| The relationship possession v results. 15:42 - Oct 19 with 680 views | ReslovenSwan1 |
Where are we with this model? The theory is that when Martin compromises his principle and cuts down on pssession and does more long balls Swansea play better and get better results
The last two game are actually the opposite of this. Burnley 50% possession or so and a 4-0 thrashing.
Last night Swansea won with 74% possession 700 passes 13-7 shots on goal 90% passing accuracy. Corners 8-0. Swansea goals were mistakes by Darling and co. Grimes letting him man go etc
Martin got his model last night. Dominating possession plenty of passes, plenty of shot on goal and a win. He has not compromised his principle too much just a few tweaks.
Possession stats do not depends on Martin's approach entirely. Domination is what he aims for. It depends on the opponent. Burney contested possession and pressed Swansea to submission. Reading let Swansea have possession and played on the breakaway.
I am not a stats man or a football expert just an observer /fan. I stand to be corrected and educated.
|  |
| |  |
| The relationship possession v results. on 16:35 - Oct 19 with 646 views | vetchonian |
How many times in post match pressers did he say we dominated despite us losing having 70%+ possession.....
Burnley had 50 % possession and battered us it effectiveness with possession that is key
Yes we won last night with 74% possession yet despite having almost 3 times as much possession than Reading we had 13 shots to their 7 nearly twice as many shots of which we had 5 on target to their 4.....therein lies a tale... so despite as you say dominating possession with plenty of passes we didnt really have plenty of shots on goal not that more than Reading! |  |
| |
| The relationship possession v results. on 16:59 - Oct 19 with 631 views | Whiterockin |
| The relationship possession v results. on 16:35 - Oct 19 by vetchonian |
How many times in post match pressers did he say we dominated despite us losing having 70%+ possession.....
Burnley had 50 % possession and battered us it effectiveness with possession that is key
Yes we won last night with 74% possession yet despite having almost 3 times as much possession than Reading we had 13 shots to their 7 nearly twice as many shots of which we had 5 on target to their 4.....therein lies a tale... so despite as you say dominating possession with plenty of passes we didnt really have plenty of shots on goal not that more than Reading! |
8 corners to none also needs to be taken into consideration as we are finally scoring more from set plays. |  | | |
| The relationship possession v results. on 17:07 - Oct 19 with 612 views | vetchonian |
| The relationship possession v results. on 16:59 - Oct 19 by Whiterockin |
8 corners to none also needs to be taken into consideration as we are finally scoring more from set plays. |
yes our set piece coach needs to be congratulated as he was post sunderland | |
| |
| The relationship possession v results. on 07:18 - Oct 20 with 549 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The relationship possession v results. on 16:35 - Oct 19 by vetchonian |
How many times in post match pressers did he say we dominated despite us losing having 70%+ possession.....
Burnley had 50 % possession and battered us it effectiveness with possession that is key
Yes we won last night with 74% possession yet despite having almost 3 times as much possession than Reading we had 13 shots to their 7 nearly twice as many shots of which we had 5 on target to their 4.....therein lies a tale... so despite as you say dominating possession with plenty of passes we didnt really have plenty of shots on goal not that more than Reading! |
Correct.
69.33% average possession prior to the obvious change against Stoke averaging 0.83 points per game.
Since then we have averaged 52.77% averaging 2.11 points per game.
Silly looking at individual games. We won’t win every game we sacrifice possession and we won’t lose every game we dominate off the charts - but the overall picture will unquestionably correlate.
Same goes for pass count and long ball %.
It’s not even questionable as far as the data goes, it’s clear as day. |  |
| |
| The relationship possession v results. on 08:30 - Oct 20 with 528 views | jack247 |
There’s no doubt that keeping the ball in our own final third for long periods is counterproductive. We were doing way too much of this. ‘Direct’ can also be misinterpreted. We’ve never gone Wimbledon in the 80s. Less passes to get to the same point is usually a good thing, particularly when we’ve turned over an attack and the opponents aren’t set defensively. Dr P, Vetchonian and co called this out a while ago and it’s very hard to argue with.
There will be games where we have to play more like our old way, Tuesday being a classic example. Reading were happy to stick everyone behind the ball and give us territory and possession. There’s no real option but to try to break them down then. Our three goals, I’m including the build up that won the corner here, came from us trying to probe our way through a tight, deep defence. Much more like Martinball v1.
Once we’d scored them, Reading were forced to come out and play. We earned the right to play more direct, try more high risk/high reward passes and we did look more dangerous. Obafemi looked a right handful playing that way.
The new way of playing is clearly an improvement. We look more like scoring and we let less silly goals in. There will be times though, when we have to play Martinball v1, minus the faffing around at the back. | | | |
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:14 - Oct 20 with 492 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The relationship possession v results. on 08:30 - Oct 20 by jack247 |
There’s no doubt that keeping the ball in our own final third for long periods is counterproductive. We were doing way too much of this. ‘Direct’ can also be misinterpreted. We’ve never gone Wimbledon in the 80s. Less passes to get to the same point is usually a good thing, particularly when we’ve turned over an attack and the opponents aren’t set defensively. Dr P, Vetchonian and co called this out a while ago and it’s very hard to argue with.
There will be games where we have to play more like our old way, Tuesday being a classic example. Reading were happy to stick everyone behind the ball and give us territory and possession. There’s no real option but to try to break them down then. Our three goals, I’m including the build up that won the corner here, came from us trying to probe our way through a tight, deep defence. Much more like Martinball v1.
Once we’d scored them, Reading were forced to come out and play. We earned the right to play more direct, try more high risk/high reward passes and we did look more dangerous. Obafemi looked a right handful playing that way.
The new way of playing is clearly an improvement. We look more like scoring and we let less silly goals in. There will be times though, when we have to play Martinball v1, minus the faffing around at the back. |
I’ve always said Martinball “can” work against the lesser clubs at home, I mean in terms of quality rather than immediate league position. That’s due to us being so much better man for man though as opposed to the tactic itself.
It works against Cardiff, Peterborough, Barnsley - those types of teams perfectly well. But it’s most certainly not a one size fits all system due to how many flaws it has. Martin openly said before he doesn’t worry about the opposition they have to adapt to play us as opposed to the other way around.
That was a horrifically naive statement, something that appears to be no longer the case. | |
| |
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:40 - Oct 20 with 485 views | jack247 |
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:14 - Oct 20 by Dr_Parnassus |
I’ve always said Martinball “can” work against the lesser clubs at home, I mean in terms of quality rather than immediate league position. That’s due to us being so much better man for man though as opposed to the tactic itself.
It works against Cardiff, Peterborough, Barnsley - those types of teams perfectly well. But it’s most certainly not a one size fits all system due to how many flaws it has. Martin openly said before he doesn’t worry about the opposition they have to adapt to play us as opposed to the other way around.
That was a horrifically naive statement, something that appears to be no longer the case. |
Yes and there are occasions where we will have to use it. Martinball v2 would not have been effective against a severely defensive team who have spawned a 2-0 lead. It relies on moving forward quickly and catching defensive players out of position, which Readings rarely were.
The new improved version is infinitely better, but sometimes opposition tactics will mean we have to build up and break teams down slowly.
Does not mean we have to make Benda play 1-2s around the striker or play intricate passing moves in our box, neither of which we did Tuesday. | | | |
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:42 - Oct 20 with 480 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:40 - Oct 20 by jack247 |
Yes and there are occasions where we will have to use it. Martinball v2 would not have been effective against a severely defensive team who have spawned a 2-0 lead. It relies on moving forward quickly and catching defensive players out of position, which Readings rarely were.
The new improved version is infinitely better, but sometimes opposition tactics will mean we have to build up and break teams down slowly.
Does not mean we have to make Benda play 1-2s around the striker or play intricate passing moves in our box, neither of which we did Tuesday. |
Hmm not sure about that.
It was applied in the second half against Reading and we did perfectly well as expected, they were set up to defend and condense. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:44 - Oct 20 with 479 views | onehunglow |
| The relationship possession v results. on 08:30 - Oct 20 by jack247 |
There’s no doubt that keeping the ball in our own final third for long periods is counterproductive. We were doing way too much of this. ‘Direct’ can also be misinterpreted. We’ve never gone Wimbledon in the 80s. Less passes to get to the same point is usually a good thing, particularly when we’ve turned over an attack and the opponents aren’t set defensively. Dr P, Vetchonian and co called this out a while ago and it’s very hard to argue with.
There will be games where we have to play more like our old way, Tuesday being a classic example. Reading were happy to stick everyone behind the ball and give us territory and possession. There’s no real option but to try to break them down then. Our three goals, I’m including the build up that won the corner here, came from us trying to probe our way through a tight, deep defence. Much more like Martinball v1.
Once we’d scored them, Reading were forced to come out and play. We earned the right to play more direct, try more high risk/high reward passes and we did look more dangerous. Obafemi looked a right handful playing that way.
The new way of playing is clearly an improvement. We look more like scoring and we let less silly goals in. There will be times though, when we have to play Martinball v1, minus the faffing around at the back. |
Dear God.
Make this a bluddy sticky and it will end ,at a stroke,any fans discord
It is exactly how it is
No hate | |
| |
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:56 - Oct 20 with 474 views | jack247 |
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:42 - Oct 20 by Dr_Parnassus |
Hmm not sure about that.
It was applied in the second half against Reading and we did perfectly well as expected, they were set up to defend and condense. |
Yes, after we equalised with the type of goal we were scoring last season.
I doubt there was a significant change in possession or long balls before that, both teams were camped in their half, it was like a full sided attack v defence training game.
They didn’t defend and condense after that, the game was much more open. | | | |
| The relationship possession v results. on 10:01 - Oct 20 with 470 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The relationship possession v results. on 09:56 - Oct 20 by jack247 |
Yes, after we equalised with the type of goal we were scoring last season.
I doubt there was a significant change in possession or long balls before that, both teams were camped in their half, it was like a full sided attack v defence training game.
They didn’t defend and condense after that, the game was much more open. |
There was, it was consistent from the start of the second half coinciding with the sub of Oko Flex.
As an addition to my previous point, it “can” work against poor teams but will never be “needed” in order to beat them. There is no team where that is the better way to play.
But we can get away with it against the rubbish sides. | |
| |
| The relationship possession v results. on 10:09 - Oct 20 with 466 views | jack247 |
| The relationship possession v results. on 10:01 - Oct 20 by Dr_Parnassus |
There was, it was consistent from the start of the second half coinciding with the sub of Oko Flex.
As an addition to my previous point, it “can” work against poor teams but will never be “needed” in order to beat them. There is no team where that is the better way to play.
But we can get away with it against the rubbish sides. |
We won’t agree here. The first 15 mins of the second half were very similar to the first half. Granted Oko Flex hugged the touchline and created a bit more space inside.
We played completely differently after the equaliser and it was more noticeable again after the third.
We will be forced into playing it against ultra defensive teams. Direct play is ineffective against a flat back 5 with a condensed midfield just ahead of them. | | | |
| The relationship possession v results. on 10:10 - Oct 20 with 464 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| The relationship possession v results. on 10:09 - Oct 20 by jack247 |
We won’t agree here. The first 15 mins of the second half were very similar to the first half. Granted Oko Flex hugged the touchline and created a bit more space inside.
We played completely differently after the equaliser and it was more noticeable again after the third.
We will be forced into playing it against ultra defensive teams. Direct play is ineffective against a flat back 5 with a condensed midfield just ahead of them. |
There is nothing to agree or disagree with, it’s simply what happened. As you know I take great interest in these things and track it, I’m telling you for a fact it was consistent throughout the second half. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
