Formation Change

[Moraiwe]

Didn't look like scoring?  So Kisnorbo just really wanted to hug someone?

[jw1739]

4 minutes ago, loriente said:

I don't understand this whole 'didn't look like conceding' train of thought. Please see opportunities to Abbas, Holosko who would've been clean through if not for Kisnorbo's cynical foul, whoever it was that hit the upright. Sydney had more shots than us. Mooy, Novillo and Bruno being clinical is what won us this game.

We got demolished for the entirety of the first half because our midfield was totally lost at sea and we had no width. Sydney were playing a 5-3-2/3-5-2 with makeshift wingbacks. When we played 3-5-2 we were destroyed constantly down the wings, yet JVS decides this must-win game is a good opportunity to try an untried and extremely narrow formation.

JVS and the team deserve criticism for the performance. Yes the result is important, and there was a time where I would kill for a 3-0 win even if we performed poorly. Going forward, these performances will not be enough. If we play like we did in the first half against Adelaide, we will find ourselves 3-0 down at half time. 

I don't understand this whole 'performance' train of thought. Well, actually I do, but I'm not aware of any competition in the world where 'performance' plays any part in the result of the match. At the end of the day the result is more than 'important' - it's the only thing that counts. And we got it - 3-0. The next match is the next match. Move on.

[loriente]

2 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I don't understand this whole 'performance' train of thought. Well, actually I do, but I'm not aware of any competition in the world where 'performance' plays any part in the result of the match. At the end of the day the result is more than 'important' - it's the only thing that counts. And we got it - 3-0. The next match is the next match. Move on.

When we lose next week, people won't be talking about the result, they will be talking about how the performance led to the result. And I will be talking about how we haven't played well against a half decent side since January.

We can't rely on Bruno, Mooy and Harry pulling rabbits out of the hat for the rest of the season. Not with 6 point games against Adelaide and Brisbane.

[n i k o]

47 minutes ago, loriente said:

I don't understand this whole 'didn't look like conceding' train of thought. Please see opportunities to Abbas, Holosko who would've been clean through if not for Kisnorbo's cynical foul, whoever it was that hit the upright. Sydney had more shots than us. Mooy, Novillo and Bruno being clinical is what won us this game.

We got demolished for the entirety of the first half because our midfield was totally lost at sea and we had no width. Sydney were playing a 5-3-2/3-5-2 with makeshift wingbacks. When we played 3-5-2 we were destroyed constantly down the wings, yet JVS decides this must-win game is a good opportunity to try an untried and extremely narrow formation.

JVS and the team deserve criticism for the performance. Yes the result is important, and there was a time where I would kill for a 3-0 win even if we performed poorly. Going forward, these performances will not be enough. If we play like we did in the first half against Adelaide, we will find ourselves 3-0 down at half time. 

Holosko was never going to be clean through to goal because Wilkinson had him easily covered. The opportunities they did have were mere half chances, their best being a header that glanced off the sidebar and Abbas shot from inside the penalty box. 

I agree somewhat with your second paragraph. Overall looking at the number of players they had out for this game questions should be asked as to why they dominated possession so much. What concerns me most isn't our formation setup though (while still an area of debate)  it's the mistakes we make in possession. Part of this is just simple errors such as the first touch. The other is what appears to be simply not reading the play which effects th correct movements off the ball. 

Agree with your last point. Our performance against Adelaide, being away, will have to be better. 

Edited March 7, 2016 by n i k o

[loriente]

16 minutes ago, n i k o said:

Holosko was never going to be clean through to goal because Wilkinson had him easily covered. The opportunities they did have were mere half chances, their best being a header that glanced off the sidebar and Abbas shot from inside the penalty box. 

I agree somewhat with your second paragraph. Overall looking at the number of players they had out for this game questions should be asked as to why they dominated possession so much. What concerns me most isn't our formation setup though (while still an area of debate)  it's the mistakes we make in possession. Part of this is just simple errors such as the first touch. The other is what appears to be simply not reading the play which effects th correct movements off the ball. 

Agree with your last point. Our performance against Adelaide, being away, will have to be better. 

If Abbas' opportunity had fallen to a Fornaroli or even a David Carney, it would've been buried. Watch the replay, it was not a 'half chance'.

Even with Wilkinson to cover, I would've given Holosko a very decent chance of burying it.

If Hoole wasn't a total spastic with no end product, they probably would've had a couple more decent chances.

Simple errors were because players were looking up to find an outlet and seeing a wall of sky blue. We pretty much always have a wide outlet when playing 4-3-3 or 3-5-2, but on Saturday they would look up, see no one and panic. The 4-4-2 could possibly work, but it was the wrong tactic for the night and there is no doubt the team wasn't prepared enough to make it work properly.

[playmaker]

There is such an obsession with having possession on this forum as it is the only way to win a game. It is not the only tactic that wins games as has been the case with many great clubs around the world. Look at Leicester city at the moment with 40.9% average possession this season. So if you rate them by possession they would be 18th.

I would rather give up possession ( if that's what the stats show) and win 3 0 then play possession with a press and get found out on the counter like we have been doing prior.

Doesn't  matter which way you look at it, history has shown a 4 1 2 1 2 or 4 2 2 2 is solid. Did we play it perfectly? No, but the structure in itself is solid as seen by the lack of real penetration they had.

So after our debacle against Wellington  JVS changed to a more balanced structure with good defensive and offensive potential and we won 3 0. 

On top of that we have 4 new starting players that are getting a better understanding of the team chemistry which will be reflected by less passing errors and better created opportunities at both ends of the pitch.

So will it work for every game? Well maybe not, but that's where JVS is probably starting to manage percentages and balance rather than one structure and tactic fits all. Also his impact subs of Zullo and Fitzgerald was brilliant, where the inclusion of pace out wide tore them bits.

Regardless of SFC's player stock on the day, we smashed them 3 0, and that is a thrashing in anyone's book.

 

[wombegongal]

6 hours ago, bt50 said:

Haha no offence, but that is the quintessential Melbourne Football quote.

Changed to a 4-4-2, won 3-0, deduces that the system doesn't work

Pretty much sums this forum up

Don't forget 'next week is the biggest game of our history' and 'if we don't win we can forget insert statement about contending or winning some game with no direct relationship to the game about to be played'. Yep another day on the Melbourne City forums.

[Luke]

fuck this we're a bunch of pea hearts. we've got a shocking run home whilst perth sydney and victory have a very favorable ones. I wont be shocked to miss the 6 completely 

Edited March 7, 2016 by Luke

[kingofhearts]

8 hours ago, loriente said:

 

We can't rely on Bruno, Mooy and Harry pulling rabbits out of the hat for the rest of the season. Not with 6 point games against Adelaide and Brisbane.

What is wrong with relying on those three players every now and again to win us a game? We won't win a championship relying on just those three players don't get me wrong but you're not going to win every game playing beautiful flawless football.

[playmaker]

So I ended up playing with some numbers and got some interesting data.

Had a look at the games that had a result (win or loss) over the last 10 games and the possession stats.

10 games

3 losses in which we averaged 55.7% possession

4 wins in which we averaged 48.7% possession

Last week's 3 0 win to SFC we only had 39.3% of possession

Interesting too was that we played WSW twice, In our 4-3 loss we had 56% possession and in our 3-2 win we had 47.8% possession

 

Interesting also is the total A league stats compared to other leagues this season, in an article written in the UK telegraph

In the Premier league the team with more possession wins 55.3% of games

In the Champions league the team with more possession wins 66.7% of games

In the A league (105 matches this season), the team with more possession wins 43% of games, that's right, they lose 57% of games

and on-top of that, the team that completes the most passes in the oppositions final 3rd (proper passing not knock around), loses 59% of games. So therefore it is much better to boot the crap out of the ball out of defense than try to pass it out.

So if we look at Leicester City this season, we see that they are the exception to the possession = winning stats we see in the Premier league yet they are the most successful team at the moment, so how? They only have 44.5% possession (ranked 18th) compared to Arsenal at 55.9%, so why are they giving up possession and winning? The answer can be seen in the A league stats where the quality of players skills is far less that lets say the Champions League, which leads to the leading cause of losses being errors in possession.

So where we see in the Champions league the players in possession make far less errors and teams have a greater chance of winning when their possession % is high,  the opposite is true in the A League.  The same could be said for Leicester City where Ranieri acknowledge the lack of individual talent/skill compared to lets say Arsenal or Man City, so he mastered a tactical solution to the problem:

1. Give up Possession

2. Force the forward press

3. Apply maximum pressure on the opposition in possession (Well drilled and disciplined back 8 with no real stand out)

4. Force the error 

5. Score on the quick counter. (through  Mahrez and Vardy with 32 goals and 13 assists between them)

The result is 2 losses and 47 goals for the season.

 

A good lesson for A league teams I reckon.

Anyway found it interesting and thought I would share.

 

 

 

[loriente]

Hi Playmaker,

Thankyou for your thorough analysis.

Unfortunately, your logic that if you don't win, you lose, is incorrect.

Also, nobody ever inferred that possession = performance. You can have a good performance without the majority of the possession. Saturday was not an example of this.

If you require any further information regarding 'draws', please let me know.

Kind regards,

Loriente

[jw1739]

9 minutes ago, loriente said:

Hi Playmaker,

Thankyou for your thorough analysis.

Unfortunately, your logic that if you don't win, you lose, is incorrect.

Also, nobody ever inferred that possession = performance. You can have a good performance without the majority of the possession. Saturday was not an example of this.

If you require any further information regarding 'draws', please let me know.

Kind regards,

Loriente

I don't see that Playmaker mentioned this ephemeral parameter you call "performance" once in his analysis. He found a possible negative correlation between possession and winning in the A-League, based on a relatively small number of matches. He doesn't claim that the analysis is rigorous, and I agree with him that his results are certainly food for thought.

Incidentally, I do wish someone would define what this parameter they call "performance" actually is. My own understanding of it is that it's some sort of qualitative assessment of the result versus what you thought should happen. But the only measure that actually counts in the result is the number of goals as deemed by the referee. Nothing else.

[n i k o]

On 7 March 2016 at 1:37 PM, loriente said:

If Abbas' opportunity had fallen to a Fornaroli or even a David Carney, it would've been buried. Watch the replay, it was not a 'half chance'.

Even with Wilkinson to cover, I would've given Holosko a very decent chance of burying it.

If Hoole wasn't a total spastic with no end product, they probably would've had a couple more decent chances.

Simple errors were because players were looking up to find an outlet and seeing a wall of sky blue. We pretty much always have a wide outlet when playing 4-3-3 or 3-5-2, but on Saturday they would look up, see no one and panic. The 4-4-2 could possibly work, but it was the wrong tactic for the night and there is no doubt the team wasn't prepared enough to make it work properly.

There are a couple of 'if's' in your post. I'd agree with you that Abbas' chance was more than a half chance but it's not our problem what the opposition can't do. 

@playmaker I mention possession in a game like this because it's an important aspect to our image as a club, according to the club and CFG anyway. Personally it's not a big priority for me to see the team with a higher possession. 

[loriente]

3 minutes ago, jw1739 said:

I don't see that Playmaker mentioned this ephemeral parameter you call "performance" once in his analysis. He found a possible negative correlation between possession and winning in the A-League, based on a relatively small number of matches. He doesn't claim that the analysis is rigorous, and I agree with him that his results are certainly food for thought.

Incidentally, I do wish someone would define what this parameter they call "performance" actually is. My own understanding of it is that it's some sort of qualitative assessment of the result versus what you thought should happen. But the only measure that actually counts in the result is the number of goals as deemed by the referee. Nothing else.

We were discussing performance v results and he started talking about an 'obsession with possession' out of the blue.

Then his analysis didn't find a negative correlation at all! Add draws to the analysis and then we can talk. Premier League and Champions League stats are skewed by dominant teams; A League has a level playing field (a salary cap). I think you'll find that teams playing possession football have been historically successful in the A League for the past 5 years. Brisbane, Adelaide and Victory to name a few. The exception being WSW who were clinical on the counter for a couple years before they got figured out. Then Poppa moved them to an attacking, passing, possession based game when he found out his original style wasnt sustainable.

[Jovan]

I'm not bent up on any tactic/philosophy as long as its executed effectively. 

Possession in itself is boring and direct style is also ugly to watch. If they are done well then I'm all for it.

Our problem is we don't do anything well enough consistently enough to make an argument either way.

[playmaker]

1 hour ago, playmaker said:

In the A league (105 matches this season), the team with more possession wins 43% of games, that's right, they lose 57% of games

I think this is a significant stat seeing its all of the 2015/16 season, which by the way i didn't really expect.

The aim of my post wasn't to prove anything really, it was just to share my own investigation into the relationship between possession and success so I just threw the numbers up and analysis I read from various sources.

I also had a look at a similar scenario in the 2004 Euros with Greece's success with their underwhelming team on paper compared to Portugal. Again possession was Greece 42% and Portugal 58%. Similar game style to Leicester too.

Ranieri's philosophy is quite interesting and his tactical application as a result of his philosophy of 'possession errors loses games' has really turned this EPL's modern philosophy of 'possession wins games' on its head.

Anyway i will have a look at other leagues and post up the results and observations if you want.

 

 

 

[loriente]

35 minutes ago, playmaker said:

I think this is a significant stat seeing its all of the 2015/16 season, which by the way i didn't really expect.

You didn't expect it because it's not true!

I guess draws only exist when there is an exact 50/50 split of possession?

[playmaker]

9 minutes ago, loriente said:

You didn't expect it because it's not true!

I guess draws only exist when there is an exact 50/50 split of possession?

The stats are measuring when there is a result as most teams aren't really interested in playing for a draw in the A league until the last few rounds at least.

Anyway, I think error minimisation philosophy is an interesting one, as initially it seems that team with higher skilled and less error prone players tend to win games with possession and team in a lower skilled league tend to win with less possession. Thats what the numbers say anyway. I will look into this further, do the same if you like' it will be an interesting exercise.

[loriente]

7 minutes ago, playmaker said:

Anyway, I think error minimisation philosophy is an interesting one, as initially it seems that team with higher skilled and less error prone players tend to win games with possession and team in a lower skilled league tend to win with less possession. Thats what the numbers say anyway. I will look into this further, do the same if you like' it will be an interesting exercise.

I actually agree with you.

Totally made up figures, but I would expect about 45/30/25 split w/d/l for teams with >55% of possession.

I'm not fussed with possession either way. I just want to see positive, fluent football when we have the ball. Which was pretty hard to come by on Saturday night until Sydney fatigued (5th game in 2 weeks).

Edited March 8, 2016 by loriente

[NewConvert]

FWIW last season when Perth Glory were riding high they rarely had a majority of possession - usually averaged about 39% but were still winning because of the counter attacking football they were playing and had Keogh/Maclaren up front. In a sense, Lowe built a side that was prepared to defend and play the counter attack; and Lowe had the quality up front to take the opportunities as they arose.

[playmaker]

26 minutes ago, loriente said:

 

Totally made up figures

Not according to FourFourTwo and A League official stats. If you can find stats to disagree with these from another source then post them up please.

I am more than happy to see stats to support ur statement. 

[Shahanga]

4 hours ago, playmaker said:

So I ended up playing with some numbers and got some interesting data.

Had a look at the games that had a result (win or loss) over the last 10 games and the possession stats.

10 games

3 losses in which we averaged 55.7% possession

4 wins in which we averaged 48.7% possession

Last week's 3 0 win to SFC we only had 39.3% of possession

Interesting too was that we played WSW twice, In our 4-3 loss we had 56% possession and in our 3-2 win we had 47.8% possession

 

Interesting also is the total A league stats compared to other leagues this season, in an article written in the UK telegraph

In the Premier league the team with more possession wins 55.3% of games

In the Champions league the team with more possession wins 66.7% of games

In the A league (105 matches this season), the team with more possession wins 43% of games, that's right, they lose 57% of games

and on-top of that, the team that completes the most passes in the oppositions final 3rd (proper passing not knock around), loses 59% of games. So therefore it is much better to boot the crap out of the ball out of defense than try to pass it out.

So if we look at Leicester City this season, we see that they are the exception to the possession = winning stats we see in the Premier league yet they are the most successful team at the moment, so how? They only have 44.5% possession (ranked 18th) compared to Arsenal at 55.9%, so why are they giving up possession and winning? The answer can be seen in the A league stats where the quality of players skills is far less that lets say the Champions League, which leads to the leading cause of losses being errors in possession.

So where we see in the Champions league the players in possession make far less errors and teams have a greater chance of winning when their possession % is high,  the opposite is true in the A League.  The same could be said for Leicester City where Ranieri acknowledge the lack of individual talent/skill compared to lets say Arsenal or Man City, so he mastered a tactical solution to the problem:

1. Give up Possession

2. Force the forward press

3. Apply maximum pressure on the opposition in possession (Well drilled and disciplined back 8 with no real stand out)

4. Force the error 

5. Score on the quick counter. (through  Mahrez and Vardy with 32 goals and 13 assists between them)

The result is 2 losses and 47 goals for the season.

 

A good lesson for A league teams I reckon.

Anyway found it interesting and thought I would share.

 

Well I like what you've done here.  Gone and got some data then built some ideas around it.  Now whether your theory is right- I don't know, but its a good starting point for a discussion.  Its a lot more logical than "look mate, I've watched a lot of games" (which is pretty much my style!)

[belaguttman]

@playmaker, what you are highlighting is 'efficiency', both in possession and in converting shots on goal. We are a strange mix of poor efficiency in possession, both in terms of struggling to maintain possession and also struggling to use possession and movement to open opposition defences, in fact the longer we possess the ball the bigger the problem becomes, hence Arnold's comment of us being a counter-attacking team. OTOH Bruno in particular and Mooy to an extent are efficient at converting opportunities on goal. This makes us incredibly frustrating to watch, excruciating for most of the game with a few gems to savour..

Ranieri's tactics aren't new, Klopp used the gegenpress at Dortmund, the Dark Lord tries a version of it at the visitors

[playmaker]

442 with 42% possession and 1 0 win and game domination and saw some nice clearing balls out of defence.

My stats might have some truth in them after all.

Very interesting.

[playmaker]

Well continuing from the stats I posted up previously, I have tried to get some stats of some of the lower leagues at a similar level to the A league with not much luck. I tried the J league, some division 2 and 3 European leagues but could not find relevant possession data. So if anyone could post up links for me to analyze it would be great.

In the meantime i have crunched a few numbers which confirms some previous data and observations.

 

Focusing on Round 22 and after i looked at the when the top 7 teams played each other and excluded draws.

 

Round 22

      BR v WSW (3-2)       BR possession = 48.5%

      MCFC v SFC (3-0)    MCFC possession = 39.3%

Round 23

      AdU v MCFC (0-1)    MCFC possession = 42.3%  

      BR v MV (5-0)           BR possession = 45.5%

Round 24 

      MCFC v BR (3-1)       MCFC possession = 55.7%

Round 25

      MV v WSW (2-0)        MV possession = 47.2%

      BR v SFC (3-2)          BR possession = 49.3%

 

Observation

1. When the best teams played each other the losing team had more of the ball, an average of 53.2% possession.

So is this a case of the team being behind at an early stage of the match then trying to dominate possession? Or a case of the team in front giving up possession and waiting for an error to counter attack?

Interesting to note also was MCFC's high possession win in round 24 aginst BR, which went against the statistical possession trend for the winning side. If we exclude this game from data the average possession for a winning team drops to 45.35%, so this win by MCFC was over 10% higher than the average.

 In this game we were down early and seem to press high with high possession football but when we took the lead, instead of nullifying the game with defensive tactics, we seem to morph to a 4 5 1 and continued to have most of the ball and maintained the attacking potential.

 

Formation change

So seeing that after the Wellington game JVS adopted a 442 which balanced the team structure offering both solid attacking and defensive potential. We also saw a dynamic midfield structure changing from a diamond to a defensive flat 4 4 when needed.

The stats show a significant change.

Up to round 21 we conceded 37 goals which is 1.76 goals/ game

Since round 22 we have just conceded 1 which is .25 goals/game, where 3 of the games were against top 7 sides, and with 2 of the 3 games we had less than 45% possession.

Interesting to see what happens this week.

 

 

[belaguttman]

Possession figures can be misleading as possession in the opponent's half is more indicative of dominating a game

[playmaker]

1 hour ago, belaguttman said:

Possession figures can be misleading as possession in the opponent's half is more indicative of dominating a game

Interesting you say that, I thought about that too however it depends on the style of play. If a team adopts a counter type strategy then you would expect a low possession with the opposition having a high possession in the opposition half which doesn't reflect scoring efficiency nor scoreboard dominance.

Again looking at the data, possession dominance in any part of the pitch is constantly showing to be detrimental to scoreboard success even though the perception is the opposite. I think this is more to do with errors in possession at this level more than anything.

But if I get time I will get some data for the relevant point you have made.

[belaguttman]

Yes, I think balls into the box are also a helpful stat as this is a measure of scoring opportunities

[Tonyboozeadams]

15 hours ago, belaguttman said:

Yes, I think balls into the box are also a helpful stat as this is a measure of scoring opportunities

Opta  have a stat for goal scoring opportunities

Edited April 1, 2016 by Tonyboozeadams