Being more direct is the way to go?

[Tubey]

Thread is true proof stats can be spun whatever way you want to.

I could have started the very same thread with the same stats and entitled it "How we get done when we can't pass properly in defence" and I'd be equally wrong, as those stats mean absolutely nothing other than the fact when we get beat, we played worse than when we won. Which is truly "well, duh" stuff.

 

[davek]

Yes, but it means the system is too easy to play against if the win/loss record is so sketchy. The reason we have success only by playing a greater number of passes is because we play no other way under Martinez, or didn't until West Ham/City. So every loss on there is due to passing in the defensive third, every draw is, and every win is.

You can't say we lost because we somehow didn't pass in the defensive third; it just means we did it badly in those games.

No, no. These are all total number of passes, not passes completed.

 

[marty mcfly]

Once we get on a bit of a run we can start to look at dominating possession again. I'm not against that but we got ourselves into a bit of a rut playing that way and if it requires going direct then so be it. Once teams don't set up to neutralize our possession game because we no longer play just that way ironically it will then allow us to play it more effectively.

 

[davek]

Because since we lost away to Spurs after being caught in posession in our own defensive third the players haven't been the same.

They haven't looked comfortable since opposition players have pushed up high and put them under pressure. We tried to carry on doing the same thing and them playing their way out of it but that didn't work.

So we needed to play a different way, which we did against WHU and City. We looked far better, they players were more confident and played better. 2 draws rather than 2 losses.

Once again, people wanted changes because what we were doing was no longer working. The fact it worked previously doesn't come into it because the reason for it no longer working was a change from the opposition. Thus meaning we needed to change to stay one step ahead.

Yes, we've been through the reason why people are wanting to be more direct (because they see players making costly mistakes caught in possession). The point though is that the figures don't stack up that we can get results by deserting a more patient build up game.

In other words, the solution is to get players back to form and not throw the system out.

 

[Tubey]

No, no. These are all total number of passes, not passes completed.

So? The point remains valid - we're playing a passing game; regardless of what stat you use whether total or completed, it makes no odds - if it's fewer made or fewer successfully made, it just means you employed a passing game poorly in that game, assuming you didn't set up to play more direct.

 

[nsno-chris]

But hold on, you and others have said that other teams have worked us out now and that they are pressing higher up the pitch, penning us in and forcing the mistake. All those factors you mention will be deployed in order to have achieved that - more especially of late during our slump. The corollary of that for you and others is that it stands to reason that a system that's less rigidly using a tactic of playing out from the back is the only thing to combat this opposition tactic of getting more players in our faces. Unfortunately for you the wins and defeats we suffer point in the opposite direction.

But if you feel you can bring in some detailed data sets to contradict my 'crude' conclusions then the floor is yours.

Dave it doesn't at all, you can bang on about it all you want but I've witnessed it with my own eyes.

Anyway, there is to much variation in your figures to use such a basic calculation as you've done, one piece of data will skew the entire plot. Having lost more games than we've won also has a negative affect on your results as there more data to be built into the calculations

also the games that we've won, how do you knit we didn't play 80% of the passes when the game was dead and buried; doesn't prove anything unless the variable is built in

I think what you need to do first is go away and get a basic understanding statistics.

And then comeback and try again

 

[Tubey]

Yes, we've been through the reason why people are wanting to be more direct (because they see players making costly mistakes caught in possession). The point though is that the figures don't stack up that we can get results by deserting a more patient build up game.

In other words, the solution is to get players back to form and not throw the system out.

Dave, I know you'll do your usual here and dig your heels in, but they don't show that all. All they show is that fewer passes were made or attempted. That's it. It doesn't mean in those games we deserted a patient build up play, because we didn't. It just means we made fewer passes, mostly because the opposition killed us off by pressing us high because we were easy to play against.

 

[davek]

And those two draws have totally transformed the atmosphere around the ground.

People were on a high leaving the ground today.

As you said on another thread, it feels like the fever has been broken.

It feels like the manager is unshackled and in turn Lukaku and Barkley have been unchained, unleashed and uninhibited.

We are on the move again, pal.

Just rejoice instead of getting hung up about passing the ball in our own danger area.

Because another "stat" suggests we suck at that this season and have given more goals away in this fashion than any other team.

But it's not rejoicing the stats, it's underlining the reality. The reality of this seasons better results and last years good results. It's not some abstract purist argument for playing a bloodless form of football, it's an argument to play better football and win more games.

 

[L4Everton]

Yes, we've been through the reason why people are wanting to be more direct (because they see players making costly mistakes caught in possession). The point though is that the figures don't stack up that we can get results by deserting a more patient build up game.

In other words, the solution is to get players back to form and not throw the system out.

 

[The Equaliser]

Here's a stat:

According to MOTD we have made 11 individual errors in our own half this season which have led directly to conceding goals.

It would be implausible to suggest that trying to pass it around at the back has nothing to do with that.

 

[davek]

Dave, I know you'll do your usual here and dig your heels in, but they don't show that all. All they show is that fewer passes were made or attempted. That's it. It doesn't mean in those games we deserted a patient build up play, because we didn't. It just means we made fewer passes, mostly because the opposition killed us off by pressing us high because we were easy to play against.

I'm not ignoring that, I'm incorporating it. That's the whole point here: it's asking why there's a fall off in the way we successfully play (with a more patient build up) and the reasons put forward for that is that we are being snuffed out at source and that's down to lost player confidence, underperformance and injury which means players can't perform their passing game more efficiently.

Look, when we get more players back like mccarthy and confidence returns we'll get a greater number of defensive passes back and start winning games again. Nothing surer.

In short on all this, we are in danger of blaming and dumping the solution to our problems and advancing a way playing that can't be sustained successfully.

 

[L4Everton]

In short on all this, we are in danger of blaming the solution to our problems and advancing a way playing that can't be sustained successfully.

Run that one by me again please, whats being blamed/solved/problematic/advanced/sustained?

 

[davek]

Dave it doesn't at all, you can bang on about it all you want but I've witnessed it with my own eyes.

Anyway, there is to much variation in your figures to use such a basic calculation as you've done, one piece of data will skew the entire plot. Having lost more games than we've won also has a negative affect on your results as there more data to be built into the calculations

also the games that we've won, how do you knit we didn't play 80% of the passes when the game was dead and buried; doesn't prove anything unless the variable is built in

I think what you need to do first is go away and get a basic understanding statistics.

And then comeback and try again

Ha Ha Ha.

You're incapable of providing a counter argument but I'm that one not grasping the finer detail.

Ok. We'll leave it there.

 

[L4Everton]

Ok. We'll leave it there.

Finally. JagiDistin and the Ferguson Osman axis of plotting can breath easy. Etc...

 

[Tubey]

I'm not ignoring that, I'm incorporating it. That's the whole point here: it's asking why there's a fall off in the way we successfully play (with a more patient build up) and the reasons put forward for that is that we are being snuffed out at source and that's down to lost player confidence, underperformance and injury which means players can't perform their passing game more efficiently.

Look, when we get more players back like mccarthy and confidence returns we'll get a greater number of defensive passes back and start winning games again. Nothing surer.

In short on all this, we are in danger of blaming and dumping the solution to our problems and advancing a way playing that can't be sustained successfully.

It's down to the opposition realising if they press us high, put us under pressure and force errors, then we're effectively beaten as they break the link between our defence and midfield, so much so that we're reduced to panicked clearances to Naismith and Lukaku as an outball and we're under pressure for 90 minutes. That's why the total passes fall away, because if teams stop us dicking around in the back four, then our total pass rate will fall. It ain't rocket science

That's what happened this season. You're looking at the Everton reasons for why it's failed, when the reality is the opposition become wise to us and nullified a predictable tactical setup.

Martinez believes in hurting opponents rather than worrying about them hurting you. I can understand why you're a fan of that - I am too - but the problem is if you worry too much about your own team imposing themselves, you lose sight of what the opposition are doing and therefore you don't manage the bigger picture.

It's a balancing act. Martinez got it wrong this season, and spectacularly so up until, well, yesterday, and that's the reason fans were booing when 3-0 up against QPR, because it doesn't matter if one garbage side sits back and offers nothing on their travels, a semi-decent side will still turn us over 9 times out of 10 playing that way. It's about setting up to your teams strengths given the situation, not sticking rigidly to a failing philosophy.