Kendal Fox Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 So today, Sky Sports News drew up a comparison table between us and Arsenal with regard to technical proficiency and accuracy over the course of the 2015/16 season. Out of the 20 premier league teams, the stats were: Leicester: Possession - 17th, Passes per game - 17th, Passing accuracy - 20th, Shots on target - 5th, Shooting accuracy - 7th Arsenal: Possession - 1st, Passes per game - 1st, Passing accuracy - 1st, Shots on target - 2nd, Shooting accuracy - 4thThe segment ended with the presenter saying that the only "stat" we could be happy with was coming 1st in the league, but that was all that mattered. It was patronising to say the least and I felt the piece was designed to feed into the narrative that we've been "lucky".As for the "stats", whilst some are plausible (obviously the possession side of things), I find most puzzling and wonder about their legitimacy?? Anyone else confused?
Hollism Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 Well in fairness they are all "truthful". It's just that the ones they're quoting aren't as important as we all thought. The one that were supposed to be happy with is the most important one. We could be the worst team in history at passing, corners, penalties, throw ins... But as long as we get more points than anyone else then they haven't got a leg to stand on.
stripeyfox Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 Unless you are competing in the Tottenham Hotspur Attractive Football League, then the only stat that counts in a game is Goals and the only stat that counts over the season is Points.
Kendal Fox Posted 6 May 2016 Author Posted 6 May 2016 Well in fairness they are all "truthful". It's just that the ones they're quoting aren't as important as we all thought. The one that were supposed to be happy with is the most important one. We could be the worst team in history at passing, corners, penalties, throw ins... But as long as we get more points than anyone else then they haven't got a leg to stand on. Absolutely. But I felt it was designed to suggest "Well, if they've been this poor in all these departments, just how did they win the title?!" I am stoked and thoroughly grateful to Claudio and the lads if truth be told. But it would be nice to see a little magnanimity from the mainstream other than this "Little Leicester's fairytale" theme.
Babylon Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 I'm more than happy with every single stat on us if it means is winning the league, ridiculous really they they still bang on about these things like it means something. Us winning this league and Athletico Madrid in the Champ's league final, playing a similar style of football show quite clearly there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Kendal Fox Posted 6 May 2016 Author Posted 6 May 2016 Unless you are competing in the Tottenham Hotspur Attractive Football League, then the only stat that counts in a game is Goals and the only stat that counts over the season is Points. Agree completely. But for us to score 64 goals and to have 77 points, with 2 games remaining, those stats don't seem to correlate to me.
Hollism Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 We scored 83 goals and got 102 points in the Championship. Almost identical goals/points and there was no doubt about us being the best team in the league that year.
Thracian Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 So today, Sky Sports News drew up a comparison table between us and Arsenal with regard to technical proficiency and accuracy over the course of the 2015/16 season. Out of the 20 premier league teams, the stats were: Leicester: Possession - 17th, Passes per game - 17th, Passing accuracy - 20th, Shots on target - 5th, Shooting accuracy - 7th Arsenal: Possession - 1st, Passes per game - 1st, Passing accuracy - 1st, Shots on target - 2nd, Shooting accuracy - 4th The segment ended with the presenter saying that the only "stat" we could be happy with was coming 1st in the league, but that was all that mattered. It was patronising to say the least and I felt the piece was designed to feed into the narrative that we've been "lucky". As for the "stats", whilst some are plausible (obviously the possession side of things), I find most puzzling and wonder about their legitimacy?? Anyone else confused? The stats are misleading. If a team chooses not to waste energy chasing the ball in negative places, the successful pass level of any opponent is likely to be flattering. And if possession is limited the number of shots are almost certain to be limited as well, along with the proportion on target. A boxer doesn't have to throw the most punches and a soldier doesn't have to fire the most bullets. What matters is how lethal the punches or bullet prove.
RedSoxUK Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 I'm actually EXTREMELY happy with our stats, even the negative ones like possession and passing accuracy, they are in fact positives. It just shows how dependent teams have been on efficiency in regards to keeping the ball, and passing the ball. You don't have to have 80% possession and 100% passing accuracy to win a game. You have to score goals, and defend goals, simple as. No matter how you look at statistics the only thing any team in any football league is looking for is getting a W or at least a D, and we've done that the most over the course of 38 games making us the best team in the league irregardless of any fancy statistic. Add that to us choosing to have less possession, and choosing to play long balls, more daring balls where we won't be retaining possession. We have not been bossed about.
Kendal Fox Posted 6 May 2016 Author Posted 6 May 2016 The stats are misleading. If a team chooses not to waste energy chasing the ball in negative places, the successful pass level of any opponent is likely to be flattering. And if possession is limited the number of shots are almost certain to be limited as well, along with the proportion on target. A boxer doesn't have to throw the most punches and a soldier doesn't have to fire the most bullets. What matters is how lethal the punches or bullet prove. I agree, but as much as we do concede possession, my hunch was that, seeing as we've been highly consistent with being able to counter and score, the accuracy and economy side of things surely would be much higher than those figures suggest?
Mythyaar Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 Statistics can be as truthful as you want to make them. Other stats not mentioned, tackles made, interceptions made in midfield, goals to shots ratio, clean sheets, number of 1-0 victories, same starting line ups,home and away points achieved. Sure we'd be pretty high up there on stats.
Blarmy Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 Out of those stats, shots on target is the only one that matters in my opinion. These meanz goalz.
ajthefox Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 "Leicester have made the most tackles and interceptions, average fewer passes per shot than any other Premier League team and have converted the highest percentage of chances into goals"
foxy boxing Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 We can be saturated with as many stats as they want anyone can manipulate stats to say what "they want" at the end of the day it is putting the ball in the back of the net,keeping it out the other end winning games they are the only stats that count but hey arsenal fans can say they were top of the possession so at least they won something
Kendal Fox Posted 6 May 2016 Author Posted 6 May 2016 "Leicester have made the most tackles and interceptions, average fewer passes per shot than any other Premier League team and have converted the highest percentage of chances into goals" Exactly. Passing accuracy 70%??!!! But 20th in the league on the Sky table?!
davieG Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 Exactly. Passing accuracy 70%??!!! But 20th in the league on the Sky table?! That's because we make few passes in our own half between the defenders and goalkeeper. Our passes are longer out to the wings or trying to split a defence so they are inevitably going to be less successful.
foxes_rule1978 Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 That's because we make few passes in our own half between the defenders and goalkeeper. Our passes are longer out to the wings or trying to split a defence so they are inevitably going to be less successful. Exactly this, we often pass direct and quickly, aiming to get the ball in the back of the net with as few touches as possible. Playing that way results in a lower success rate
NewEnglandFox Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 Passes, passing percentage, and possession all tell pretty much exactly the same story and hint to the same style of football. It's pretty much redundant.
David Hankey Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 The only stat that matters to me is winning the title, and we've done that with two games to spare!!
Koke Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 Can't believe we got a worse passing accuracy than West Brom or Norwich.
Koke Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 "Leicester have made the most tackles and interceptions, average fewer passes per shot than any other Premier League team and have converted the highest percentage of chances into goals" 2 goals outside the box. Vardy against Liverpool being one of them, which one is the other?
Unabomber Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 2 goals outside the box. Vardy against Liverpool being one of them, which one is the other? Maybe drinkwaters deflected shot v wba
Number 6 Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 The reason people bang on about passing accuracy or possession is because Barca made them believe that's what it took to be the best. We've proven otherwise.
Sionnach gorm Posted 6 May 2016 Posted 6 May 2016 Benjamin Disraeli said it best "there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics".
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.