Random possession stat

[maddogslater]

A few sensible points made by several posters, the rest go back 65 million years 🦕

[slack_pie]

In our case the possession stat is literally pointless. The stat that counts is how many times the opposition put the ball in our net, which is why our performance last season was pants.

We conceded a lot, but we scored a lot too. Overall, we ended with a positive goal difference, which generally means we've done OK. People focus way more on the goals conceded than the goals scored.

[LaxtonLad]

We conceded a lot, but we scored a lot too. Overall, we ended with a positive goal difference, which generally means we've done OK. People focus way more on the goals conceded than the goals scored.

People are more concerned with goals conceded when they can see where the problems lie and yet see no change in the line-up or tactics in the next game. They are hardly going to be worried when they see us scoring well. Seeing your team win 5-4 might be a spectacular sight for the unconcerned but proper fans would rather see their team win with no goals conceded at all.

[slack_pie]

People are more concerned with goals conceded when they can see where the problems lie and yet see no change in the line-up or tactics in the next game. They are hardly going to be worried when they see us scoring well. Seeing your team win 5-4 might be a spectacular sight for the unconcerned but proper fans would rather see their team win with no goals conceded at all.

I agree. Just stating that we probably did better overall than a team that conceded 50 goals but only scored 45. It's a shame that the awful defensive record took so much away from the amazing attacking play. To have the top scorer and top assister and finish bottom half tells you everything you need to know about our current situation.

[MAD_MAGPIE]

I agree. Just stating that we probably did better overall than a team that conceded 50 goals but only scored 45. It's a shame that the awful defensive record took so much away from the amazing attacking play. To have the top scorer and top assister and finish bottom half tells you everything you need to know about our current situation.

Absolutely. As I’ve said before it can all be summed up in one sentence “National League defence, League One attack” that is what the team of 23/24 will go down in history as for me.

Sort the defence out and keep Macca and Jones and we should be right up there next season.

[nw6pie]

I agree. Just stating that we probably did better overall than a team that conceded 50 goals but only scored 45. It's a shame that the awful defensive record took so much away from the amazing attacking play. To have the top scorer and top assister and finish bottom half tells you everything you need to know about our current situation.

The question is whether we will ever be defensively sound if we continue to play JJ and AN as wing backs. That’s always going to be the trade off - more attacking threat vs. weaker defensive stability. Logic says we should sign back-ups at wing back who are stronger defensively than offensively to give ourselves more options.

[The_Don_ORiordan]

The possession start is meaningless in isolation. And even more meaningless when you look just at one half of a specific football match.

Those teams succeeded and failed due to that plus other stats.

It’s important to the way we play, but not the only stat that counts.

[slack_pie]

The question is whether we will ever be defensively sound if we continue to play JJ and AN as wing backs. That’s always going to be the trade off - more attacking threat vs. weaker defensive stability. Logic says we should sign back-ups at wing back who are stronger defensively than offensively to give ourselves more options.

I don't think we'll ever be the sort of team that concedes very few goals, but even if we just cut out the ridiculous unforced errors, we'd probably finish 10 points higher and in a playoff spot.

[TheProphet]

The question is whether we will ever be defensively sound if we continue to play JJ and AN as wing backs. That’s always going to be the trade off - more attacking threat vs. weaker defensive stability. Logic says we should sign back-ups at wing back who are stronger defensively than offensively to give ourselves more options.

This is an important point, often over-looked.

Look at the majority of our promotion season, Nemane one side, Chicksen the other.
When Nemane attacked, it gave us the option to drop into a back 4 if needed.
The latter part of that season Jones came in and his form made him almost un-droppable, but it definitely made us weaker defensively.
That carried on into this season, 2 wingers, no wing-backs.
It was no great surprise to me that when Chicksen came back into the team towards the end of the season for a few games, we started winning. I'm not saying it was solely down to that, or that we shouldn't play Jones, but it is something tactically that has to be adjusted for this season if we stick with a back 3.

[durhampie]

This is an important point, often over-looked.

Look at the majority of our promotion season, Nemane one side, Chicksen the other.
When Nemane attacked, it gave us the option to drop into a back 4 if needed.
The latter part of that season Jones came in and his form made him almost un-droppable, but it definitely made us weaker defensively.
That carried on into this season, 2 wingers, no wing-backs.
It was no great surprise to me that when Chicksen came back into the team towards the end of the season for a few games, we started winning. I'm not saying it was solely down to that, or that we shouldn't play Jones, but it is something tactically that has to be adjusted for this season if we stick with a back 3.

Neither Nemane or Jones are wingbacks. Only a complete idiot would persist in playing both in that roll..