The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

[don_danbury]

2 hours ago, SO1 said:

I don't know. I guess its just me, but when I try to read articles like that my eyes glaze over and my mind goes numb.

Kind of like learning math in elementary school. With no actual reference to the outside world. Total disconnect. To each his own.

i thought it was pretty accurate tbh. good article

[Guest SO1]

2 minutes ago, don_danbury said:

i thought it was pretty accurate tbh. good article

If you like numbers,. To each his own.

[Ric Flair]

49 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Yeah we had hugely positive variance because of form and momentum. A lot of our overperfomrance can be attributed to playing on the counter too - obviously you have more time and space which makes creating chances and finishing either. 

 

Football analytics are starting to become much more mainstream now, Liverpool are one of the most analytically minded clubs and now they're absolutely flying. Its hugely valuable and to dismiss it out of hand is daft. Any edge you can find is so valuable and can help inform coaching to address problems.

 

Last season Arsenal and Chelsea went on huge winning runs, they both then reverted to type, as did Man Utd when they went on a long unbeaten run. Even as a stats/analytics advocate I'll confess it does take a little bit of joy out of the game if you pay too much attention to it but at the same time it can tell you a lot more than you'd think otherwise due to biases.

We have appointed one of the most promising in analytics in Mladen Sormaz, so i'd be amazed if we aren't working extensively to improve what we are supposedly so bad at. As I've said before, not a single mainstream outlet has bothered to look at what our attacking stats are when we play 4-1-4-1 and have scored and won the majority of the games we have played it. Vardy is absolutely obscene under Rodgers when we play that as is Maddison and Tielemans. The weaknesses to our team is evidently the left side and the fact that all our wingers this season aren't scoring or assisting particularly, if and when that improves which it ought to, a long with a sustained run of playing 4-1-4-1 and everyone will be brown nosing this young team once again, even the boffins.

[coolhandfox]

Only thing I take from the article is the fact we are a work in progress.

[Jobyfox]

I think some people who read these stats should take their blue coloured spectacles off. These stats actually reflect what I’ve felt this season:

 

We’ve been good in some games

We’ve looked poor and uncreative in others

 

It all feels ok because it translates into 4th place in the table and a pretty reasonable points haul. The stats, however, present a cautionary tale - it’s not sustainable unless we change.

 

But the good news is that the stats reflect the whole season. When we’ve played without 2 CDMs and with Maddison centrally we’ve looked much better. We shouldn’t be starting games with both Hamza and Wilf & we should be lining up with JM in the middle.

 

If we do this consistently I think we’ll be fine. Then we might just need to find a way to get more output from the wingers. If, however, we don’t heed this warning we’ll be one dimensional and uncreative. It’s basically what we saw under Puel and sometimes under Rodgers.

 

It’s not rocket science and, if we really think about it, the stats back up what we’ve all observed. 

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Stadt said:

United under Solskjaer had sky high conversion rates, all the stats suggested it was unsustainable - lo and behold they've regressed to the mean. I think the article has valid points but is still overly critical with the tone.

We've played 5 of last seasons top 7... the other games we've played against teams outside that we've scored 10 goals. I got bored reading it, but I didn't get the feeling they were going to mention the fact we've probably had the hardest start out of any team so far. 

[egg_fried_rice]

Interesting to see the mixed reaction to the article.

 

Personally I thought it was pretty fair overall and not overly critical, using statistics to point to issues that the coaching staff will be well aware of.

 

To have shored up at the back, endured a tricky start without too many issues and still have plenty of room for improvement is a positive for me.

[OntarioFox]

2 hours ago, Stadt said:

Yeah we had hugely positive variance because of form and momentum. A lot of our overperfomrance can be attributed to playing on the counter too - obviously you have more time and space which makes creating chances and finishing either. 

 

Football analytics are starting to become much more mainstream now, Liverpool are one of the most analytically minded clubs and now they're absolutely flying. Its hugely valuable and to dismiss it out of hand is daft. Any edge you can find is so valuable and can help inform coaching to address problems.

 

Last season Arsenal and Chelsea went on huge winning runs, they both then reverted to type, as did Man Utd when they went on a long unbeaten run. Even as a stats/analytics advocate I'll confess it does take a little bit of joy out of the game if you pay too much attention to it but at the same time it can tell you a lot more than you'd think otherwise due to biases.

But that's exactly it - these stats aren't nearly as dynamic as they should be, or able to take into account the subtle changes in formation and playing style that can happen even mid-game.

 

Given it's done against the right team (read - literally any outfit dumb enough to play with a high line, which was more or less everybody when we won the league), counter-attacking football is extremely effective while flying in the face of the "correct outcome" of these stats systems, but you'd be tactically naive to try it against a side sitting deep as we have found to our detriment too many times to count in recent years. Likewise, a certain tactic can create chances and boost those stats over a period, like the byline cutback which has given Man City so much success and is now aped by so many others around the world. But, like everything else in football, eventually a tactic will get "sussed out" and a team will find their attacking threat nullified, or their defense will become porous for various reasons which reduces their overall potency. That's what happened to Chelsea (approach was sussed out, stopped scoring) and Arsenal (kept scoring, conceded more regularly) last year. It doesn't take a shiny new stat to observe subtle changes in a team's fortunes - it's largely down to the eventual adaption of the opposition to a tactic, and how said team either adapts or abandons said tactic to remain successful. It now seems faintly ridiculous, but much was written not long ago about tiki-taka being unstoppable for example.

 

There are usually many other factors at work that lead to a team's change in fortunes, whether that's individual performances (especially from strikers or goalkeepers), the specific outlets a team aims for, changes of system or - quite often - sheer luck. In fact, the rule of thumb only really applies to teams that are either in a rich vein of goalscoring form (Liverpool, Man City etc.) or a terrible one (Watford being the current example).

 

I'm not going to pretend that, eventually, it will be able to identify trends reliably, but I don't see it as the revelation it's made out to be by some, because the conclusions are largely subjective and - frankly - bleeding obvious to people who watch their team on a regular basis (in our case, it's that at this present moment we create more playing a 4-1-4-1, which any fan could tell you without stats to back it up). For the majority of middle-ground, inconsistent teams, there's way too much nuance for me to personally take it seriously, especially given the amount of absolute sh*thouse wins / losses I've seen our boys either inflict or suffer on a regular basis, seemingly against all stats and logic.

Edited 17 October 2019 by OntarioFox

[Gerard]

3 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 and the Portugese Burnley at home.

[KingsX]

3 hours ago, Al-aLondon-Foxile said:

I stopped reading here because I’m sure I’ve seen both players miss with attempts at goal this season. Am I wrong? 

 

3 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

I'll be astounded if Wilf hasn't hoofed at least one shot over the bar so far this season. 

 

Shots that hit the frame and fail to go in, much less go wide or over, are not shots on target.

 

The (Opta) definition of a shot on target is (a) any goal attempt that goes into the net regardless of intent;  or (b) is a clear attempt to score that would have gone into the net but for being saved by the goalkeeper or is stopped by a player who is the last-man with the goalkeeper having no chance of preventing the goal (last line block).

 

Stats per game, Ndidi on top, Pereira below:

 

 

Look at the difference in Wilf’s shot selection this year.  Half a pot shot per game he’s no longer taking … that alone will account for some improvement in our conversion rate.

 

[Stadt]

57 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We've played 5 of last seasons top 7... the other games we've played against teams outside that we've scored 10 goals. I got bored reading it, but I didn't get the feeling they were going to mention the fact we've probably had the hardest start out of any team so far. 

I agree and I’ve said as much about the fixtures. 5 out of last season’s top 7 is a bit of a misnomer though. Manchester Utd abs Spurs have been mediocre and Wolves have started the season terribly.

 

We’ve been extremely clinical which has masked poor chance creation. I’m optimistic though, the penny has dropped finally with Rodgers that we need Tielemans and Maddison centrally; we’ve played much better set out like that. 
 

Barnes, Perez and Albrighton need to offer more of a goal threat now though because we’re so reliant on Vardy.

[Guest SO1]

9 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Also doesn't account, and neither has any article I've read the clear difference in our attacking output when we play 4-1-4-1 compared with any variation of formation that leaves Maddison on the wing and very little width. The numbers are astonishing, Vardy has 1 goal under Rodgers when we've not played 4-1-4-1 but when he has he's got something like 15 in 12 games.

 

I do think we are nowhere near the finished article going forward, our wingers are barely having an impact on the game in goals and assists and this season Tielemans hasn't posted anywhere near the same ratio of goals and assists to games and yet we are in and around the top 4 after a very difficult run of opening fixtures. The real key to the progression and development of this team is the next half a dozen so called easier games when we can play to our strengths (should and could have been doing this even against difficult opposition, but that's now in the past) and articles like this can suck their mums.

This popped into my head for some reason..............I know.

Being an administrator on this website you are in a unique position of power with the club.

I believe you have the ability along with @StriderHiryu to actually obtain answers to the questions you are seeking directly from Rodgers and the club. Especially if you come at it with an opportunity for Rodgers(Davies or Toure) to educate us supporters about the game.

 

Everyone is very interested in why Rodgers doesn't go with a 4 1 4 1. My hunch is that he has some solid reasoning for this and would be interested to see you guys pick their brains a bit. He did a bit of this at Liverpool and I was always grateful for it. I think many of us would be too.

 

If your interested. If not then I apologize for putting you on the spot. Grateful that this club seems so open to its fan base.

Thanks. If there's any way I can assist please let me know.

Edited 17 October 2019 by SO1

[turtmcfly]

59 minutes ago, SO1 said:

This popped into my head for some reason..............I know.

Being an administrator on this website you are in a unique position of power with the club.

I believe you have the ability along with @StriderHiryu to actually obtain answers to the questions you are seeking directly from Rodgers and the club. Especially if you come at it with an opportunity for Rodgers(Davies or Toure) to educate us supporters about the game.

 

Everyone is very interested in why Rodgers doesn't go with a 4 1 4 1. My hunch is that he has some solid reasoning for this and would be interested to see you guys pick their brains a bit. He did a bit of this at Liverpool and I was always grateful for it. I think many of us would be too.

 

If your interested. If not then I apologize for putting you on the spot. Grateful that this club seems so open to its fan base.

Thanks. If there's any way I can assist please let me know.

#notinmyname

[treer]

They are briliant, their knowledge and stats are  superb, all they have to do is bet against Leicester with the bookies.

If they are right they will clean up, if it is bullshit they lose, so simple.

[StriderHiryu]

1 hour ago, SO1 said:

This popped into my head for some reason..............I know.

Being an administrator on this website you are in a unique position of power with the club.

I believe you have the ability along with @StriderHiryu to actually obtain answers to the questions you are seeking directly from Rodgers and the club. Especially if you come at it with an opportunity for Rodgers(Davies or Toure) to educate us supporters about the game.

 

Everyone is very interested in why Rodgers doesn't go with a 4 1 4 1. My hunch is that he has some solid reasoning for this and would be interested to see you guys pick their brains a bit. He did a bit of this at Liverpool and I was always grateful for it. I think many of us would be too.

 

If your interested. If not then I apologize for putting you on the spot. Grateful that this club seems so open to its fan base.

Thanks. If there's any way I can assist please let me know.

Well short of ambushing Rodgers on the training ground I don't think we will ever find out unfortunately! If he does another meet the fans day / Q&A next year, perhaps that is the time to ask?

 

Personally I don't think there is too much to bring into it. We have played Maddison wide in the following games:

- Wolves at home

- Chelsea away

- Sheffield United away

- Manchester United away

- Liverpool away

 

The only surprising ones here are Wolves at home and Sheffield United away. Every team other than the Blades finished above us last season. So it appears a case of being pragmatic in trickier games and reverting to 4141 at the King Power, including against Tottenham who also finished above us last season.

 

It's only against Wolves that I think the lineup and tactics were very conservative, but they had already played 4 competitive games by that game due to European football so could understand the thinking. Against Sheffield United, Rodgers started with Praet and though he was a bystander in that one, he's since gone on to look like an astute piece of business. And given they have a raucous home crowd again he might have wanted to be pragmatic in that game too, which by the way we still won.

 

I far prefer the 4141, but at the end of the day we are 4th in the table and only lost with narrow defeats to Liverpool and Man United away. Could we have got more points? Yeah we could have done, but we could also be doing an Everton who have spent a crazy amount of money to look worse than they did under Big Fat Sam. 

 

I have said on multiple occasions that I think Rodgers is a fantastic manager / coach and I think he's doing a great job. No manager gets everything right, not even Fergie, Saachi, Mourinho, etc. Rodgers has improved every player in the team, has us in 4th, has us playing great football and got us a 5-0 win - our biggest winning margin in Premier League history. We can all play fantasy football manager all we want, but at the end of the day Rodgers has won 7 major trophies and has our team in the Champions league places. He's earned some slack in my book!

[Guest SO1]

2 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

Well short of ambushing Rodgers on the training ground I don't think we will ever find out unfortunately! If he does another meet the fans day / Q&A next year, perhaps that is the time to ask?

 

Personally I don't think there is too much to bring into it. We have played Maddison wide in the following games:

- Wolves at home

- Chelsea away

- Sheffield United away

- Manchester United away

- Liverpool away

 

The only surprising ones here are Wolves at home and Sheffield United away. Every team other than the Blades finished above us last season. So it appears a case of being pragmatic in trickier games and reverting to 4141 at the King Power, including against Tottenham who also finished above us last season.

 

It's only against Wolves that I think the lineup and tactics were very conservative, but they had already played 4 competitive games by that game due to European football so could understand the thinking. Against Sheffield United, Rodgers started with Praet and though he was a bystander in that one, he's since gone on to look like an astute piece of business. And given they have a raucous home crowd again he might have wanted to be pragmatic in that game too, which by the way we still won.

 

I far prefer the 4141, but at the end of the day we are 4th in the table and only lost with narrow defeats to Liverpool and Man United away. Could we have got more points? Yeah we could have done, but we could also be doing an Everton who have spent a crazy amount of money to look worse than they did under Big Fat Sam. 

 

I have said on multiple occasions that I think Rodgers is a fantastic manager / coach and I think he's doing a great job. No manager gets everything right, not even Fergie, Saachi, Mourinho, etc. Rodgers has improved every player in the team, has us in 4th, has us playing great football and got us a 5-0 win - our biggest winning margin in Premier League history. We can all play fantasy football manager all we want, but at the end of the day Rodgers has won 7 major trophies and has our team in the Champions league places. He's earned some slack in my book!

I am probably reading too much into it. Just have this gnawing feeling that I'm missing something after watching Rodgers start with Liverpool and Celtic. Teaching them to play out from the back was absolute torture to watch at times. Almost seems like a non issue here guessing that Puel was playing this way before Rodgers arrived.

I had this expectation of more difficulty as Rodgers imposed his way of working on the club. Guess I should stop looking for the catch.

Feel like there's more improvement to come.

[dmayne7]

That's article's decent considering it's all about stats.

 

The worrying thing, but equally exciting thing if it's rectified, is that we really haven't played that well this season. Not bad at all but there's been plenty of very negative halves of football.

 

Yet we're still 4th? Get that sorted and we're not going to be finishing any lower than we are now.

[The whole world smiles]

I've watched every game this year either live or TV/stream. Forgetting the stats for a moment based on my impressions of the games the only false results where we came away with undeserved points based on the balance of play was the point at wolves at home and we probably deserved to lose and at Sheff United Away when we probably deserved 1 however we 100% deserved all 3 against Chelsea away so based on that we are only a point better off than we should be and have played 3 of the traditional big sides so even if there are no improvements (which there blatantly will be) our current position is definitely sustainable.

[Ric Flair]

9 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

Well short of ambushing Rodgers on the training ground I don't think we will ever find out unfortunately! If he does another meet the fans day / Q&A next year, perhaps that is the time to ask?

 

Personally I don't think there is too much to bring into it. We have played Maddison wide in the following games:

- Wolves at home

- Chelsea away

- Sheffield United away

- Manchester United away

- Liverpool away

 

The only surprising ones here are Wolves at home and Sheffield United away. Every team other than the Blades finished above us last season. So it appears a case of being pragmatic in trickier games and reverting to 4141 at the King Power, including against Tottenham who also finished above us last season.

 

It's only against Wolves that I think the lineup and tactics were very conservative, but they had already played 4 competitive games by that game due to European football so could understand the thinking. Against Sheffield United, Rodgers started with Praet and though he was a bystander in that one, he's since gone on to look like an astute piece of business. And given they have a raucous home crowd again he might have wanted to be pragmatic in that game too, which by the way we still won.

 

I far prefer the 4141, but at the end of the day we are 4th in the table and only lost with narrow defeats to Liverpool and Man United away. Could we have got more points? Yeah we could have done, but we could also be doing an Everton who have spent a crazy amount of money to look worse than they did under Big Fat Sam. 

 

I have said on multiple occasions that I think Rodgers is a fantastic manager / coach and I think he's doing a great job. No manager gets everything right, not even Fergie, Saachi, Mourinho, etc. Rodgers has improved every player in the team, has us in 4th, has us playing great football and got us a 5-0 win - our biggest winning margin in Premier League history. We can all play fantasy football manager all we want, but at the end of the day Rodgers has won 7 major trophies and has our team in the Champions league places. He's earned some slack in my book!

My issue is Jamie Vardy's record against the top clubs prior to Rodgers arriving was phenomenal. However, 90% of the time we face one of the top clubs under Rodgers he does away with the system that gives Vardy the most chances of being involved and getting support from creative players like Maddison, Tielemans and Barnes. The results speak for themselves, he has 1 goal against ANY opposition that we haven't played 4-1-4-1 which was away at Sheffield Utd. Baring in mind this team relies so much on his goals, it cannot be sustainable for Rodgers to continue implementing a system that completely nullifies both Vardy and the main creator in Maddison.

[OntarioFox]

inb4 Burnely get a smash and grab and normal business is resumed 

[Chocolate Teapot]

22 hours ago, egg_fried_rice said:

https://www.football365.com/news/whisper-it-but-leicester-city-arent-a-good-attacking-side

 

The general consensus on Leicester City is that Brendan Rodgers has put together a squad that’s 1) young 2) exciting 3) a genuine candidate for the top four. It’s one of the reasons this season is so f***ing brilliant. All of this may be true, but the stats might surprise you, particularly if you watched their 5-0 demolition of Newcastle.

Let’s get numerical and see exactly what Leicester are doing right (and wrong).

 

Attack
As we know, total shots tend to indicate the strength of a team’s attack. The top three in the league right now are Manchester City, Chelsea, and Liverpool. Where are Leicester City? At 13th, between Brighton and Norwich.

Okay, but the Foxes are tied for fourth in total goals, which probably means they’re getting pretty good shots. So naturally we go to xG, and we find that Leicester are…19th. That’s right: both Statsbomb and Understat have them next to last in the league in xG, ahead only of Newcastle. If we tweak it a bit, and drop penalties from the equation, they jump all the way to 18th, ahead of Crystal Palace as well.

 

Fourth in goals and 18th in xG is a gigantic discrepancy, which among other things suggests that Leicester get a high percentage of their shots on target. Going to that number, we find they’ve made the keeper work with 30.1% of their shots. The league average is 33.9%. They’re actually below average in hitting the target.

So how are they scoring? The answer is shooting percentage, or the percentage of their shots on target that actually go in. If we discount the one own goal, Leicester have scored 13 times from 28 shots on target. That’s 46.4%. That’s also impossible to sustain. Mo Salah, in his miracle year, was at 47.8%, and no one has a team of 2017/18 Mo Salahs. Last year the Man City attack had a shooting percentage of 35%. Liverpool did a bit better, at 37.6%. Arsenal topped the lot with a super-high 40.6%. This is a stat that tends to regress very strongly to the mean (at the moment 31.7%), so we can be sure Leicester’s numbers will drop.

When we look at the team’s individual scorers, we can see the problem more clearly. One man dominates the stats, Jamie Vardy with five goals, well ahead of James Maddison, Wilfred Ndidi and Ricardo Pereira with two each. But Vardy’s five goals have come from only seven shots on target, an absurd shooting percentage of 71.4%. Once again, Mo Salah’s big year was 47.8%. Going to conversion rate, Vardy’s five goals have come from only 12 unblocked shots, a similarly ridiculous 41.7%. The magnificent Mo only hit 28.9%.

As for the others, Maddison shoots as soon as he wakes up in the morning, but his two goals have come from only four shots on target. Ndidi and Pereira? They each have two goals from…two shots on target. By my calculation, that’s exactly 100%. We’re bordering on madness here.

So something has to change if Leicester are going to continue scoring at a reasonable rate. Most obviously, they’re going to have to start creating more and better shot opportunities, something to take them above 18th in xG. The stats show they’re tied for seventh in deep completions, which are passes completed within 20 yards of goal, excluding crosses. They’re getting the ball into attacking areas reasonably well, but not creating much with it.

Which brings us to James Maddison, one of the best number 10s around. Except you wouldn’t know it from the stats. Maddison has an open-play xA of 0.10 per 90 minutes. That’s behind such creative luminaries as Isaac Hayden (0.19), Scott McTominay (0.13), Fabinho (0.11), and – brace yourself – Fred (0.11).

Adam Hopcroft@ahopcroft13

 

 

James Maddison - the stats

2018/19 (1st) v 2019/20

Played - 36 v 7
Goals - 7 v 2
Assists - 7 v 2
xG90 - 0.23 v 0.25
xA90 - 0.25 v 0.15
Sh90 - 2.80 v 3.01
KP90 - 3.13 v 1.58

Goal threat
Creativity

Now let's explore his record under Rodgers...

 

77

9:47 AM - Oct 8, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

See Adam Hopcroft's other Tweets

 

 

To coin a phrase, WTF? Well, the F is that for the most part Maddison isn’t playing as a number 10 at all. He’s been asked to play on the wing and move centrally where possible in order to create. This sort of thing can work: David Silva did it for Man City under Manuel Pellegrini and Xherdan Shaqiri managed occasionally at Stoke for Mark Hughes. But at the moment it just isn’t happening. If you have the time, go to Whoscored and take a look at Maddison’s heatmaps. The only one that looks like a playmaker’s is against Sheffield United, and it’s no coincidence that match saw him create easily his best chance of the season, on a counter-attack for Vardy.

A logical way to get Maddison more involved would be to play him in his natural position. A 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 could put him directly behind the striker, with Youri Tielemans pairing with Ndidi in central midfield. You’d have to play two wingers, but the squad has Harvey Barnes, Ayoze Perez, Marc Albrighton and Demarai Gray (if he’s still alive) to choose from. None of those are likely to tear up the league, but with Maddison doing the providing, they can all produce.

In any case, Leicester are right now the furthest thing from an attacking juggernaut. Newcastle might disagree, but that brings Steve Bruce into the equation, and we don’t want to go there. (P.S. Maddison didn’t play in that match.)

 

Defence
This is where we really want to go. Because while Leicester’s attacking numbers are poor, their defensive numbers are very good. They’ve allowed a meagre seven goals in eight games; only Liverpool have conceded fewer. In total shots allowed they rank sixth, in xGA anywhere from third to fifth. In opponent’s deep completions allowed, they’re sixth. They’re just a good defensive side.

How are they doing it? First, they harass the opposition. Their PPDA (passes per defensive action) is an outstanding 7.03, the best in the league, ahead of such notable pressing sides as Manchester City, Liverpool and Southampton. But unlike those three, Leicester are not a high-pressing team: they rank only 12th in possessions won in the final third. They tend to wait until the opposition gets in or near their half, and then make life difficult.

The strong defence is also reflected in some basic raw numbers. The Foxes lead the league in tackles, and it’s not close. In blocked passes they’re on top as well. In interceptions they’re a healthy fourth. These are particularly impressive stats, given that Leicester are a relatively high-possession side, keeping the ball 53.9 percent of the time.

The main man is the criminally underpublicised Wilfred Ndidi. How underpublicised? A website not a million miles from here left him off the list of the ten best central midfielders last season. Idrissa Gana took second place, and although his entry noted that only Ndidi had more combined tackles and interceptions, there was no room for the Nigerian.

This year there will be. As that same website noted recently, Ndidi leads the league in both tackles (joint top with teammate Pereira) and interceptions. And stats aside, just watch him play. He covers an amazing amount of ground, and his reading of the game is excellent, notably improved over previous seasons. Can we give Rodgers credit for that? Let’s do it anyway. Back to stats: Ndidi’s tackles/90, interceptions/90 and blocked passes/90 are at all-time personal highs. If N’Golo Kanté weren’t around, he’d be the absolute no-questions-asked gold standard.

The Tactical Times@Tactical_Times

 

 

No Premier League player has won more tackles this season than Leicester City's 22 year old Wilfred Ndidi, only two players in Europe's top 5 leagues have won more than his 35 (5 per game).

Ndidi has made more interceptions than any other player - 26 (3.7 per game).

 

198

8:34 AM - Oct 11, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

45 people are talking about this

 

 

 

If we go to the back four, one man has definitely received his share of headlines, and that’s Çağlar Söyüncü, otherwise known as The Replacement for Harry Maguire. I confess I’m not part of the cheering section yet. He has more pace than just about any centre-half in the league, but he’s only average in the air (65.1% on aerial duels) and his marking and judgment are erratic. Salah made him look ordinary several times in the match at Anfield last week. Hopefully he’ll develop over the course of the season, the way Ndidi has from last year.

Söyüncü’s partner is Jonny Evans, who doesn’t need to develop. He’s been providing quality work without much fuss for several years now. The (obligatory mention) former Manchester United man is a proverbial cool head, whose biggest problem is staying fit. So far he’s played every minute of every game, so fingers crossed for more. If he’s in the line-up, the back line will always be well organised.

As for the full-backs, Pereira is the star: his tackles/90 are easily his highest ever, second in the league among full-backs to the one and only Aaron Wan-Bisskaka. Last year his defending was fairly erratic, but here too Rodgers has done his work. On the other side, Ben Chilwell’s tackle numbers are much less impressive, and frankly he’s not in Pereira’s class as a defender. But his tackle percentage is at an all-time personal high, and if Ndidi and Pereira are improving, there’s every chance England’s number 3 will too.

We shouldn’t forget Kasper Schmeichel, who’s had both good years and bad years in recent memory. This year looks like one of the good ones. Right now he’s third in the league in save percentage, behind only Hugo Lloris and Dean Henderson of Sheffield United. Taking all the xG stuff into account, he’s still third among shot-stoppers. Couple that with the team’s overall strong defensive play, and the Foxes just don’t concede that often.

So that’s Leicester City. Young? No argument there. Exciting? You decide: most people don’t find defence as exciting as attack. Top four? Well, let’s be sceptical for the moment. The Foxes just aren’t a very good attacking side, and Rodgers will have to change his approach in order to make them so. But in a year where half the Big Six look seriously deficient, a strong defence, plus a little bit more oomph up front, make a realistic recipe for the Champions League.

He seems to not know that vardy's shot conversion is always high, he only really shots at clear cut chances whereas mo and kane shoot all the ****ing time.

[filbertway]

Imagine quoting such a long article @Abrasive fox! haha

 

We have been disappointing going forwards for me, we've struggled massively to do anything of note in the majority of first halves. Definitely got to improve on this aspect, I think Brendan is probably looking to find the right balance, preferring defensive solidity and then ramping up the attack gradually. That's certainly evident in our games so far.

 

They're poor stats and he's right that eventually it'll catch up with us if we don't improve on it. I feel pretty comfortable that we will see a rise in chances created as the season progresses though. As long as we don't keep playing Maddison on the left wing.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Finnegan]

He's got a point has our Alexey tbf

[ALC Fox]

Haha, that article referring to Mo Salah's 'miracle year' 

 

As undeniably brilliant as he was, that 'miracle' culminated in precisely 0 trophies that season