| Attacking, Creative Football 10:36 - Sep 22 with 5099 views | dna |
Cooper promises the Forest fans - Really Steve???
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/ [Post edited 22 Sep 2021 10:36]
|  | | |  |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:04 - Sep 26 with 763 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:00 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Don’t talk wet.
We didn’t have a striker. We had a bunch of forwards and wide players, at no point did we have a focal point like we do now with Piroe.
You think people just so happened to “work us out” 18 months in? If we were worked out then it would come within a few games, not seasons. This is professional football.
We simply had a thin squad in terms of quality and players in key positions that were playing there out of necessity. |
Copper bought Lowe for same amount as we did Piroe, and wanted him to play up front as he said in his interview when he first signed him.
He also had Gyokeres who seems to have now found a home with Coventry.
He was backed, as Martin has been. |  | | |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:07 - Sep 26 with 756 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 16:58 - Sep 26 by 34dfgdf54 |
Ah right so Martin has suddenly been backed to the hilts by the owners but Cooper wasn’t. Ok. |
Yes.
We have spent the second highest amount in transfer fees in our football league history this season.
Nearly two and a half times the amount in transfer fees (230% ish) Cooper got in his full two years combined, has been spent this season in a few short months. |  |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:11 - Sep 26 with 752 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:04 - Sep 26 by 34dfgdf54 |
Copper bought Lowe for same amount as we did Piroe, and wanted him to play up front as he said in his interview when he first signed him.
He also had Gyokeres who seems to have now found a home with Coventry.
He was backed, as Martin has been. |
Lowe wasn’t a Cooper choice mun. |  | | |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:13 - Sep 26 with 733 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:04 - Sep 26 by 34dfgdf54 |
Copper bought Lowe for same amount as we did Piroe, and wanted him to play up front as he said in his interview when he first signed him.
He also had Gyokeres who seems to have now found a home with Coventry.
He was backed, as Martin has been. |
Of course he wanted him to play up front, he was by far the best option we had. A striker he most certainly wasn’t though, he was a winger learning to be one. May well be a decent one in the future too, certainly has promise.
But as I said, we have spent two and a half times in transfer fees in these few short months than we did in Coopers two year stint combined. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:20 - Sep 26 with 733 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 11:21 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Correct.
We may become more attacking, but we aren’t currently. Not close.
We are very negative, we don’t create much, we are very slow, very ponderous. We have a lot of meaningless possession with no purpose and I think people automatically connect having the ball with “attacking”. However they aren’t the same thing.
Is that getting better? Maybe, hopefully. Hard to say after a game, we had the worst half of football in decades the game before so it’s not been a great sample size since.
Certain people are creating myths, despite the fact reality easily opposes it. Whether it helps them convince themselves, or they believe they are convincing others isn’t clear.
I just don’t understand why people have to be so militant in one position. If we do well then praise us, if we don’t then don’t. Those that have criticised us thus far aren’t saying we will never be good, they are just stating that we haven’t been so far.
Not sure what the problem is. |
"I just don’t understand why people have to be so militant in one position".
 Strewth! |  |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:23 - Sep 26 with 732 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 16:25 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Shots attempted and goals is a fair barometer for how attacking a side is, yes. Especially over a fair sample size of matches, which 9 consecutive matches certainly is.
Shots attempted more so a telling piece of information than goals, but both combined is even better.
I didn’t describe Coopers style as attacking, in fact it’s based on defence. I am just stating the fact that it was more attacking than Martins games so far. You are getting hoodwinked by possession no doubt.
Whether I’m in the minority isn’t important to me, if that’s the case then the minority will be correct and I am happy to be a part of it.
On average over both Cooper seasons, our 9th game of the season saw 17.5 Swansea shots each per game… Martins 9th game saw 7.
It’s not even close currently. [Post edited 26 Sep 2021 16:57]
|
How about:
% of play in the opposition final third.
Touches in opponents box.
Expected goals.
Chances created.
Crosses attempted.
Some other stats like that? | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:25 - Sep 26 with 727 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 16:56 - Sep 26 by WalterBoyd |
I am glad someone else agrees with me, that the off ball movement, work rate, attitude and nuances of a team can be better picked up by being there.
I watch all away matches on tv but dont feel as involved, get a sense off all that is happening.
But whether there or not, the continued improvement, slight changes to tactics and work rate of the team is plain to see. |
100%
You can't see all the players even, let alone their movement and what they do for the team of the ball. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:27 - Sep 26 with 720 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:07 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yes.
We have spent the second highest amount in transfer fees in our football league history this season.
Nearly two and a half times the amount in transfer fees (230% ish) Cooper got in his full two years combined, has been spent this season in a few short months. |
Net transfers? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:30 - Sep 26 with 707 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:23 - Sep 26 by jackrmee |
How about:
% of play in the opposition final third.
Touches in opponents box.
Expected goals.
Chances created.
Crosses attempted.
Some other stats like that? |
Play in the opposition third doesn’t signify attacks though. That could easily be the result of the opponent sitting deep and intentionally giving you the ball, that happens for large periods of many games.
Touches in opposition box, yes I’d say that may be a fair one when used in conjunction with shots attempted, certainly not one I would favour over shots attempted but could certainly be a fair support stat.
Expected goals is nonsense as I have touched upon before, it’s a future guess based on previous matches against different opposition.
Chances created would tend to result in some sort of effort attempted.
Crosses attempted signifies a style of play/formation as opposed to attacking intent. A team with no wingers that attacks through the middle may cross the ball far less than a defensive team.
So shots attempted is still the best stat to tell us, although I’d be interested in touches in opponents box if you have it as a supporting piece. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:37 - Sep 26 with 705 views | PatchesOHoulihan |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:00 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Don’t talk wet.
We didn’t have a striker. We had a bunch of forwards and wide players, at no point did we have a focal point like we do now with Piroe.
You think people just so happened to “work us out” 18 months in? If we were worked out then it would come within a few games, not seasons. This is professional football.
We simply had a thin squad in terms of quality and players in key positions that were playing there out of necessity. |
We were easy to work out. Ponderous on the ball. If there was a book entitled football management for dummies that’s how we played. As fans we could see the shape and patterns and knew what was happening. I’m sure more opposition analysts did the same except better.
We achieved results incredibly well given what we were offering in terms of football and I give Cooper credit for that.
If our squad this year was managed by Cooper he’d probably bench all our creativity |  |
| This is Patches O'Houlihan saying "Take care of your balls, and they'll take care of you." |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:38 - Sep 26 with 698 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:27 - Sep 26 by jackrmee |
Net transfers? |
I don’t believe in the notion of net transfers and have explained the reasoning for that several times. But I can only imagine that would be even worse viewing for those trying to suggest Cooper was backed in the transfer market:
I forgot the Kyle Joseph reported fee above too.
But:-
- Roughly 2.3m positive net spend this season
- roughly MINUS 47m net spend the previous 2 combined | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:39 - Sep 26 with 700 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:30 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
Play in the opposition third doesn’t signify attacks though. That could easily be the result of the opponent sitting deep and intentionally giving you the ball, that happens for large periods of many games.
Touches in opposition box, yes I’d say that may be a fair one when used in conjunction with shots attempted, certainly not one I would favour over shots attempted but could certainly be a fair support stat.
Expected goals is nonsense as I have touched upon before, it’s a future guess based on previous matches against different opposition.
Chances created would tend to result in some sort of effort attempted.
Crosses attempted signifies a style of play/formation as opposed to attacking intent. A team with no wingers that attacks through the middle may cross the ball far less than a defensive team.
So shots attempted is still the best stat to tell us, although I’d be interested in touches in opponents box if you have it as a supporting piece. |
Doesn't matter the reason you have the ball. Whether you were given the ball by the opposition, or whether you humped it up from defence. You are still attacking. They opposition may have been pressed into giving you the ball or making a mistake.
I don't think an opposition ever intentionally gives the ball away. Strange one that.
xG is not based on previous matches. It's based on the quality of the chances created during any period, so it could be only the match in question, or any matches you choose.
Chances created doesn't always end in a shot though. Many times they don't even latch onto the ball.
OK, yes the crosses thing could signify a style o play, but so can everything else.
Hence why shots is not a good basis for judging attacking intent.
A team could have 10 shots from way downtown.
Another team could have 10 great chances created or good balls into a great area, but no-one managed to get on the end of them. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:40 - Sep 26 with 699 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:38 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
I don’t believe in the notion of net transfers and have explained the reasoning for that several times. But I can only imagine that would be even worse viewing for those trying to suggest Cooper was backed in the transfer market:
I forgot the Kyle Joseph reported fee above too.
But:-
- Roughly 2.3m positive net spend this season
- roughly MINUS 47m net spend the previous 2 combined |
haha ok, let's not use net transfers  | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:42 - Sep 26 with 692 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:37 - Sep 26 by PatchesOHoulihan |
We were easy to work out. Ponderous on the ball. If there was a book entitled football management for dummies that’s how we played. As fans we could see the shape and patterns and knew what was happening. I’m sure more opposition analysts did the same except better.
We achieved results incredibly well given what we were offering in terms of football and I give Cooper credit for that.
If our squad this year was managed by Cooper he’d probably bench all our creativity |
We weren’t that easy to work out, we got to the play off final last year and lost to a team now sat in the top half of the Premier League after going toe to toe with Liverpool yesterday.
The bulk of that team was the same personnel we faced at Wembley including 2 of the 3 scorers. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:48 - Sep 26 with 691 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:11 - Sep 26 by londonlisa2001 |
Lowe wasn’t a Cooper choice mun. |
Ah right. He must have lied in his interview afterwards then when we specifically said he wanted him to play a different role than he has elsewhere and spoke to him at length. | | | |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:49 - Sep 26 with 686 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:39 - Sep 26 by jackrmee |
Doesn't matter the reason you have the ball. Whether you were given the ball by the opposition, or whether you humped it up from defence. You are still attacking. They opposition may have been pressed into giving you the ball or making a mistake.
I don't think an opposition ever intentionally gives the ball away. Strange one that.
xG is not based on previous matches. It's based on the quality of the chances created during any period, so it could be only the match in question, or any matches you choose.
Chances created doesn't always end in a shot though. Many times they don't even latch onto the ball.
OK, yes the crosses thing could signify a style o play, but so can everything else.
Hence why shots is not a good basis for judging attacking intent.
A team could have 10 shots from way downtown.
Another team could have 10 great chances created or good balls into a great area, but no-one managed to get on the end of them. |
I completely disagree with that. Having the ball because you have been given it doesn’t mean you are attacking. You are only attacking if you are getting an end product, otherwise that is just possession.
xG is based on previous matches, it takes into consideration chances and the quality of those chances, but it’s an ever moving guess with each passing game. Often inaccurate, future guesses should never be used as factual evidence.
Chances created doesn’t always result in a shot no, but if it doesn’t then you have to question the quality of those chances. And “chances” are subjective aren’t they, one person may think it was a chance and another may not.
Attempts on goal is an end product of an attack that cannot really be disputed or interpreted.
You may well be right for one game. However over a large sample size it’s unlikely that a teams shots are going to come from half way line speculators and indeed should make roughly the same % of short distances, within an acceptable margin of error anyway.
Put it this way, it’s extremely unlikely that a team that is “far more attacking” than another would have 24% less attempts on goal, 33% less goals, 9% less shots on target and 44% less points than the other… all in simultaneous combination.
Surely you can see that? [Post edited 26 Sep 2021 17:54]
| |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:10 - Sep 26 with 675 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:20 - Sep 26 by jackrmee |
"I just don’t understand why people have to be so militant in one position".
Strewth! |
I’m not at all if that’s what you are suggesting.
My views change with what happens. Yours remains regardless of what happens.
I have criticised Martin when he was setting his team out badly, I have praised him when he has set his team out well. My views are in keeping with real time events.
You praise him regardless, if there are facts presented to show otherwise then they are ignored or dismissed. That’s a militant position and not a considered position.
Considered positions move with events. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:16 - Sep 26 with 675 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 17:49 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
I completely disagree with that. Having the ball because you have been given it doesn’t mean you are attacking. You are only attacking if you are getting an end product, otherwise that is just possession.
xG is based on previous matches, it takes into consideration chances and the quality of those chances, but it’s an ever moving guess with each passing game. Often inaccurate, future guesses should never be used as factual evidence.
Chances created doesn’t always result in a shot no, but if it doesn’t then you have to question the quality of those chances. And “chances” are subjective aren’t they, one person may think it was a chance and another may not.
Attempts on goal is an end product of an attack that cannot really be disputed or interpreted.
You may well be right for one game. However over a large sample size it’s unlikely that a teams shots are going to come from half way line speculators and indeed should make roughly the same % of short distances, within an acceptable margin of error anyway.
Put it this way, it’s extremely unlikely that a team that is “far more attacking” than another would have 24% less attempts on goal, 33% less goals, 9% less shots on target and 44% less points than the other… all in simultaneous combination.
Surely you can see that? [Post edited 26 Sep 2021 17:54]
|
No, attacking is when you are moving forward with the ball.
xG has nothing to do with previous matches. It's to do with the quality of chances created.
If a chance created doesn't end up in a shot, maybe you can question the quality of the chance, but maybe you can question the quality of the player receiving that chance.
Attempts on goal is an end product of an attack, but not every attack.
Whether its likely or unlikely, it's no good using just those stats. You are using them because they back up an agenda you want to push. Simple. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:19 - Sep 26 with 672 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:10 - Sep 26 by Dr_Parnassus |
I’m not at all if that’s what you are suggesting.
My views change with what happens. Yours remains regardless of what happens.
I have criticised Martin when he was setting his team out badly, I have praised him when he has set his team out well. My views are in keeping with real time events.
You praise him regardless, if there are facts presented to show otherwise then they are ignored or dismissed. That’s a militant position and not a considered position.
Considered positions move with events. |
We are not thick.
You are only "praising" Martin so you can say you were right.
This proves that, as he has changed his tactics like you said he should.
Well done Russell. Well done me.
It's totally false.
We won that match because of the first half performance. Nothing else.
Martin has said that was because they played in how he asked them to do. Not because he decided to change tactics.
You are simply trying to be right. Yet again. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:23 - Sep 26 with 668 views | monmouth |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:19 - Sep 26 by jackrmee |
We are not thick.
You are only "praising" Martin so you can say you were right.
This proves that, as he has changed his tactics like you said he should.
Well done Russell. Well done me.
It's totally false.
We won that match because of the first half performance. Nothing else.
Martin has said that was because they played in how he asked them to do. Not because he decided to change tactics.
You are simply trying to be right. Yet again. |
Why are you engaging. He’s a loon. |  |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:24 - Sep 26 with 661 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:16 - Sep 26 by jackrmee |
No, attacking is when you are moving forward with the ball.
xG has nothing to do with previous matches. It's to do with the quality of chances created.
If a chance created doesn't end up in a shot, maybe you can question the quality of the chance, but maybe you can question the quality of the player receiving that chance.
Attempts on goal is an end product of an attack, but not every attack.
Whether its likely or unlikely, it's no good using just those stats. You are using them because they back up an agenda you want to push. Simple. |
No, it really isn’t. Just as defending isn’t moving backwards with the ball. Attacking is posing a threat, possession is not necessarily a threat.
I work with xG and other model driven data on the daily, it’s my profession. xG is based on previous games, how on earth can you base a prediction on quality of chances if you don’t look at precious games in order to assess them? They are based on previous games, you can wish to not believe me if you like.
Attempts attempted is the end product of quality and productive attacks, again otherwise it’s largely just possession.
Of course it’s useful. You use the data that gives you the highest chance of accuracy.
To suggest a team with 33% more goals, 9% more shots on target and 23% more attempts on goal is common sense.
To suggest the above team is not more attacking is skirting the facts to push an alternative narrative. Thankfully I’m firmly in the obvious common sense camp and don’t have to pretend that the team that is so much more attacking… isn’t.
I mean, you haven’t even presented the stats you wish to look at instead. Do that then we will talk. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:26 - Sep 26 with 660 views | jackrmee |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:23 - Sep 26 by monmouth |
Why are you engaging. He’s a loon. |
I really don't know haha  | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:29 - Sep 26 with 649 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:23 - Sep 26 by monmouth |
Why are you engaging. He’s a loon. |
Because I have to point out when he is clearly being obtuse. | |
| |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:33 - Sep 26 with 642 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Attacking, Creative Football on 18:19 - Sep 26 by jackrmee |
We are not thick.
You are only "praising" Martin so you can say you were right.
This proves that, as he has changed his tactics like you said he should.
Well done Russell. Well done me.
It's totally false.
We won that match because of the first half performance. Nothing else.
Martin has said that was because they played in how he asked them to do. Not because he decided to change tactics.
You are simply trying to be right. Yet again. |
I am praising Russell because he managed to win the game using the obvious tactics many of us have been calling for. That’s encouraging.
Again, I haven’t made it up. We had less possession (considerably so) and more long balls in our two wins than any other league game. Just a fact. This is exactly what many of us have been calling for.
I think your issue is you would prefer to ignore reality because it turns out Russell may well now be seeing what many of us have for a while.
You don’t have to ‘try’ to be right when you are.
I can see a scenario where you may want us to start losing should Russ continue this style of play. As I said, I think you have a problem with certain individuals as opposed to certain viewpoints.
That’s a shame. [Post edited 26 Sep 2021 18:37]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.