Sign in to follow this  
Moogthurso

Analysis so far!

Recommended Posts

Have had a few days to calm down and think about where we are and feel we are being pretty unfair in our criticism of some of our players. I was desperately trying to look for hope but instead found despair as I worked through the numbers I thought might show growth and improvement.

 

The current position is not just the goalkeepers fault. There is  ratio which has been used to review Liverpool and Jurgen Klopps style in an interesting way so thought I would share to provoke any ideas from everyone her .

Link below for context.

https://basstunedtored.com/2015/10/09/jurgen-klopp-dortmund-stats-analysis/

 

For inverness the same analysis shows the table below.

 

2015

2016

2017

2018

Shots on target INV

4.6

3.8

4.6

3.1

Shots on target OPP

3.1

3.8

4.9

4.4

Shots on target %

59.6%

50.3%

48.5%

41.5%

 

 This indicates that we are allowing 1.5 shots on target per game more than we can create.  All sorts of things contribute to this but it is a wider defensive issue than just the goalkeeper failing to stop the goals. Its about stopping the clear chances by the whole team and having the confidence to make that final challenge run that extra yard and TRUST your colleagues to mark their man.

The other scary fact is we are creating less clear shots on goal in a lower division than last year. I expected that to be higher but shows how toothless we are.  

 

Interesting to see how everyone feels on this or is it so obvious that doesn’t deserve comment.    

  • Agree 1
  • Confused 2
  • Facepalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It tells us that since 2015, we have steadily reduced creativity (loss of Christie, Mckay, Watkins, Williams etc) and subsequently had less shots on target while at this time allowing the opposition more opportunities which can be linked with key defensive injuries and decline starting with the loss of Shinne. 

In summary we don't create and score enough goals and our defence allows too many opposition chances cos its in decline and this has been the pattern over several seasons.

No new revelations in those stats - its clear to see on the park each week and at the squad we have created. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you can draw any sensible conclusions from these figures.  They really need to be looked at as part of a wider data set and in terms of the way a team is set up to play.  Shots on target is not a reflection of chances created.  All attempts on goal is a better measure  but even then there are frequent times when chances are created but a player simply fails to shoot and either passes the ball or tries to create a more clear cut chance.  Some shots at goal are simply speculative and don't reflect a meaningful chance.  Also, if a player usually shoots at the middle of the goal. most of his attempts will be on target but he will rarely score.  If he aims for the corners he'll be off target more often than not but he will score more.

I don't think anyone here would disagree with the fact that our opponents are getting more scoring chances recently.  Even folk like me who were delighted to see the back of Hughes acknowledge that we were much more organised at the back under his time here.  But having said that, there were times that Hughes' fixation with possession led to us losing possession in our back line and presenting a very clear cut chance for opponents.

I really don't see that these stats tell us anything more than a quick look at the figures for goals scored and conceded.

  • Facepalm 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DD I think you have selective memory, after the initial teething problems with our new style in the early games under JH I rarely recall us giving the ball away in the back four and due to our style of play which you refer to as keeping possession it required the entire opposition to defend their patch thereby preventing breakaway goals against us. A strikers first priority is to hit the target and yes, most go for the corners and can and do miss but a well drilled shot which is saved or hits a defender or woodwork can still offer opportunities to those following up. Further, shots which are mistimed, toe poked or deflected will more often than not end up in the net, even those with a lack of pace, a brilliant exponent of the toe poke in mid stride was willie pettigrew, keepers could never set themselves for the shot because there was no back lift. Fact is, most goals are scored inside the penalty spot and unless you can get the ball into that area frequently enough you are not going to score enough goals.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember having several defensive heart attacks with misplaced passes and poor pass backs in Hughes' last season, with Danny Devine in particular coming in for a lot of stick.

Most of us would see him as a cut above our current options!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, wynthank15 said:

DD I think you have selective memory, after the initial teething problems with our new style in the early games under JH I rarely recall us giving the ball away in the back four and due to our style of play which you refer to as keeping possession it required the entire opposition to defend their patch thereby preventing breakaway goals against us. A strikers first priority is to hit the target and yes, most go for the corners and can and do miss but a well drilled shot which is saved or hits a defender or woodwork can still offer opportunities to those following up. Further, shots which are mistimed, toe poked or deflected will more often than not end up in the net, even those with a lack of pace, a brilliant exponent of the toe poke in mid stride was willie pettigrew, keepers could never set themselves for the shot because there was no back lift. Fact is, most goals are scored inside the penalty spot and unless you can get the ball into that area frequently enough you are not going to score enough goals.

Under Hughes we frequently cocked up at the back and gifted the opposition the ball to create chances / score goals even after the initial teething problems. Furthermore, under Hughes we tended to not have as many shots on goal than we did under Butcher previously instead preferring to knock the ball around the edge of the penalty area waiting for an opening which often didn't come as teams had dropped back to defend, challenging us to break them down, which we couldn't at times given our slow pedestrian style of play under Hughes.

There's no doubt some of what Hughes instilled into the team was fantastic. After all he brought us success that we will unlikely ever see again albeit having been dealt a fantastic hand with the squad he inherited. However, I thought we were at our best under Hughes when he adapted his style somewhat to include some more direct play as we often saw in games against Ross County when we went for the jugular instead of knocking the ball around the defence.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wynthank15 said:

 brilliant exponent of the toe poke in mid stride was willie pettigrew, 

 Intriguing choice for somebody claiming to be 'well into his thirties' :laugh:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This popped up in my Facebook memories yesterday. A mere 2 years ago!! Excellent all-round performance. Creative, good defending, beautiful passing. Only criticism is we could have been out of sight by half-time with more clinical finishing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mantis, I'm over 60 I said I played well into my 30's.

DD I'm not trying to be smart but I would strongly suggest that it was JH's style of play that won us our first silverware and our highest league position no matter the squad he inherited which I agree was a decent group of players.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wynthank15 said:

Hi Mantis, I'm over 60 I said I played well into my 30's.

DD I'm not trying to be smart but I would strongly suggest that it was JH's style of play that won us our first silverware and our highest league position no matter the squad he inherited which I agree was a decent group of players.

Oops my bad:laugh: :laugh:

Looks a bit ambiguous mind you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, wynthank15 said:

Hi Mantis, I'm over 60 I said I played well into my 30's.

DD I'm not trying to be smart but I would strongly suggest that it was JH's style of play that won us our first silverware and our highest league position no matter the squad he inherited which I agree was a decent group of players.

Personally I think it would be more correct to say we won our first silverware despite the fact that Hughes was in charge.  I'll explain that in more detail when I have more time to collate the facts which support my view.

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1
  • Facepalm 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DoofersDad said:

 

Personally I think it would be more correct to say we won our first silverware despite the fact that Hughes was in charge.  I'll explain that in more detail when I have more time to collate the facts which support my view.

Don't bother on my account. I have little doubt that there is much truth in that statement.

  • Disagree 1
  • Facepalm 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2017 at 1:40 PM, IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER said:

I am afraid we are probably Type 7 at the moment

1ZDRe3C.png

According to a friend who is a doctor down here, type 2 is often referred to as 'the Celtic huddle'.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/09/2017 at 9:16 PM, wynthank15 said:

DD I think you have selective memory, after the initial teething problems with our new style in the early games under JH I rarely recall us giving the ball away in the back four and due to our style of play which you refer to as keeping possession it required the entire opposition to defend their patch thereby preventing breakaway goals against us. A strikers first priority is to hit the target and yes, most go for the corners and can and do miss but a well drilled shot which is saved or hits a defender or woodwork can still offer opportunities to those following up. Further, shots which are mistimed, toe poked or deflected will more often than not end up in the net, even those with a lack of pace, a brilliant exponent of the toe poke in mid stride was willie pettigrew, keepers could never set themselves for the shot because there was no back lift. Fact is, most goals are scored inside the penalty spot and unless you can get the ball into that area frequently enough you are not going to score enough goals.

Under Hughes, we routinely allowed ourselves to be pressed in our own defensive third, resulting in either a hoof up the park which conceded possession, or a mistake next to our goal that created a chance, and often a goal. That's when we weren't passing the ball back to our keeper on his weak foot. 

  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawkeye, the purpose of playing it along the back where you have 4 defenders is if the opposition are going to press ie push up 4 players then there has to be a spare midfield player or forward, I would accept that players cannot always find the spare player if the opposition press as a unit but the concept is sound, you just need players good enough to execute it, just look at the way the english premiership teams play each week. You are always limited by the player's ability. The other advantage is that while you have the ball the opposition can't hurt you. If you do find the spare man in midfield you now have a man advantage in that area from where you can build an attack especially if your wing backs get forward and we had two very decent wing backs. It was the correct way to play and takes a thinking mind set to do it. The shame is that this style was thrown overboard by RF and now we don't have the players of sufficient ability to execute it. I have watched ICT since the Patterson years and our home match against Astra was the best I have seen from an ICT team and that was without Watkins and Shinnie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, wynthank15 said:

Hawkeye, the purpose of playing it along the back where you have 4 defenders is if the opposition are going to press ie push up 4 players then there has to be a spare midfield player or forward, I would accept that players cannot always find the spare player if the opposition press as a unit but the concept is sound, you just need players good enough to execute it, just look at the way the english premiership teams play each week. You are always limited by the player's ability. The other advantage is that while you have the ball the opposition can't hurt you. If you do find the spare man in midfield you now have a man advantage in that area from where you can build an attack especially if your wing backs get forward and we had two very decent wing backs. It was the correct way to play and takes a thinking mind set to do it. The shame is that this style was thrown overboard by RF and now we don't have the players of sufficient ability to execute it. I have watched ICT since the Patterson years and our home match against Astra was the best I have seen from an ICT team and that was without Watkins and Shinnie.

The problem is that, while we were playing it along the back, there was often little or no movement in front of the defence, which led them to keep passing along the back 4. All it needed was a misplaced pass, a heavy touch, or an interception of a telegraphed pass, and the opposition were through on goal. While the opposition can't hurt you if you've got the ball, they can if you give it to them cheaply.

The key is moving the ball at pace. We didn't. Everything was so ponderous at times, that the opposition had time to regroup and reorganise in front of us, removing any space. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hawkeye, I hear what you are saying and yes that will happen from time to time I remember the first time they tried it against Dundee utd and we gifted them 3 goals in the first half but they stuck with it, became comfortable with it and it worked and it was the correct way to go. Remember by the second season we had lost watkins and shinnie not easy players to replace but we still finished in a decent position. I remember watching a league cup match at Ibrox where we dominated possession and lost 1-0, disappointing yes, despondent no, the problem we now have is there is no system, no understanding of what we should be attempting to do. We chucked away a method of play which had been instilled in the players the day JH was sacked and we've suffered ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't agree with this at all. Scottish teams try to play like this and invariably fail. Why, because players are not as technically as good as they should be (shameful reflection on the players) and we lack the ability to play this type of game at pace or can inject pace quickly into our game. This is where Hughes system fell down and is the same with the majority of Scottish teams. I also think you need a greater level of fitness to play this way and much better game intelligence from the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wynthank15 said:

Hawkeye, I hear what you are saying and yes that will happen from time to time I remember the first time they tried it against Dundee utd and we gifted them 3 goals in the first half but they stuck with it, became comfortable with it and it worked and it was the correct way to go. Remember by the second season we had lost watkins and shinnie not easy players to replace but we still finished in a decent position. I remember watching a league cup match at Ibrox where we dominated possession and lost 1-0, disappointing yes, despondent no, the problem we now have is there is no system, no understanding of what we should be attempting to do. We chucked away a method of play which had been instilled in the players the day JH was sacked and we've suffered ever since.

What Dundee United game was that out of interest?

Replacing players is part and parcel of a managers job. In fact it's a massive part of their job. Hughes wasn't the first ICT manager to lose some of his best players. Unfortunately for us, unlike his incumbents, he utterly failed in replacing some of the key players in the team. The season after losing Shinnie and Watkins the only reason we finished in a respectable position was a purple patch after the split where we won 4 games out of 5. We had been playing some brutal stuff for most of that season, especially in the run up to the split. Utterly toothless, tippy tappy guff that saw us passing the ball around for little other reason than simply keeping possession that bored fans silly.

I remember that game at Ibrox as well. I also remember a game the previous year at Ibrox where the balance of possession was much more equal but we won 3 - 0. Possession is only good if you actually do something with it and at times under Hughes it seemed like we were simply playing a possession style football simply for the sake of retaining possession and not much more.

Your staunch defence of everything Hughes is admirable however I can't help but feel it's misguided romanticism of some of the less favourable parts of his tenure at ICT.

That said I don't disagree that currently there is no system but then I'm not overly surprised given the players we've signed and the manager we appointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d imagine the D Utd game was the one we got humped 5-1 I think with Celtic also humping us within a couple of weeks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, jagster said:

I’d imagine the D Utd game was the one we got humped 5-1 I think with Celtic also humping us within a couple of weeks 

Yeah that's the only one I can think of. We had a couple of folk sent off as well I think. Tansey and Watkins? :furtive:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, MuirtownJaggy said:

Just not good enough!!! No width, No pace , No drive !!!! 

Our bowels ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've sussed the DU game I was referring to it was an unmitigated disaster because of the change of style by an ICT team that had played well enough up to that point to the extent that most of the home support I think expected an ICT win or at least a close game but JH had changed what he wanted and it took time to bed in.

Husdean I agree with you about the technical side but you have to ask why? it's because players in this country do not work on it enough and it's just not on skills, football is a team game, it includes game intelligence, movement, everyone understanding what they are trying to do and how to achieve it, what runs need to be made, understanding given circumstances immediately when they arise, how to defend as a unit. The great Goivanni Trapattoni was asked "what do you first look for in a player?" His answer was "intelligence", not skill or great speed or dribbling ability he wanted someone who could understand and learn their system and knew what to do in all situations. My admiration for JH is not based on romanticism it was based on what he was trying to do despite supporter dissatisfaction because he knew it was correct and his project was nowhere near complete when he left. The sad part is all that tough early work was thrown away.

Anyone who cares to look back to JH's second season after the Astra games by which time we had lost our two best players, we had also lost half a team through injuries hence the emergency signings we made but you can't introduce new players into a system and expect it to work straight away so it's little wonder that it took time to get a run of results in that second season and it was a very creditable finish. My defence of JH is not based on any  consideration other than what he achieved on the pitch which in results terms was pretty impressive and in my opinion would have got better as new players learned and adjusted to his system of play.

Ask yourself, during which period did you consistently see players take the ball under pressure in their own box and calmly play their way out retaining possession almost certainly it was only during JH's tenure at all other times it was a blooter up the park.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.