Executioners Bong

Status
Not open for further replies.

Allezfan

Player Valuation: 1p
He used to be a poster on here, and he's still publishing artciles about everton's tactics on his blog.

Always worth reading, imo. His latest is about why we're not winning games we're dominating.

Everton’s final third domination has been mentioned several times on the site over the last 12 months. No other team has spent as much time in the opposition’s final third as Everton over the last three seasons.

On average Everton spend a third of their time in the last third of the field.
However, using our expected goals model similar to the ones used by the analysts at Prozone, we can see that Everton haven’t scored as many goals as they should for the shots they’ve had. We can also see that Everton have conceded more goals than they should have for the shots they’ve faced.

Basically, Everton’s dominance of the pitch is achieving the exact opposite of what it should be. Using these measures, we can calculate that Everton should expect to have scored 56-57 goals so far this season. They’ve managed 52. Also that they should expect to have conceded 33 goals so far but have actually conceded 38.

It’s easy to point the finger at individual mistakes for this – Jelavic up front and maybe Heitinga and Howard at the back. It’s a little harder to look at the system and say: “this just isn’t working”. So that’s what I’m going to try to do here…

My theory is that camping out in opposition territory isn’t doing Everton any favours. There’s generally two types of approach and both look to utilise width. The first approach involves working it methodically out to the flanks, and often involves an interchange between full back and wide midfielder before the ball gets sent in.

The second is utilising the long ball – aiming for the target man who brings others in before it’s again, generally worked wide. Everton use both the long ball and the cross more than the majority of teams. Defenders know what’s coming. They sit back and defend deep content to face play knowing they’ll seldom get turned round. If they do it will be close to their own goal line and there’ll be plenty of team mates defending the cross centrally in the box. Rarely do you see teams playing a high-line against Everton.

I wanted to test how Everton’s attacking efficiency changes depending on how territorially dominant they are. Thankfully, the split between games where Everton have spent a third or more of their time in the final third, and games when they’ve spent less than a third of their time in the final third is almost equal.

It actually turns out that Everton score more and are better at converting chances when they’ve been territorially dominant – chance conversion is around 95% of that expected. This is compared to around 87% when Everton spend less than a third of their time in the attacking third.

While these figures blow my original theory out of the water, they point to the fact that Everton don’t really have variety in their attack and simply aren’t prepared or equipped to break quickly on an opponent as a team. Mirallas is key to this. He’s demonstrated his ability to do this by going it alone in recent games against Stoke and Spurs.

The rest, however, struggle as they don’t possess the Belgian’s pace. Even with the goal against City, Fellaini’s pass to Jelavic was fairly dismal and the Croatian was forced to check inside to pot-shot from outside the area. The shot even needed a looping deflection and Hart to be caught in no man’s land before it found its way into the net. The key then, may be to get Mirallas more involved centrally to enable quicker and more direct transitions between attack and defence. Hopefully it’s something that Everton will improve on as a team next year.

The figures are much more revealing defensively. Splitting the games again as before, Everton’s defence becomes solid when the team isn’t dominating the opponent. Forced to concede territory, Everton resume shape with bodies behind the ball. In these games Everton concede less than expected , letting in 19 goals when they’d expect to concede 20.

In the games when Everton dominate the opponent, the defence collapses alarmingly, conceding 19 goals when they should only be expecting to concede 13. It’s really not surprising when you consider how advanced Baines and Coleman become in these games.

Distin and Jagielka are relied upon heavily to hold the fort. They’re both physically gifted and need to be as they’re expected to hold a high line. Everyone’s still having nightmares about Heitinga being expected to do the same against Kone at Wigan and Benteke at Goodison.

Finding the perfect balance between defence and attack is always going to be tricky. It makes more sense to fit the system to the players rather than the players to the system. You only have to look at Villas-Boas at Chelsea or Rodgers at Liverpool earlier this season to see that.
 
He's not wrong, although in the games against Spurs and Arsenal, I think you saw us counter attacking quite well. Especially Spurs.
 
Great read, very informative and straight to the point. Someone forward it directly to Moyes PA
 
A mate of mine is a big PAOK fan, and when we signed Mirallas last year, he said you better be playing him through the middle. Even though he played for their rivals, he was a big fan of his and thought we'd signed a great player with potential to develop better in the Prem.

I hope longer term that he does play through the middle, as whilst he's still getting used to the speed and physicality of the English league, he's shown enough to me so far that he could be quite effective. Certainly offers something different - a point made by the Executioner's Bong (agree it's a great site).
 

I like the EB but that is just posting obviousness isn't it?
Attack with more players and keep the ball and you'll make better chances
Counter attacks work better with quick players
The more players you attack with the weaker your defense in a counter attack
Also with his two styles of play we do both loads, we're definitely not one dimensional, especially this year.
 
I like the EB but that is just posting obviousness isn't it?
Attack with more players and keep the ball and you'll make better chances
Counter attacks work better with quick players
The more players you attack with the weaker your defense in a counter attack
Also with his two styles of play we do both loads, we're definitely not one dimensional, especially this year.

I found the fact that over the last 3 years we've spent more time in the opposition's final third than any other team, interesting.

And the shots conceded vs goals conceded in games we're dominating is another interesting stat. I think the way he blames heitinga's poor form on being asked to play a high line with two attacking fullbacks that requires very fast movement from the CBs which he can't do, is something worth saying again.
 
Yeah EB is a great site.

The key then, may be to get Mirallas more involved centrally to enable quicker and more direct transitions between attack and defence. Hopefully it’s something that Everton will improve on as a team next year.
Well if Felli is gone it seems likely Mirallas will play in the hole assuming we can get someone to play on the right ... which is a big IF with our typical transfer window signing performance. I think EB started off wondering if this was a tactical issue and basically concluded it was a personnel issue -- we set-up the best way for the players we have. It certainly makes us one-dimensional but playing a different way would mean playing tactics which are less suited for our players. We just need more options in the squad to be able to have a plan B. Hell for some of this year and some years in the past you couldn't even call us a wide team ... we only attacked effectively down one side of the pitch. At least we're a more balanced side now in that regard.

In the games when Everton dominate the opponent, the defence collapses alarmingly, conceding 19 goals when they should only be expecting to concede 13. It’s really not surprising when you consider how advanced Baines and Coleman become in these games.
I wonder if there are more Heit games on that side which skews the numbers?
 
I found the fact that over the last 3 years we've spent more time in the opposition's final third than any other team, interesting.

And the shots conceded vs goals conceded in games we're dominating is another interesting stat. I think the way he blames heitinga's poor form on being asked to play a high line with two attacking fullbacks that requires very fast movement from the CBs which he can't do, is something worth saying again.

The attacking 1/3 stat was a major surprise especially given the timescale.

The obvious conclusion from the shots / goals ratio at both ends of the pitch, being relatively poor, is that we're lacking a top notch striker & keeper.
 

I found the fact that over the last 3 years we've spent more time in the opposition's final third than any other team, interesting.

And the shots conceded vs goals conceded in games we're dominating is another interesting stat. I think the way he blames heitinga's poor form on being asked to play a high line with two attacking fullbacks that requires very fast movement from the CBs which he can't do, is something worth saying again.

Yeah fair enough. Thought the shots/goals shows what I've been thinking all season, every shot by the opposition seems to be goal when we are on the attack.

Heittinga was fairly obvious as well, slow defender playing a high line = not a good game and conceding good chances.

Highlighted bit, i'll be honest, I think I misread, that is a bit surprising as I would of thought that Arsenal and United would have that. We spend a lot of time pushed forwards though, a lot of time passing around in the oppositions half as well and tend to clear the ball from our area pretty quickly as well.

Perhaps our game not as negative as some claim?
 
The obvious conclusion from the shots / goals ratio at both ends of the pitch, being relatively poor, is that we're lacking a top notch striker & keeper.

The article itself explains that it's more complex than that.

It says we have the ball in the opposition third for longer because opponents have learned to just sit back and wait for Baines to whip it in, and simply defend that. The explanation, using the three-year timeframe examined, would be that we have over-relied on the aerial threat of Cahill and, more recently, Fellaini. We became one-trick ponies - another reply in this thread pointed out that we didn't really have a right side in the last couple of years and I'd add to that by saying that after Arteta lost his form we didn't have a passing threat in the middle either. In fact when Felli plays at 10 with Ossie and Gibbo in DCM, we STILL have no passing threat in the middle because Ossie and Gibbo lack creativity and pace. And the temptation to lump it up to a 6'4" afro is just too much.

We haven't had a player who, with the ball at his feet and running at an opponent, has struck fear in anyone for several seasons. Ergo we have dallied in possession and slowly worked the ball around to Baines for him to whip it in, leading to extended time of possession, but limited penetration and goals, in the opponent's third. Furthermore the article highlights that in addition to lacking variety in our attack, we lack pace when we counter (Mirallas and Coleman aside). As we have become increasingly reliant on Baines and Coleman to attack, we have left bigger and bigger gaps at the back and asked Jags, Distin and Howard to operate with no margin for error whatsoever.

The reason we don't score as many, and concede more, than our territorial and possession domination says we should is because we lack pace and creativity in midfield. It is not the fault of the strikers and the goalkeeper. The article makes that pretty clear IMHO, and also poses a possible solution in moving Mirallas to 10/ACM/second striker. I'd add to that by getting in another RM with pace, and a ball-playing CM.

What is CRYSTAL CLEAR is that simply replacing the striker and the goalkeeper will not solve the problem. We still won't be able to get the ball to the striker, and we will still move Coleman and Baines upfield to the point that Jags and Distin get exposed.
 
Last edited:
The article itself explains that it's more complex than that.

It says we have the ball in the opposition third for longer because opponents have learned to just sit back and wait for Baines to whip it in, and simply defend that. The explanation, using the three-year timeframe examined, would be that we have over-relied on the aerial threat of Cahill and, more recently, Fellaini. We became one-trick ponies - another reply in this thread pointed out that we didn't really have a right side in the last couple of years and I'd add to that by saying that after Arteta lost his form we didn't have a passing threat in the middle either. In fact when Felli plays at 10 with Ossie and Gibbo in DCM, we STILL have no passing threat in the middle because Ossie and Gibbo lack creativity and pace. And the temptation to lump it up to a 6'4" afro is just too much.

We haven't had a player who, with the ball at his feet and running at an opponent, has struck fear in anyone for several seasons. Ergo we have dallied in possession and slowly worked the ball around to Baines for him to whip it in, leading to extended time of possession, but limited penetration and goals, in the opponent's third. Furthermore the article highlights that in addition to lacking variety in our attack, we lack pace when we counter (Mirallas and Coleman aside). As we have become increasingly reliant on Baines and Coleman to attack, we have left bigger and bigger gaps at the back and asked Jags, Distin and Howard to operate with no margin for error whatsoever.

The reason we don't score as many, and concede more, than our territorial and possession domination says we should is because we lack pace and creativity in midfield. It is not the fault of the strikers and the goalkeeper. The article makes that pretty clear IMHO, and also poses a possible solution in moving Mirallas to 10/ACM/second striker. I'd add to that by getting in another RM with pace, and a ball-playing CM.

What is CRYSTAL CLEAR is that simply replacing the striker and the goalkeeper will not solve the problem. We still won't be able to get the ball to the striker, and we will still move Coleman and Baines upfield to the point that Jags and Distin get exposed.

Good post mate.
 
This final sentence sums up Moyes' shortcomings imo, he's always playing square pegs in round holes, it obviously doesn't help.

Finding the perfect balance between defence and attack is always going to be tricky. It makes more sense to fit the system to the players rather than the players to the system. You only have to look at Villas-Boas at Chelsea or Rodgers at Liverpool earlier this season to see that.
 
The article itself explains that it's more complex than that.

It says we have the ball in the opposition third for longer because opponents have learned to just sit back and wait for Baines to whip it in, and simply defend that. The explanation, using the three-year timeframe examined, would be that we have over-relied on the aerial threat of Cahill and, more recently, Fellaini. We became one-trick ponies - another reply in this thread pointed out that we didn't really have a right side in the last couple of years and I'd add to that by saying that after Arteta lost his form we didn't have a passing threat in the middle either. In fact when Felli plays at 10 with Ossie and Gibbo in DCM, we STILL have no passing threat in the middle because Ossie and Gibbo lack creativity and pace. And the temptation to lump it up to a 6'4" afro is just too much.

We haven't had a player who, with the ball at his feet and running at an opponent, has struck fear in anyone for several seasons. Ergo we have dallied in possession and slowly worked the ball around to Baines for him to whip it in, leading to extended time of possession, but limited penetration and goals, in the opponent's third. Furthermore the article highlights that in addition to lacking variety in our attack, we lack pace when we counter (Mirallas and Coleman aside). As we have become increasingly reliant on Baines and Coleman to attack, we have left bigger and bigger gaps at the back and asked Jags, Distin and Howard to operate with no margin for error whatsoever.

The reason we don't score as many, and concede more, than our territorial and possession domination says we should is because we lack pace and creativity in midfield. It is not the fault of the strikers and the goalkeeper. The article makes that pretty clear IMHO, and also poses a possible solution in moving Mirallas to 10/ACM/second striker. I'd add to that by getting in another RM with pace, and a ball-playing CM.

What is CRYSTAL CLEAR is that simply replacing the striker and the goalkeeper will not solve the problem. We still won't be able to get the ball to the striker, and we will still move Coleman and Baines upfield to the point that Jags and Distin get exposed.

Not reading all that
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top