PDA

View Full Version : Palace's 2017 defence


James
27-09-2017, 12:58 PM
Quite interesting analysis here:

http://eastbridge-sb.com/football-data-analysis-defender-number-early-season-260917/

"The team with the highest rate [chances conceded with fewer than two men between .. shot and .. goal]– and this won’t be surprising at all – is Crystal Palace, with 32% of the chances that they conceded through their first five matches taking place with fewer than two men between the shot and their goal. With this figure and a number of chances that they’re conceding per match, it’s no surprise that they’re doing badly.

Focusing down to a more specific area of the pitch, Burnley and Palace provide a good case study of different types of defending.

In the Danger Zone (definitions differ insignificantly but for the purposes of this article, it is the width of the six-yard box stretching from the goal-line to the edge of the eighteen-yard box), Burnley has actually conceded more chances (38) than Palace (24), according to Stratagem’s data.

However, a full 50% of the chances that Palace have allowed in the Danger Zone have come with fewer than two men in front of goal, whereas for Burnley this figure is just 23.68%. For over 18% of these chances, Burnley has got five or more men in front of the shot, against a big fat zero for the Eagles.

So from initially having the better number of Danger Zone chances conceded (24 vs 38), this is turned on its head looking at these ‘super dangerous’ chances, where Burnley have only conceded 9 to Palace’s 12.

But there’s more. According to Stratagem’s data, Burnley put far more pressure on the shooter than Crystal Palace do. For chances in the Danger Zone, Burnley average as the third-most pressuring side in the league, whereas Palace is 19th.

Burnley – as we’ve all known for a while – allow the opposition to have the ball and, to an extent, to take a few shots. As long as these aren’t good shots, Sean Dyche’s men don’t seem to mind too much, even when these chances are taking place relatively close to goal. Palace is not quite a sieve, but more like a badly designed gold-pan that lets through all the gold."

Windsor_Eagle
27-09-2017, 01:16 PM
It has been obvious for ages that we put absolutely no pressure on opposition players - particularly in our own half. It is scandalous how we back off and back off.

Hopefully Mama can drive our defence forward to meet the opponents more and hopefully Roy can have this as a significant part of the teams shape that he works on.

Palacebear
27-09-2017, 01:54 PM
Quite interesting analysis here:



http://eastbridge-sb.com/football-data-analysis-defender-number-early-season-260917/



"The team with the highest rate [chances conceded with fewer than two men between .. shot and .. goal]– and this won’t be surprising at all – is Crystal Palace, with 32% of the chances that they conceded through their first five matches taking place with fewer than two men between the shot and their goal. With this figure and a number of chances that they’re conceding per match, it’s no surprise that they’re doing badly.



Focusing down to a more specific area of the pitch, Burnley and Palace provide a good case study of different types of defending.



In the Danger Zone (definitions differ insignificantly but for the purposes of this article, it is the width of the six-yard box stretching from the goal-line to the edge of the eighteen-yard box), Burnley has actually conceded more chances (38) than Palace (24), according to Stratagem’s data.



However, a full 50% of the chances that Palace have allowed in the Danger Zone have come with fewer than two men in front of goal, whereas for Burnley this figure is just 23.68%. For over 18% of these chances, Burnley has got five or more men in front of the shot, against a big fat zero for the Eagles.



So from initially having the better number of Danger Zone chances conceded (24 vs 38), this is turned on its head looking at these ‘super dangerous’ chances, where Burnley have only conceded 9 to Palace’s 12.



But there’s more. According to Stratagem’s data, Burnley put far more pressure on the shooter than Crystal Palace do. For chances in the Danger Zone, Burnley average as the third-most pressuring side in the league, whereas Palace is 19th.



Burnley – as we’ve all known for a while – allow the opposition to have the ball and, to an extent, to take a few shots. As long as these aren’t good shots, Sean Dyche’s men don’t seem to mind too much, even when these chances are taking place relatively close to goal. Palace is not quite a sieve, but more like a badly designed gold-pan that lets through all the gold."


Wow that is quite damning, coupled with our unbelievable shots to 'no goals' ratio, it's no wonder we are rock bottom.

Roy has some job on his hands.

wrightchipvcfc
27-09-2017, 01:57 PM
Think our lack of pressing getting to opposition players comes down to fitness or being lazy to put it simply watching other teams like spurs wba Liverpool how hard they work without the ball

Hector
27-09-2017, 02:19 PM
Burnley was in the long since forgotten De Boer era.

The Omen
27-09-2017, 02:54 PM
Burnley – as we’ve all known for a while – allow the opposition to have the ball and, to an extent, to take a few shots. As long as these aren’t good shots, Sean Dyche’s men don’t seem to mind too much, even when these chances are taking place relatively close to goal. Palace is not quite a sieve, but more like a badly designed gold-pan that lets through all the gold.

http://eastbridge-sb.com/football-data-analysis-defender-number-early-season-260917/

Good article.

Dann and Delaney used to be good at this. They would throw themselves in the way of everything. And whilst I have to agree, Delaney has had his day, Tomkins was certainly a step backward in this area for me and Kelly is certainly not up to this level. I think Sakho does have more of this kind of attitude and is probably why we do a little better with him in the side.

Still... our defence being crap doesn't mean much if we can't score either! :D

kestoneagle
27-09-2017, 03:00 PM
Burnley also have a keeper that might save any shots that get through. I'm not convinced we do.

The Omen
27-09-2017, 03:05 PM
Burnley also have a keeper that might save any shots that get through. I'm not convinced we do.

He saved us a few times on Saturday I thought...

Mr Palace
27-09-2017, 06:40 PM
The keeper is a fundamental difference. If we had Heaton we'd be so much better defensively. He would have bailed us out a few times in the way speroni did in his first couple of seasons back in the premier league.

johnp
27-09-2017, 06:54 PM
The keeper is a fundamental difference. If we had Heaton we'd be so much better defensively. He would have bailed us out a few times in the way speroni did in his first couple of seasons back in the premier league.

Exactly. If we had swapped keepers with Burnley, the result would have been much different.

It is also worth mentioning that Heaton is now injured, and Burnley are able to bring in a No 2 keeper who is far better than Hennessey. I suspect every other team in the Premier League has a No 2 better than our supposed No 1.

Benzhiyi
27-09-2017, 07:05 PM
Hennessey isn't good, but it's not solely on the keeper. Mandanda was an absolute wreck behind every back four we put out last season.

I mentioned this on Twitter (don't throw stuff) last October: https://twitter.com/BenjiWilson/status/792430321786560512

Organisation, preparation, shape and compactness are critical at this level. Dare I say it, watch Brighton under Hughton; very very similar to how we looked under Pulis and Allardyce, which has enabled them to snuff out beatable opposition at home (West Brom, Newcastle) while our slipshod defending costs points against the Huddersfields and Burnleys.

Dyche sets his teams up really, really well in terms of giving little space in and around the box, and getting bodies back to block shots when they do come in. It's not all on the man between the sticks.

Banger
27-09-2017, 07:09 PM
Watched the weeds against Newcastle and it was their defensive work ethic that won them the game. Dunk's last minute block just on the D was a great example. Pulis's Palace had this mentality in abundance. Roy needs to install it quickly.

swissroll
27-09-2017, 08:02 PM
Wow that is quite damning, coupled with our unbelievable shots to 'no goals' ratio, it's no wonder we are rock bottom.

Roy has some job on his hands.


He will fix this pretty quickly, the problem is at the other end

Panther
27-09-2017, 08:04 PM
To date it's been at both ends. And in between.

Mr Palace
27-09-2017, 08:21 PM
Exactly. If we had swapped keepers with Burnley, the result would have been much different.

It is also worth mentioning that Heaton is now injured, and Burnley are able to bring in a No 2 keeper who is far better than Hennessey. I suspect every other team in the Premier League has a No 2 better than our supposed No 1.

I'd love to sign Heaton but I suspect there will be a number of clubs who would want him.

Eddie McGoldrick's tash
27-09-2017, 08:38 PM
AATOT started by James

eagleincroydon
29-09-2017, 06:46 AM
hodgeson should be able sort us out

Neckinger Eagle
29-09-2017, 07:00 AM
This is the type of statistical analysis I enjoy. Most statistics that are bandied about take a single statistic and use it as an absolute. My least favourite is 'assist' which is all but meaningless and only belongs in computer games.

This article is looking at different pieces of data and informing us and forming an opinion on what may be happening. It's something that can be tested.

pallet
30-09-2017, 03:36 PM
Is shit

charltonhater
30-09-2017, 03:46 PM
Should have kept Pardew.
At least we scored goals to balance out poor defending.
More goals scored under Super Al in the time he was in charge during the 2016-2017 than CPFC have managed in all competitions since his Sacking.

Skintagain
01-10-2017, 09:44 AM
Should have kept Pardew.
At least we scored goals to balance out poor defending.
More goals scored under Super Al in the time he was in charge during the 2016-2017 than CPFC have managed in all competitions since his Sacking.

In all fairness Big Sam did save us although it probably had more to do with getting Parish to run the club like a cash dispenser rather than coaching, after all a win took a long time.

The indication to me from Parish's comments and about how our potential transfers went I assume we ran out of fair play allowance due to this.

spt1978
01-10-2017, 10:43 AM
Rough transfer fees but have we really spent nearly £80m on defenders:

Sakho - £26m
Tomkins - £10m
Ward - £0.5m
Delaney - Free
PVA - £12m
Dann - £2.5m
Pape - £3m
TFM - Loan
Schlupp - £12m
Kelly - £2m
Riedewald - £9.5m

Total - £77.5m