Thetownend.com

Throughout this season we’ll be analysing all teams in League Two and attempting to put some reason behind League form and position in the form of a ranking system on the key defensive and attacking phases of play.

Our first review is now posted, analysing the defensive efficency and providing an overall defensive ranking.

After witnessing Lanzano's blunder at Burton on Saturday, if Di Canio wants statistical confirmation our where our problems lie and how to fix it, then it couldn't get any more clearer than what the stats reveal...

9 games - Defence: http://thewashbag.com/2011/09/20/league-two-rankings-the-defence/

9 games - Attacking and overall: http://thewashbag.com/2011/09/21/league-two-rankings-attacking-and-overall-after-9-games/

Great stuff, cheers.

Good stuff washbag, they show us a pretty strong defensively.

A great read, as ever.  Sobering conclusion about the keepers though.  No need to panic yet...Lanzano is going to take time to settle.  But the analysis shows we'll need tighten up there very soon if we are going to be serious promotion contenders.

Good article but its a bit flawed in analysis over this few games.

Namely the one thing that can't be recorded is quality. For example, we on average allow 2.75 shots on goal, of which 61.54% are saved.

What it doesn't show is the quality of shot that isn't saved. I'd imagine a fair few are "point blank free header from set piece" - which are hard to save and don't show in the defensive stats either (OK, and a couple of "keeper spazzed it").

Now somebody with a 90% shot save average may have had hardly any "free headers" to save, thus making it more likely for him to save it. Which may or may not be similar to Phil Smith/Matt lez'no % saved in the same position.

Good read, but impossible to compare apples with pares.

Especially as no one has any idea what 'pares' are.

This isn't aiming to be a qualitative review of the quality of each individual chance, shot, save, corner etc.

While Roche in the Morecambe goal may have more easier chances to save that's not really the point of the defensive analysis, which looks at 5 key defensive statistics.

And anyway the effectiveness of the opposition strikes keepers face is taken into account in the attacking rankings tomorrow and how both translate in the overall rankings.

Wasn't criticising the article since it states factual statistics, just that I think its not really fair to come to the conclusion that the article shows the keepers are shit. Perhaps I should have quoted Ardiles post.

They have been shit mind :)

They're a new type of pear. You should try one.

Im a new type of annoying smart arse.  I should try not to be!

I'm ;)

Fair play. Since this is only based on nine games the stats need to be takern with a pinch of salt at the present time, but as the season develops they will be a more accurate reflection of the overall qualities of each team.

Definitely will be very interesting long term.

The fact we rank so well with the shots against is an encouraging sign. Particularly when you think of all those set pieces we can't defend and goalkeeper errors. It backs up what people have said on the season thus far, if we can cut out the set piece goals we'll be laughing.

Now watch us make a mockery of those stats on Saturday :(!

Let's sign Barry Roche.

:clap: :Ride On Fatbury's Lovestick:

Looking forward to the attacking stats tomorrow Washbag!

Just done some more digging into my stats....

I’m going to have to change my view slightly on whether to blame STFC keepers as much as I did.
 
I’ve looked at how good the teams we’ve faced this season have played against us.
 
In our 9 games, our opponents have converted 16.4% of their chances. This would be equivilent to a team with around the 4 or 5th most clinical finishes in League Two this season.
 
So perhaps (other than Lanzano on Saturday) we have just faced good strikers who take their chances, hence the low save rate.

but then the fact that they scored goals against us improves their stats perhaps?  how do their stats fair if you take games played against us out of the equation?  if you get what i mean?

edit: you said against us and against us only, so i suppose i should really be asking if the teams that have played us have a similar conversion rate in the other games they played?

Good point I'll have a look later.

Attacking and overall analysis now posted

http://thewashbag.com/2011/09/21/league-two-rankings-attacking-and-overall-after-9-games/

Those stats highlight a problem

Two problems...

Gillingham are top, and

We're average to say the least going forward.

Can't believe PDC's several attacking signings haven't 'worked'.

Our next set of League Two Rankings, updated to include the first 17 rounds of games, are now posted.

Today we look at the defence, followed by the attack tomorrow and a summary of the overall rankings on Thursday.

http://thewashbag.com/2011/11/15/league-two-rankings-the-strength-of-each-teams-defence-after-17-games/

Nice to see we are continuing to be frugal in shots against per game. And its showing in the goals against column in the league now too :)

Jolly good work though.

League Two attacking rankings updated to 17 games are now posted: http://thewashbag.com/2011/11/16/league-two-rankings-the-strength-of-each-teams-attack-after-17-games/

I honestly don't know whether I should be impressed or dismayed. Interested read thought, so thanks.

After two days of bamboozling you all with a wealth of statistics I’ll attempt to give you a brief summary on the efficiency strengths and weaknesses of each League Two team as part of our overall rankings.

http://thewashbag.com/2011/11/17/league-two-rankings-southend-top-in-our-overall-efficiency-rankings/