Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Dark Cloud · Post by **Dark Cloud** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:47 pm

I noticed Slurpy gave Lennon 3 and described his performance as "oblivious". I assume he meant "anonymous", but then again.....!!!

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 12:51 pm

Dark Cloud wrote: I noticed Slurpy gave Lennon 3 and described his performance as "oblivious". I assume he meant "anonymous", but then again.....!!!

Think he was oblivious to the fact that he was on a football pitch with a game going on

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:09 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:i wouldn't pay too much attention to the 30 shots stat; the vast majority were garbage.

The shots being garbage is purely down to Wolves' profligacy though. Those 30 shots were equivalent to 3.3 expected goals, which is a huge concern. For reference, that's more than when we went to Old Trafford a couple of years ago and Man Utd had 38 shots without scoring.

Just checked and it's actually our highest expected goals conceded (excluding penalties) in a single game since returning to the PL.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:44 pm

We’ll have to agree to disagree CS.
To say they only created one real chance is in my view ridiculous. How many did we clear off the line ? 3 or 4 ?
Their sub should have scored a hat trick - they were pretty easy chances. The fact he fluffed them or the fact that other great chances were ballooned over does not mean they were not fantastic chances.
As said why would Joe Hart say we were “smashed” ? A player would never usually admit to something like this unless it was true - he wasn’t doing it for effect. The players know themselves when they have been embarrassed.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:06 pm

Tall Paul wrote:The shots being garbage is purely down to Wolves' profligacy though. Those 30 shots were equivalent to 3.3 expected goals, which is a huge concern. For reference, that's more than when we went to Old Trafford a couple of years ago and Man Utd had 38 shots without scoring.

Just checked and it's actually our highest expected goals conceded (excluding penalties) in a single game since returning to the PL.

Outstanding post.

On https://understat.com/match/9244 we can see that there were 5 shots that were great chances (the big circles). We have never conceded so many shots inside the box either (e.g. the Liverpool home win had us facing huge shot numbers but they were mainly outside the box).

Just to put it in context, under Dyche we have never had an expected goals scored >3 for us in the Premier League.

The only opposing teams where we have greater than 3 goals expected to be conceded (based on chance quality) are all away from home - Arsenal in 2014 on 4.33, West Ham in 2015 on 3.24, Southampton in 2016 on 4.21, Man City in 2017 on 3.72 and now Wolves in 2018 on 3.34. It is literally a once a year for Burnley under Dyche, that's why this performance ranked so low. Let's hope it stays one a year.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:22 pm

Highest expected goals against etc., etc. and the final score was 0-1 which tells you more about Wolves and why they will not finish as high as they seem to think they will.
Any team needs to score goals when they are on top or the failure will come back to bite them on the bum. They played against 10 men for quite a lot of their game against Everton and drew 2-2, in spite of being on top for most of the game.
They played some good football against us but ---they only scored 1 goal, in spite of the number of shots and expected goals they were supposed to score!

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:25 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Outstanding post.

On https://understat.com/match/9244 we can see that there were 5 shots that were great chances (the big circles). We have never conceded so many shots inside the box either (e.g. the Liverpool home win had us facing huge shot numbers but they were mainly outside the box).

Just to put it in context, under Dyche we have never had an expected goals scored >3 for us in the Premier League.

The only opposing teams where we have greater than 3 goals expected to be conceded (based on chance quality) are all away from home - Arsenal in 2014 on 4.33, West Ham in 2015 on 3.24, Southampton in 2016 on 4.21, Man City in 2017 on 3.72 and now Wolves in 2018 on 3.34. It is literally a once a year for Burnley under Dyche, that's why this performance ranked so low. Let's hope it stays one a year.

Thanks.

Missed the Southampton one in 2016. It included a penalty, but even without would have been higher than yesterday's game.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:30 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Highest expected goals against etc., etc. and the final score was 0-1 which tells you more about Wolves and why they will not finish as high as they seem to think they will.
Any team needs to score goals when they are on top or the failure will come back to bite them on the bum. They played against 10 men for quite a lot of their game against Everton and drew 2-2, in spite of being on top for most of the game.
They played some good football against us but ---they only scored 1 goal, in spite of the number of shots and expected goals they were supposed to score!

That's true (apart from the failure coming back to bite them), but it's more a reflection on Wolves' attacking performance than our defensive one. If we keep giving away those sort of chances against better forwards we're going to get hammered.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:43 pm

Tall Paul wrote:That's true (apart from the failure coming back to bite them), but it's more a reflection on Wolves' attacking performance than our defensive one. If we keep giving away those sort of chances against better forwards we're going to get hammered.

They still only scored 1 goal ---so they did not come up to their expected total of 3 or whatever it was, which was my point. The expected goals statistic is totally useless as far as I am concerned and I am a statistician!

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 3:46 pm

TVC15 wrote:We’ll have to agree to disagree CS.
To say they only created one real chance is in my view ridiculous. How many did we clear off the line ? 3 or 4 ?
Their sub should have scored a hat trick - they were pretty easy chances. The fact he fluffed them or the fact that other great chances were ballooned over does not mean they were not fantastic chances.
As said why would Joe Hart say we were “smashed” ? A player would never usually admit to something like this unless it was true - he wasn’t doing it for effect. The players know themselves when they have been embarrassed.

I didn't say they only had one real chance. I completely agree that they had more than that.

In terms of this XG thing, I'm a bit wary of all stats. My view was that apart from two very short periods of pressure in the first half when there were a flurry of opportunities (from one of which Hart made the save that we're all talking about), we generally kept Wolves at arms length until the goal - apart from on those occasions when we made awful mistakes in possession and gave the ball away (Bardsley, Hendrick, JBG). That's a pretty big caveat and I'm not excusing it, my point is that generally I thought we hung in the game pretty well and kept a good shape when we didn't have the ball - which is a good sign as its what we made our name from last season. Like SD said after the game, it was the way in which we used the ball that was the worry - we didn't really have any penetration and if anything us having the ball was more of a portent that they were going to score than that we were going to (the possession stats were more even than a lot of games we played last season, which may not be a coincidence). And late on, they ripped us to shreds on the counter when our attacks went nowhere fast.

But that's why I keep banging on about confidence. We had our half chances yesterday but nothing dropped for us, and we can't get a lead. Get a lead, any old how, and get back to doing what we're good and controlling a game without the ball rather than chasing it, and confidence might begin to return. The players haven't become bad players, they're just under-confident at the minute.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:00 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:They still only scored 1 goal ---so they did not come up to their expected total of 3 or whatever it was, which was my point. The expected goals statistic is totally useless as far as I am concerned and I am a statistician!

It has it's flaws, but it's far from useless. It gives a better indication of team performances (over a reasonable number of games) than looking at the results and league table alone.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:02 pm

Let's have it right. We got absolutely battered. Four or five to nil wouldn't have flattered them. Good saves, last ditch defending and poor finishing kept the scoreline respectable. But that can't mask the fact that it was the most one sided 1-0 victory you're likely to see.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:07 pm

Agree completely about the point that we have not become a bad team overnight.
As for yesterday I don’t think we kept our shape well at all. We have the ball away so many times in our own half and all of our midfield were guilty. Our fullbacks were all over the place and rarely did we see the 2 banks of 4 shape we deployed so effectively last season.
If you watched the game again you will see several chances where they are running beyond our midfield, and our defence is so all over the place that they end up running on to the goal line - yes it was good last ditch defending at times but that was no shape. I have rarely seen a team have so many chances against us where we have 3 or 4 defenders and a keeper on the line whilst our midfielders are watching their midfield and attackers attempt to score.
I watched the game in America on NBC and Robbie Earle and Andy Townsend were saying how they have never seen Burnley dominated so much and they were highlighting our lack of shape and what was happening to our fullbacks and how the midfield kept on giving the ball to Wolves which meant we totally lost our shape as they over ran us.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:10 pm

taio wrote:Let's have it right. We got absolutely battered. Four or five to nil wouldn't have flattered them. Good saves, last ditch defending and poor finishing kept the scoreline respectable. But that can't mask the fact that it was the most one sided 1-0 victory you're likely to see.

No, sorry, In my lifetime I have seen more one sided 0-0 draws, in fact, I've played in some. That's football.

If Wolves are in with a chance of European football at the end of the season and fail by a 2 goal difference, will they be able to say that the expected goals scored against Burnley was 3.34 and we did score one so can we claim the other expected goals?
Would the bookies pay out to someone on an expected goals scored figure?
The score was 0-1 and nothing else matters.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:14 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:No, sorry, In my lifetime I have seen more one sided 0-0 draws, in fact, I've played in some. That's football.

If Wolves are in with a chance of European football at the end of the season and fail by a 2 goal difference, will they be able to say that the expected goals scored against Burnley was 3.34 and we did score one so can we claim the other expected goals?
Would the bookies pay out to someone on an expected goals scored figure?
The score was 0-1 and nothing else matters.

Fair point about the comparison. But nothing else matters is wrong because most people including the players know we took a battering and we already appeared short on confidence beforehand.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:16 pm

Tall Paul wrote:The shots being garbage is purely down to Wolves' profligacy though. Those 30 shots were equivalent to 3.3 expected goals, which is a huge concern. For reference, that's more than when we went to Old Trafford a couple of years ago and Man Utd had 38 shots without scoring.

Just checked and it's actually our highest expected goals conceded (excluding penalties) in a single game since returning to the PL.

the xG thing is, like most stats, largely ignorable as there's so many factors to each individual incident.

the majority of their shots in the area were either blocked or saved, there were only really those two near the end where the two lads were clean though that they really should have scored from.

absolutely no doubt we gave them some decent chances but that it finished 1-0 isn't mainly down to their finishing.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:18 pm

taio wrote:Good saves, last ditch defending and poor finishing kept the scoreline respectable.

all of which are very much part of football.

taio · Post by **taio** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:21 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:all of which are very much part of football.

Yep and I haven't for a moment suggested it isn't. But I doubt many people took that view at home to Olympiacos.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 4:27 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:the xG thing is, like most stats, largely ignorable as there's so many factors to each individual incident.

the majority of their shots in the area were either blocked or saved, there were only really those two near the end where the two lads were clean though that they really should have scored from.

absolutely no doubt we gave them some decent chances but that it finished 1-0 isn't mainly down to their finishing.

11 out of 20 of their shots in the box were blocked or saved. Technically a majority, but 9 shots off target in the box is still a hell of a lot and only scoring from one of those is profligate. Three of the misses were pretty big chances as well.

We often concede a lot of shots, but mostly they're low xG. It's just not like us to concede so many big chances as we did yesterday.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:00 pm

Completely agree with Tall Paul.
It was not just the number of chances it was the nature of them.
When you look for example at Liverpool when we beat them 2-0 at the Turf they had 78% possession I think and lots of attempts on goal. The stats told you little that day as we looked pretty comfortable and restricted them to mostly shots from outside the area. Coutinho and Sturridge were taking it in turns for who could it highest and widest.

Wolves made more clear cut chances against us yesterday than the likes of City, Liverpool or United did last season. If Wolves would have had anyone of those teams strikers I shudder to think what the score would have been.

When you get to the bi-line or beyond the midfield and full backs as many times as Wolves did in this league it tends to get punished.
Wolves do not have the finishing quality of City and Liverpool but they do have excellent technical players like Moutinho, Neves, and Jota where if the best chances had fallen to them I think it could have been different as they are all great strikers of the ball.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:20 pm

Exactly.

Even when we conceded four at Fulham it wasn't a huge concern for me, because we didn't concede the kind of big chances that we did yesterday.

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:28 pm

Tall Paul wrote:Exactly.

Even when we conceded four at Fulham it wasn't a huge concern for me, because we didn't concede the kind of big chances that we did yesterday.

Spot on.

I’d rather play like we did at Fulham than we did at Wolves. Get our best defence on the park and back to basics.

The chances yesterday were incredible for a prem team to concede

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:45 pm

It still ended 0-1 no matter how much you pontificate --nothing will change that ---not even VAR.
We were poor and lost, we have played poorly and won in the past, we have played well and lost on numerous occasions.
The chances may have been incredible for a prem team to concede, however, the final score was..............

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:56 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:It still ended 0-1 no matter how much you pontificate --nothing will change that ---not even VAR.
We were poor and lost, we have played poorly and won in the past, we have played well and lost on numerous occasions.
The chances may have been incredible for a prem team to concede, however, the final score was..............

Not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on the result rather than the performance - when we still lost.

If we played well and lost then surely that gives us hope that if we continue to do the right things then our luck would change and we would start to pick up results. Dyche has said this many times.

If we play like we did yesterday and continue to do all the wrong things then the pretty inevitable outcome is more losses and most likely a few thrashings. The least likely outcome is that we play like that and start drawing or winning surely ?

As it happens I do not think we can carry on playing this badly - the same players and same management team have shown more than enough times that they can get results and play a lot lot better than yesterday. Those who think yesterday is now the norm have short memories.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:08 pm

TVC15 wrote:Not sure why you are putting so much emphasis on the result rather than the performance - when we still lost.

If we played well and lost then surely that gives us hope that if we continue to do the right things then our luck would change and we would start to pick up results. Dyche has said this many times.

If we play like we did yesterday and continue to do all the wrong things then the pretty inevitable outcome is more losses and most likely a few thrashings. The least likely outcome is that we play like that and start drawing or winning surely ?

As it happens I do not think we can carry on playing this badly - the same players and same management team have shown more than enough times that they can get results and play a lot lot better than yesterday. Those who think yesterday is now the norm have short memories.

It is only a game and it is the result that matters at the end of the day.
We got promoted because we got the right results, we got relelgated because we got the wrong results and in the game of football that is all that matters at the end of the day.
Every game is different and, as has happened in the past great number of years that I have watched the Clarets, we will play well and lose, we will play poorly and win and that is the nature of the game.
We, as fans can do nothing because it is up to the management and players to try to sort things out and. like you, I have confidence that they will try to do so, however, whether or not we will get better results is debatable ---we can only hope.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:50 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:They still only scored 1 goal ---so they did not come up to their expected total of 3 or whatever it was, which was my point. The expected goals statistic is totally useless as far as I am concerned and I am a statistician!

Expected goals and assists are subjective - 1 site may say a chance was 0.75 (meaning 75% of the time it goes in) whereas another says 0.65.

Thus it is true that the quality of the site is important. Burnley have often outperformed where these sites predict us to finish, but the one that is closer is StatsBomb - there was an excellent write up of our season preview explaining this, and, for the cynics, there is also a good piece by Statsbomb partly ridiculing the xG measure.

https://2plus2equals11.com/author/willtgm/
https://statsbomb.com/2018/05/the-dual- ... ls-part-2/

To me though, as long as the judgement is of a high standard, it offers far more than (say) the regular stats of goals, shots, shots on target. Because it weights those stats for quality - the key missing indicator in normal footie stats. It tells me that, for example, there was less to worry about after Fulham than after Wolves even though the margin of defeat was higher.

P.s. The other thing I find interesting is the different ways of interpreting. For example, Vokes is top of our expected goals, but that is both good and bad (seeing as they are good chances from his good positioning but he has missed them all, similar to Wolves missing them yesterday). In contrast, McNeil is top of our expected assists, I see that as only good - he has created great chances, but it isn’t him that has failed to convert them.

So in summary that’s why I find them very useful. It’s cutting edge thinking, quite rare fans get exposed to it, but I appreciate it is a bit deep and nerdy for many fans.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:17 pm

Agree that its far more meaningful than the normal possession, shots and shots on target statistics which can be pretty misleading and irrelevant to the result.
Over the course of a season if you are scoring highly on "expected goals" based on the quality of chances made I would think you are scoring more goals. In games like yesterday the score was kept at 1-0 primarily by poor finishing. Whilst in theory you could say that some teams may have poorer finishers from a statistical point of view it would also be the case that if the chances continue to be made / fall even for the less prolific strikers they are more likely to score an easier chance than a more difficult one or have to create a chance of their own etc.

In isolation most statistics only show part of a picture. Our expected goals rate last year was very low but on many other statistics we were excellent - especially the defensive ones....meaning that even with one or half a chance a game you are in with a good shout of a draw or win. Take Newcastle under Keegan - great on expected goal stats no doubt and probably near the bottom of the table on blocks, tackles, saves etc so lots of games lost 4-3 etc.

Yesterday I'm guessing our blocks, tackles, saves stats were very good but possession, completed passes, would have been poor. Plus where you lose the ball on the pitch is also key and we lost it in our own half a lot and against no doubt some great attacking and midfield statistics for Wolves it ended up being a predictable result.

Of course you can always get a freak result which goes against all the main statistics in terms of chances but by definition these are in the minority.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:23 pm

Crosspool --it is a bit nerdy for statisticians who have been doing it for years!!
It is a bit like saying that Defour would have been the best Burnley player against Wolves if he had been playing and he may have done this or that. The reality is ---he did not play!!
It is all conjecture, whereas, the normal stats are based on what actually happens.
Wolves missed chances which were easier to score than miss, however, as far as it goes it was a shot off target and, because we have all seen players blast the ball over an open goal from two yards out, how can we judge what an expected goal is?

Cirrus_Minor · Post by **Cirrus_Minor** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:29 pm

Before the season started we may have had 'expected goals' in this game but the season has drifted towards a different probability. All this statistical analysis is very interesting information for betting fanatics but in the real world is all my arse and Harry Tate.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:47 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:Crosspool --it is a bit nerdy for statisticians who have been doing it for years!!
It is a bit like saying that Defour would have been the best Burnley player against Wolves if he had been playing and he may have done this or that. The reality is ---he did not play!!
It is all conjecture, whereas, the normal stats are based on what actually happens.
Wolves missed chances which were easier to score than miss, however, as far as it goes it was a shot off target and, because we have all seen players blast the ball over an open goal from two yards out, how can we judge what an expected goal is?

I wasn’t referring to you of course when I said some fans don’t get it. To many, numbers people are a strange breed partaking in what seems to be a foreign language, as Cirrus above proves

You will see I have added a StatsBomb link to my above post which says much of what you do - I.e. how can it be correctly judged. They think they are “above” xG sites. They may be right. I do think though that “how can we judge” is partly answered by neural algorithms which nowadays can model millions of simulations and use them to predict the future. The algorithm could have thousands of lines of code, and the better ones will look at every element of what goes on, the position of every player, speed of the ball, etc. Every week the real outcomes feed into the database and make the predictive ability ever more accurate.

I tend to view statistics (which like for you is close to my heart) as adding layers of information in an attempt to portray the truth in a hugely complex system, but accepting it is impossible to completely accurately portray it. xG is a perfect example of this. It’s like a computerised scouting report.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:50 pm

Crosspool --I think that the whole world is in danger of disappearing in digitalia!! I await the big power cut which will leave lots of people unable to even communicate with each other!

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Tue Sep 18, 2018 12:23 am

Deep breath, calmed down, here goes

Hart 9
Bardsley 4
Tarks 6
Mee 5
Taylor 5
Lennon 4
Cork 5
Hendrick 5
JBG 6
Vokes 5
Barnes 4

Wood 5
Vydra 6
Westwood 5

ontario claret · Post by **ontario claret** » Tue Sep 18, 2018 2:45 am

Anything above a 3 for any Burnley outfield player, other than Vydra, was solely because you bleed claret and blue, and will for the rest of your life.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:05 am

Hart 9 - Brilliant again.

Bardsley 3 - Shocking again.
Tarks 6 - Decent
Mee 6 - Tiny bit better than Tarks today
Taylor 3 - I wanted him to do well but I just don't think he is good enough, could spend all day saying why.

Lennon 3 - As above with Taylor, though does show the odd touch of real class at least
Cork 4 - Poor this season, what going on?
Hendrick 5 - Still poor, looked slightly better recently but nowhere near enough.
JBG 5 - Come on Johan, we need you.

Vokes 4 - Too slow and not strong enough in the air.
Barnes 4 - Lost his edge, which was really the only thing he had.

---------------------------

Vydra 6
Wood 4

Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings

Re: Wolves v Burnley - Player Ratings