|
Fiftiesman 11:10 Wed Sep 30
Is dominance a poor guide?
|
|
I have noticed that more and more frequently teams lose despite having more of the play, more shots, more passes etc.
Both Chelsea and Arsenal were far superior to their opponents last night in terms of possession, number of passes, pass accuracy etc yet lost.
Does this show over-confidence or a lack of tactical skills - or simply poor attackers?
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Russ of the BML
4:24 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
There's only one stat that counts. The score.
|
chim chim cha boo
1:17 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
Norwich showed glimpses of how possession football should be played. From the start they played the short ball around the defence and had no desire to get it forward until we chased the ball down in numbers. Then they simply played the ball into the gap our midfield had left getting forward.
When we tried to knock the ball across our defence, because they put us under pressure by pressing the ball every time it went over the halfway line, Noble fucked up his across the defence pass to Tomkins and they scored out of nothing.
It used to be a cardinal sin to knock a ball across the defence- forward or back but never across. I guess that part of the game is now considered old fashioned.
One thing remains true though- you can't score if you don't have the ball.
|
Alex V
11:54 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
Porto had nearly double the shots that Chelsea had last night, so I don't see anything particularly unusual there. Arsenal's problems are not limited to last night only - they've been having problems generally converting possession into goals, just as they did against us. It still took a pretty freakish keeping mistake for them to lose.
In terms of shots I'd be astonished if there was any great trend towards teams with less shots winning more matches. It's a struggle to even come up with a theory of why that might ever happen.
In terms of possession, it's always been less of a direct relationship. In the current prem for example I think it's partly decided by the make-up of the division - it so happens that the league currently has a couple of smaller clubs that major on possession (Bournemouth, Swansea) and a bunch that are set up as counter-attacking low possession sides (us, Palace, Leicester). It seems to me that it's still heavily weighted that the successful teams tend to have more of the ball, whether it's a cause or a symptom.
|
,
11:36 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
Arsenal seemed to spend a lot of time piss balling around in the Greek half without making many real chances. Why have 60% possession and convert fewer chances than the opponents?
|
Eddie B
11:31 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
How many goals you score is the only stat that matters.
Eddie B - stating the bleedin' obvious since 2001.
|
,
11:29 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
I did not see any of the Chelsea game but I am enjoying the result.
|
One McAvennieeeeee
11:27 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
Surprised to hear that about the Chelsea game. I only saw 20 mins but at that time they couldn't get out of their half.
|
toadinthehole
11:25 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
Story of our season, when we be beat arsenal Liverpool man city we had much less possession. Other way round when we lost. We should only play counter attacking football from the start
|
,
11:24 Wed Sep 30
Re: Is dominance a poor guide?
|
Both Porto and Olympiakos had more of the play that counted. There's a stat. The other thing was if Arsenal and the bubbles had swapped keepers at the start of the game the gooners would probably won.
Oh and it's not possession that matters as much as chances made.
|
|
|
|
