Absence of missing posters

[Anonymous Claret]

But his Bournemouth side had nothing like our defensive record, structure or numbers. It looks like he can't replicate the attacking threat with the defensive setup (and vice versa presumably) which makes it a choice by Parker.

Parker's objective this season was promotion or at the very least to reach the play offs. I don't think that Pace and the board will mind one bit about the style of play if we achieve promotion. If we are promoted, having a solid defence will hopefully be easier to build on next season than the free flowing football that we played under Kompany. Last season Kompany left it far too late until he started adopting a more pragmatic approach in the way that we played.

Ideally all fans would like their teams to have a solid defence whilst providing scintillating attacking football. We are so good defensively because our team as a whole. especially our midfield players such as Cullen, Laurent, Anthony, Hannibal (usually) and Brownhill are so well disciplined in their defensive duties. This means that we have to sacrifice some of our attacking threat. For example if Ramsey had played more games we would probably have scored a few more goals but we would have also probably conceded a few more.

If I was a neutral fan it pains me to say it, but I would enjoy watching Leeds play. But I am not a neutral fan, I am a Burnley fan and my only hope is that we either achieve promotion this season or next. I don't really care about the style of football which is nowhere near as dire as some posters make out IMO.

[Mattster]

If we are promoted, having a solid defence will hopefully be easier to build on next season than the free flowing football that we played under Kompany.

I disagree on this. I don't think this can be replicated a step up, the defensive structure is very good and a significantpart of why we're keeping goals out (best xG per shot on target faced) but equally significant is the quality of Trafford's goalkeeping (3rd for overperformance against post shot xG).

On the flip side our attacking structure is godawful (joint worst non-penalty xG per shot, joint 20th for number of big chances created). It is down to our player's finishing ability / quality comparative to keepers/defenders at this level that we have scored as many as we have (4th for overperformance on xG).

If we go up both the level of goalkeepers/defenders we need to score past and the level of finishing our goalkeeper will face ramp up significantly. We'll most likely lose that overperformance unless we can sign players above the level like we have currently in the Championship (ie. It's not going to happen). We'll score less and concede more. And we can't score much less than we are at this level (22 goals in our last 24 games). We definitely can't score less and pick up the points needed to survive unless we could concede at pretty much the same level we are now - and anyone thinking we could do that at PL level is deluding themselves.

I'll leave it there because otherwise I'm just repeating myself.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Thank **** for that

[Mattster]

Thank **** for that

Mate, if you're not wanting to read critical opinions then might I suggest reading a thread that practically begged for those with critical views to post them is a pretty stupid move.

[ChorltonCharlie]

I don't think I've said any of the things you seem to be accusing me of, but never mind

"If we take away the freak season under kompany, when was the last time we were fed this open, attacking football some fans seem to crave?"

You said that. I don't think I've seen anyone say that we should be playing open, attacking football.

[dandeclaret]

We have an attacking threat. It involves passing the ball round outside the area until we find a gap which we then exploit. The problem comes with opponents who choose to defend the penalty area in depth and don't leave any gaps - if we don't find a gap, then we don't score.

What we need is an alternative attacking threat for when plan A isn't working. That's what we don't have.

And most of Parker's successful teams have had an attacker who is dominant in the air haven't they? Solanke? Mitrovic?

Burnley are missing that.

[dandeclaret]

Who is asking for open, attacking football? We created plenty more chances through Dyche's direct style of football. This idea that people who aren't happy with the football are "tiki taka or nothing" is nonsense. We could be route one if we created more chances for all I care about style.

I'm worried we can't get the required number of points for automatic promotion playing like we do. You can point to the points total now and say we can and that would be a fair point, but we've overperformed so much for so long (in both goals for and against) I personally don't think it can last.

How long does an over performance become the establishment of a new trend?

[Row x]

"If we take away the freak season under kompany, when was the last time we were fed this open, attacking football some fans seem to crave?"

You said that. I don't think I've seen anyone say that we should be playing open, attacking football.

You obviously don't read this board very often then

[Dyched]

I disagree on this. I don't think this can be replicated a step up, the defensive structure is very good and a significantpart of why we're keeping goals out (best xG per shot on target faced) but equally significant is the quality of Trafford's goalkeeping (3rd for overperformance against post shot xG).

On the flip side our attacking structure is godawful (joint worst non-penalty xG per shot, joint 20th for number of big chances created). It is down to our player's finishing ability / quality comparative to keepers/defenders at this level that we have scored as many as we have (4th for overperformance on xG).

If we go up both the level of goalkeepers/defenders we need to score past and the level of finishing our goalkeeper will face ramp up significantly. We'll most likely lose that overperformance unless we can sign players above the level like we have currently in the Championship (ie. It's not going to happen). We'll score less and concede more. And we can't score much less than we are at this level (22 goals in our last 24 games). We definitely can't score less and pick up the points needed to survive unless we could concede at pretty much the same level we are now - and anyone thinking we could do that at PL level is deluding themselves.

I'll leave it there because otherwise I'm just repeating myself.

Basically we need to be better in the PL to survive?

Isn’t that pretty obvious?

[Mattster]

And most of Parker's successful teams have had an attacker who is dominant in the air haven't they? Solanke? Mitrovic?

Burnley are missing that.

In Bournemouth's promotion season Solanke had a 30% success rate in aerial duels.

This season aerial duel success rate:
Foster 31%
Flemming 43%
Rodriguez 45%

[boyyanno]

I disagree on this. I don't think this can be replicated a step up, the defensive structure is very good and a significantpart of why we're keeping goals out (best xG per shot on target faced) but equally significant is the quality of Trafford's goalkeeping (3rd for overperformance against post shot xG).

On the flip side our attacking structure is godawful (joint worst non-penalty xG per shot, joint 20th for number of big chances created). It is down to our player's finishing ability / quality comparative to keepers/defenders at this level that we have scored as many as we have (4th for overperformance on xG).

If we go up both the level of goalkeepers/defenders we need to score past and the level of finishing our goalkeeper will face ramp up significantly. We'll most likely lose that overperformance unless we can sign players above the level like we have currently in the Championship (ie. It's not going to happen). We'll score less and concede more. And we can't score much less than we are at this level (22 goals in our last 24 games). We definitely can't score less and pick up the points needed to survive unless we could concede at pretty much the same level we are now - and anyone thinking we could do that at PL level is deluding themselves.

I'll leave it there because otherwise I'm just repeating myself.

Hey Mattster- remember 4 months ago when you told everyone the statistics proved we would slide down the table? Or how about when you said it showed we would get out pants pulled down when the "hard fixtures" came.

How come all these random stats that you cherry pick keep letting you down do you think?

[dandeclaret]

In Bournemouth's promotion season Solanke had a 30% success rate in aerial duels.

This season aerial duel success rate:
Foster 31%
Flemming 43%
Rodriguez 45%

Great, and how many crosses have they attacked and got on the end of?

Single stats are absolutely pointless. So many people use them like a gotcha.... they're useful in supporting a picture, they're useful when combined to provide a picture. On their own - useless.

[CoolClaret]

In Bournemouth's promotion season Solanke had a 30% success rate in aerial duels.

This season aerial duel success rate:
Foster 31%
Flemming 43%
Rodriguez 45%

The obsession with statistics among modern football fans perfectly illustrates the Dunning-Kruger effect's 'peak of mount stupid.'

Mattster, you're chasing the dragon in pursuit of data. This obsessive stats-first approach has led teams like Southampton, us last season, and Man United for some examples to massively underperform relative to our budgets budgets.

What's missing from these numbers that you posted? They can't capture a striker's instinctive movement or ability to find space for headers - crucial qualities that defy quantification.

The disconnect between data and reality was evident in the recent derby, stats suggested that the fiddlers had the better xG, anyone watching knew they wouldn't score in a month of Sundays.

Statistics should complement what we see on the pitch, not override or even pre-ride it. Football is a dynamic game and simply isn't played on a spreadsheet.

Evaluating football, managers, and players with a data-only approach is beyond foolish.

[Mattster]

Great, and how many crosses have they attacked and got on the end of?

Single stats are absolutely pointless. So many people use them like a gotcha.... they're useful in supporting a picture, they're useful when combined to provide a picture. On their own - useless.

How can Solanke be described as "dominant in the air" when he lost 70% of his aerial duels? You're the one who made that statement. I never claimed our strikers were.

[Mattster]

The disconnect between data and reality was evident in the recent derby, stats suggested that the fiddlers had the better xG, anyone watching knew they wouldn't score in a month of Sundays.

Not a great advert for the eye test from a bias observer.

There was the six yard box scramble following a corner on 68 minutes and the header that Baker missed from a corner on 77 which could very easily have been goals.

[dandeclaret]

How can Solanke be described as "dominant in the air" when he lost 70% of his aerial duels? You're the one who made that statement. I never claimed our strikers were.

Because I've watched him play, multiple times. Not as many as I've watched Foster, Jay, etc. Your stat on it's own is pointless. What's the average aerial duel won for an attacker for instance to give it context? What's the % won from crosses, rather than diagonals etc.

On it's own, it remains a pointless stat. Same with every single player stat taken in isolation.

[Mattster]

Because I've watched him play, multiple times. Not as many as I've watched Foster, Jay, etc. Your stat on it's own is pointless. What's the average aerial duel won for an attacker for instance to give it context? What's the % won from crosses, rather than diagonals etc.

On it's own, it remains a pointless stat. Same with every single player stat taken in isolation.

And I've watched Solanke plenty of times too. So when I read you describing him as "dominant in the air" I thought that didn't sound right to me at all, it's not something I would describe him as. So I checked the stats to see if I'd misjudged him. I hadn't.

A look at the stats, compared to only other forwards in big 5 leagues, over the last 365 days, his aerial duel success rate of 43% places him in the 49th centile, so average. You asked where he was in comparison to other attackers before you have a go at me for providing another statistic.

[CoolClaret]

All the usual sites had CJ's performance down around a 7.2 - actually watching the game, you'd have seen him put in a sensational performance, one of the best ever at that position in that fixture.

In comparison, against Stoke at home, pretty much every player scored that or higher after the first half.

Stats in isolation completely lose track of reality. It's that simple.

[dandeclaret]

Seems according to Fotmob, he wins more aerial duels than 67% of strikers. Not that it's relevant on its own.

Screenshot 2025-01-06 at 18.07.06.png (250.26 KiB) Viewed 1094 times

[CoolClaret]

Seems according to Fotmob, he wins more aerial duels than 67% of strikers. Not that it's relevant on its own.

Screenshot 2025-01-06 at 18.07.06.png

I think that's more aerial duels against opposing players, but even that loses the point.

To be a goal-scoring Centre forward, how many duels do you really need to win? Did Flemming 'win a duel' to score on Saturday, or did he anticipate an area to attack and head it home?

Stats mean sweet FA in isolation.

[Superjohnnyfrancis]

The reason why we have such a good defence is because thew whole team is set up that way. To Defend. Thats why people are going way over the top with markings for the defence most games.

The players themselves confirmed that on the last interview they did against bastards.

It was notable that Humphries and Flemming mentioned themselves they have been working on their interplay away from the squad and that has paid dividends in a few excellent assists from Bash.

Once Parker works out a way to attack more he will be on a lot more clubs radar, thats why we have currently got him because as a manager he is not the finished article, Hopefully he can make the jump to a more pleasing on the eye attacking football with the George Graham Arsenal style defence he is currently playing.

1-0 to the Burnerley

[Mattster]

All the usual sites had CJ's performance down around a 7.2 - actually watching the game, you'd have seen him put in a sensational performance, one of the best ever at that position in that fixture.

In comparison, against Stoke at home, pretty much every player scored that or higher after the first half.

Stats in isolation completely lose track of reality. It's that simple.

Player ratings from whoscored etc are not something you'll ever see me use

[dandeclaret]

I think that's more aerial duels against opposing players, but even that loses the point.

To be a goal-scoring Centre forward, how many duels do you really need to win? Did Flemming 'win a duel' to score on Saturday, or did he anticipate an area to attack and head it home?

Stats mean sweet FA in isolation.

I agree fully - useless on its own, but this is the description of it, and it's definitely a ranking of forwards in a league. For reference

"Player traits
The Player Traits chart highlights a player's statistical strengths and weaknesses, in comparison to similar players.
Each stat is adjusted on a per 90 basis and includes matches from the past 365 days.
Players are then compared to positional peers from similar leagues, and placed into a percentile ranking. For example, a player with a 90% percentile ranking on Chances Created means that they create more chances than 90% of players in their position in similar leagues."

Visually, Burnley pass the ball so well, they press teams into playing deep, territorially dominate, but there isn't that outlet to attack a ball from a cross once teams are well set. Visually, we might also not have wingers who provide enough quality delivery either.

[GetIntoEm]

Be asking to rename the Dyche to the Royal Parker come may

[Mattster]

Seems according to Fotmob, he wins more aerial duels than 67% of strikers. Not that it's relevant on its own.

Screenshot 2025-01-06 at 18.07.06.png

Screenshot_20250106_184202_Samsung Internet.jpg (132.65 KiB) Viewed 1026 times

And here's his stats for the promotion season at Bournemouth under Parker - which is the season you were referring to. Compared against other forwards in similar level competitions.

[dandeclaret]

Grand, single stat, remains useless on its own. It's not a gotcha.

[Mattster]

Grand, single stat, remains useless on its own. It's not a gotcha.

Throw in another then for the "attacking crosses" point.

Solanke scored 6 headers that season from 4086 minutes. So a headed goal once every 7 to 8 games.

Flemming has scored 2 headed goals from 1075 minutes. So a headed goal once every 6 games.

[dandeclaret]

And is that statistical proof, or statistical variance?

And is your conclusion that Zian Flemming is better in the air than Dominic Solanke?

[Mattster]

And is that statistical proof, or statistical variance?

And is your conclusion that Zian Flemming is better in the air than Dominic Solanke?

No. I'm saying Solanke was not "dominant in the air" in Bournemouth's promotion season under Parker. I have provided stats that show he was not. You have asked for more stats. When I provide more you say they show nothing in isolation(even though by providing more stats they are no longer in isolation) and your only evidence that he was "dominant in the air" seems to effectively be "because I say he was".

[KRBFC]

Win by any means necessary against that lot, I wont whine about the boring football, he can be forgiven for just 2 shots all game this time just because of the opponent. Some people are enjoying this football, I think it's the worst style of play I have ever seen, knock it side to side and backwards slowly while the opposition just sits there watching us, zero tempo or penetration. Really no risk stuff, ultra protection for the defenders and zero threat from set pieces.

I am torn though because I actually really like Parker, honest, relatable, speaks from the heart not from a script with buzz words. A down to earth humble chap. Then I'm a Burnley fan so obviously want us to succeed. Then the whistle blows and the handbrake is on but we're on track for promotion with the handbrake on, so does it really matter if the fans are bored if we continue to bore opposition sides to death and take home 3 points? It's the old excitement v results thing.

[boyyanno]

And is that statistical proof, or statistical variance?

And is your conclusion that Zian Flemming is better in the air than Dominic Solanke?

From what I can see Solankes 6 headers across as a season is actually pretty good when compared to other goalscorers in the division. Don't let that detract away from the odd random stat though

It isn't just you.

[dandeclaret]

No. I'm saying Solanke was not "dominant in the air" in Bournemouth's promotion season under Parker. I have provided stats that show he was not. You have asked for more stats. When I provide more you say they show nothing in isolation(even though by providing more stats they are no longer in isolation) and your only evidence that he was "dominant in the air" seems to effectively be "because I say he was".

You've provided a derivative of a single stat. There remains a lack of context, not visible through a single stat (Crosses attacked, headers won from crosses, first contacts in the box etc etc etc etc)

Anyway, enough of this, the point remains, I won't ever believe a single stat (no matter how far derived it is) can paint a picture of a team, or a player.

[GetIntoEm]

What it's worth, solanke would be the first name on the team sheet if we had him

[gandhisflipflop]

Football goes way OTT on stats.

[Leisure]

Thought this thread was about missing posters, not stats!

[Bosscat]

Football goes way OTT on stats.

There are 3 kinds of lies.

Lies, Damned lies and Statistics ...

Benjamin Disraeli

[Mattster]

You've provided a derivative of a single stat. There remains a lack of context, not visible through a single stat (Crosses attacked, headers won from crosses, first contacts in the box etc etc etc etc)

Headed goals scored isn't a derivative of the same stat.

But regardless, a single stat would be more than you have provided to back up your claim that Solanke is "dominant in the air" because unfortunately, "Trust me bro" is not a stat.

Anyway, enough of this, the point remains, I won't ever believe a single stat (no matter how far derived it is) can paint a picture of a team, or a player.

Cool story, really playing up to the anti-statification of football crowd.

For me, the point remains that I won't ever believe one bloke on an internet messageboard stating something, without evidence (and then demanding and rejecting any evidence to the contrary) can paint a picture of a team, or a player.

Each to their own I guess.

[dandeclaret]

Final post on this.... your point is that the stats say Dominic Solanke is not a good target man, and is not dominant in the box? Can I be clear that this is your take.

If so, we'll agree to disagree, and head down our different paths.

[DCWat]

Win by any means necessary against that lot, I wont whine about the boring football, he can be forgiven for just 2 shots all game this time just because of the opponent. Some people are enjoying this football, I think it's the worst style of play I have ever seen, knock it side to side and backwards slowly while the opposition just sits there watching us, zero tempo or penetration. Really no risk stuff, ultra protection for the defenders and zero threat from set pieces.

I am torn though because I actually really like Parker, honest, relatable, speaks from the heart not from a script with buzz words. A down to earth humble chap. Then I'm a Burnley fan so obviously want us to succeed. Then the whistle blows and the handbrake is on but we're on track for promotion with the handbrake on, so does it really matter if the fans are bored if we continue to bore opposition sides to death and take home 3 points? It's the old excitement v results thing.

I’m a bit like that - winning is great but it gets forgotten quickly following defeat, predominantly because of a lack of attacking intent.

I too like Parker - I’m hoping that with some additions, we might be able to keep the solidity, whilst seeing more intent and quality at the other end.

The nagging doubt is that this is Parker’s way and two or three new creative / goalscoring players won’t make much difference to the style.

[Mattster]

Final post on this.... your point is that the stats say Dominic Solanke is not a good target man, and is not dominant in the box? Can I be clear that this is your take.

If so, we'll agree to disagree, and head down our different paths.

My point is he is was not "dominant in the air" during Bournemouth's promotion season under Parker. As I have stated multiple times.

I would say I do not consider him "dominant in the air" now either. That does not mean I think he is bad in the air.

[CoolClaret]

My point is he is was not "dominant in the air" during Bournemouth's promotion season under Parker. As I have stated multiple times.

I would say I do not consider him "dominant in the air" now either. That does not mean I think he is bad in the air.

There's plenty of good headed goals and goals coming from Solanke's presence and physicality during their promotion campaign here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBKC4wHjQVg&t=102s