You say that goals are the only stat that matter. Well, in the league the only measurement that matters is not goals but points. It doesnt matter if you win 1-0, 2-0 or 10-0, a team will get the same points.

Points are built on results. Results are built on goals. Goals are the fundamental unit of this game. By comparison (as it stands) you get absolutely nothing for attempts on goal, shots on target, corners won, crosses made, passes completed etc etc etc. That is why I said goal are the only important stat. Everything you see on that league table is a derivation of them and nothing else.

You can be the best team on the park, as perhaps backed up by the stats, yet you can easily lose. So even though 1-0 may be to some the only stat that matters and the three points, for managers and players alike, its not.

That is essentially why football is the greatest game going. On any given day the better side can lose. However it is in my experience anyway that over the fullness of time that teams generally do achieve the position deserving of them (at least that is so in a league) so it is not imho really necessary to go into too much investigation as to what went on in this or that particular game.