Leicester Verdict

[Contrarian]

One offs are fine, they happen. Doing it repeatedly is a different thing entirely. I'm not saying we can't ****house our way to 4th, of course we can. I'm saying we can't keep doing what we're doing and expect it to yield the same results, there's quite a bit that could do with fixing

One-offs are better than None-offs! Nobody gets their title/Champions League place/whatever taken off them because they did it by a means somebody says is not repeatable.

There has never been a perfect football team yet. All have flaws, even those who win everything had matches they played badly in and got lucky. Matches where they missed sitters, created little, defence were flaky etc. Just get more points than your rivals, that's all it needs. The future is another problem and can be fixed later.

 

[KBWWFC]

I just saw the bottom line.

Current form papering over the cracks.

Last 5 - 4 wins 1 loss

It's a bit like playing Russian roulette, you've pulled the trigger 5 times and haven't shot yourself yet, no guarantee you wont spread your brains on the wall on your next pull.

I am used to getting smarmy replies - I was inundated with them when I was highlighting how poor we were under Nuno despite us grinding out results, something which the vast majority on here agree on now with the benefit of hindsight.

I doubt Bruno's gone into training today and thought "brilliant, absolutely nothing to improve on", he'll be busy finding solutions and marginal improvements.

While the vast majority on here are happy with a smash and grab victory against a grossly out of form Leicester side that do not know how to defend, I've simply commented on a worrying trend of us being unable to create shots in the box, something that is not sustainable. You can't for long periods of time relying on individual errors or low-odds occurrences.

 

[lobodelsur]

...if we want to be serious challengers for this and future seasons we can't keep on playing like this, things have to improve in our play

I think we'll see major changes in playing style and personnel in the summer, whether we make Europe or not.

 

[HICKO]

They make faggots...

I went to their factory once, a long time ago out Somerset way, I vowed I would never eat one of their products.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

I think yesterday showed the problem of having no Traore.

We had no pace at all and Leicester knew this so pushed up so much and were aggressive in their press.

At one stage I saw them camped in our half and it was like we were playing City, two full-backs high and two centre-backs 15 yards into our half.

So fair play to them for that. It was a smart, risky approach that paid off as they did dominate and had the pass to the full backs as an out ball every time.

If we had Traore I can’t help but think they wouldn’t have played that way. Just an example of how he influenced games without even having the ball.

Obviously we need Neto to be that outlet with pace, maybe Hwang, otherwise we will be very easy to defend against and teams can do what Leicester did.

 

[lobodelsur]

Reading 'Wolves' and the words 'Champions League' in the same sentences of national press articles is amazing (even if its about potential). You need to take your chances when they come your way, have a bit of luck and a lot of desire to get there - and that's exactly what we had last night, so who knows! Plus Neto looked like he'd never been away when he came on. Whatever happens (as long as key players stay fit) this should be an exciting run to the finish line...

According to Roy 'Keano' Keane Yanited are nailed on for 4th place...

 

[AndyWolves]

Wolves expected goals 0.53.
Leicester expected goals 1.53.

A clear illustration of the total futility of this stat!

Seems fairly representative of the pattern of the game to me

 

[Bacon Sandwich]

It's a bit like playing Russian roulette, you've pulled the trigger 5 times and haven't shot yourself yet, no guarantee you wont spread your brains on the wall on your next pull.

I am used to getting smarmy replies - I was inundated with them when I was highlighting how poor we were under Nuno despite us grinding out results, something which the vast majority on here agree on now with the benefit of hindsight.

I doubt Bruno's gone into training today and thought "brilliant, absolutely nothing to improve on", he'll be busy finding solutions and marginal improvements.

While the vast majority on here are happy with a smash and grab victory against a grossly out of form Leicester side that do not know how to defend, I've simply commented on a worrying trend of us being unable to create shots in the box, something that is not sustainable. You can't for long periods of time relying on individual errors or low-odds occurrences.

A view backed up by Infogol Infogol

 

[justfriggin]

We did deserve it. The hallmark of great teams are stoic defending. Ye Olde Liverpool, Arsenal etc. Our midfield, attack needs more work. Lage is probably more aware than we are. Leicester huffed and puffed but couldn't blow the house down. Several teams have controlled midfield against us this season. But dont give 'em too much credit. I remember the all knowing Press, waxing lyrical about Bielsa's mighty attacking Leeds. Now take a look at the two favourites for the Premier Managers chop. Stop worrying. We're stitched on fourth.

 

[CologneWolf]

I think yesterday showed the problem of having no Traore.

We had no pace at all and Leicester knew this so pushed up so much and were aggressive in their press.

At one stage I saw them camped in our half and it was like we were playing City, two full-backs high and two centre-backs 15 yards into our half.

So fair play to them for that. It was a smart, risky approach that paid off as they did dominate and had the pass to the full backs as an out ball every time.

If we had Traore I can’t help but think they wouldn’t have played that way. Just an example of how he influenced games without even having the ball.

Obviously we need Neto to be that outlet with pace, maybe Hwang, otherwise we will be very easy to defend against and teams can do what Leicester did.

Thought we have generally struggled all season when teams are aggressive with the press. Traore or not. He could go on a run and win a foul here and there but he ended up on the floor or would have it bounce off him just as often. So your right, Neto will fill that role. I think he will do it better.

Raul‘s hold up play and decision making has also been very sub par which allows the opposition to keep us pinned in.

 

[Ginger Chimp]

This in spades

Is this a new Junglee? Or the old Junglee returning?

Or is it Edmond in disguise?

We need to know.

 

[GoldenHorseshoe]

Its

What's one of those?

It's what a large portion of the mix is deficient in but the rest of us has in excess.

 

[AndyWolves]

What is our expected xg conceded from that table? Help me out. We give up too many good shots - we are a top 6 defence for sure but not a great one like Chelsea or Liverpool.

Go to shooting, click on the by opponent stats.

Then sort either by shots faced or shots on target faced.

We're 5th best in the league for both

 

[Jamwolf]

My expert summary - we deserved to win, but Leicester didn't deserve to lose.
Very chuffed today - feel like we deserve a place at least near the top table.

 

[sc91]

It's a bit like playing Russian roulette, you've pulled the trigger 5 times and haven't shot yourself yet, no guarantee you wont spread your brains on the wall on your next pull.

I am used to getting smarmy replies - I was inundated with them when I was highlighting how poor we were under Nuno despite us grinding out results, something which the vast majority on here agree on now with the benefit of hindsight.

I doubt Bruno's gone into training today and thought "brilliant, absolutely nothing to improve on", he'll be busy finding solutions and marginal improvements.

While the vast majority on here are happy with a smash and grab victory against a grossly out of form Leicester side that do not know how to defend, I've simply commented on a worrying trend of us being unable to create shots in the box, something that is not sustainable. You can't for long periods of time relying on individual errors or low-odds occurrences.

Right, you always should be looking to improve but then you are saying this in the context of beating a Rodger's Leicester that we hadn't scored against in the previous 7 hours of football and slapping up Spurs at WHL, both games under huge pressure to get a result.

Its the strangest of timings.

 

[rubyloo]

Takes a lot of bottle to keep playing it out from the back when you are being pressed so hard. I was desperate for Sa to launch it occasionally as quite often the defenders ended up hoofing it (under pressure) a few seconds after receiving it anyway.

Others have mentioned the poor performance from Raul but it was a lovely lay off for the Neves goal.

Great to get an underserved win for a change - i had managed to convince myself an equalizer was inevitable and that it would have been only fair

On a separate note, pre-match has generally been great but I've noticed recently it seems to have turned into an amateur version of football focus. More tunes & less chit chat please.

 

[Flump]

Who said that all I care about is the result? A very strange and shallow conclusion on your part!

I watched the entire game and enjoyed it. I didn't need xg to enhance my enjoyment.

Well if creating good chances (xG) doesn't matter, that would the logical conclusion.

Well done on watching the game - xG can still be useful because:

a) not everyone is objective, or has the knowledge to judge everything accurately
b) presumably you don't watch every game by every team, so it can be a useful guide for comparing Wolves to others

 

[Jack Russell]

Well if creating good chances (xG) doesn't matter, that would the logical conclusion.

Well done on watching the game - xG can still be useful because:

a) not everyone is objective, or has the knowledge to judge everything accurately
b) presumably you don't watch every game by every team, so it can be a useful guide for comparing Wolves to others

With 67 years of watching football, I don't need loads of stats to work out what's going on.

 

[CologneWolf]

It's a bit like playing Russian roulette, you've pulled the trigger 5 times and haven't shot yourself yet, no guarantee you wont spread your brains on the wall on your next pull.

I am used to getting smarmy replies - I was inundated with them when I was highlighting how poor we were under Nuno despite us grinding out results, something which the vast majority on here agree on now with the benefit of hindsight.

I doubt Bruno's gone into training today and thought "brilliant, absolutely nothing to improve on", he'll be busy finding solutions and marginal improvements.

While the vast majority on here are happy with a smash and grab victory against a grossly out of form Leicester side that do not know how to defend, I've simply commented on a worrying trend of us being unable to create shots in the box, something that is not sustainable. You can't for long periods of time relying on individual errors or low-odds occurrences.

Is it preferable to score only goals from within the box? Penalties, Set Pieces, Inside the box, Outside the box they all count the same.

An actual worrying trend would be not scoring goals. Like was the case in the first 3 games this season where we created plenty of chances inside the box.

Assuming say 24 games is considered a “long period“...
If, relying on individual errors or low percentage occurrences: without creating shots in the box was not sustainable. How did we get to where we are in the league table?

 

[DasWolf]

Wolves expected goals 0.53.
Leicester expected goals 1.53.

A clear illustration of the total futility of this stat!

The issue is people misinterpret it mate.

Let's imagine every game we play, each team has one chance. We have a very speculative shot from distance that you'd expect to go in 1 in a hundred, and their striker has an open goal from 10 yards out.

Let's roll the dice this time. Neves scores a world class goal, and Maddison blasts over in miss of the season, and we win 1-0. "Aha, this xG stuff is bull**** and meaningless, see!"

Except if you did this 38 times, you'd expect to lose pretty much every single time. That's what the stat indicates. What 'should' happen, and where a team's strengths and weaknesses lie. A bit like winning the lottery, a sensible person wouldn't win and then say "see anyone who told you it's almost impossible to win is lying!", because it would still be true.

This is also where better players come in. Sa is saving shots that would be expected to go in better than other keepers. Top strikers score difficult goals more often, chances that statistically they should miss far more often. Obviously this all complicates things.

But chance creation is a weakness of ours, and we often fail to test their keeper.

Also, the problem is a lot of people around here define how good the performance is by the result:

1-0, Great Neves goal, Maddison misses a sitter - "we deserved to win and it was an excellent performance"
0-1, Neves hits someone in row Z and Maddison taps in - "very bad performance".

The actual performance in these hypothetical games is nearly identical.

 

[Jack Russell]

The issue is people misinterpret it mate.

Let's imagine every game we play, each team has one chance. We have a very speculative shot from distance that you'd expect to go in 1 in a hundred, and their striker has an open goal from 10 yards out.

Let's roll the dice this time. Neves scores a world class goal, and Maddison blasts over in miss of the season, and we win 1-0. "Aha, this xG stuff is bull**** and meaningless, see!"

Except if you did this 38 times, you'd expect to lose pretty much every single time. That's what the stat indicates. What 'should' happen, and where a team's strengths and weaknesses lie. A bit like winning the lottery, a sensible person wouldn't win and then say "see anyone who told you it's almost impossible to win is lying!", because it would still be true.

This is also where better players come in. Sa is saving shots that would be expected to go in better than other keepers. Top strikers score difficult goals more often, chances that statistically they should miss far more often. Obviously this all complicates things.

But chance creation is a weakness of ours, and we often fail to test their keeper.

Also, the problem is a lot of people around here define how good the performance is by the result:

1-0, Great Neves goal, Maddison misses a sitter - "we deserved to win and it was an excellent performance"
0-1, Neves hits someone in row Z and Maddison taps in - "very bad performance".

The actual performance in these hypothetical games is nearly identical.

Thanks for your thoughts DasWolf.

 

[Mark Rankines Lovechild]

The issue is people misinterpret it mate.

Let's imagine every game we play, each team has one chance. We have a very speculative shot from distance that you'd expect to go in 1 in a hundred, and their striker has an open goal from 10 yards out.

Let's roll the dice this time. Neves scores a world class goal, and Maddison blasts over in miss of the season, and we win 1-0. "Aha, this xG stuff is bull**** and meaningless, see!"

Except if you did this 38 times, you'd expect to lose pretty much every single time. That's what the stat indicates. What 'should' happen, and where a team's strengths and weaknesses lie. A bit like winning the lottery, a sensible person wouldn't win and then say "see anyone who told you it's almost impossible to win is lying!", because it would still be true.

This is also where better players come in. Sa is saving shots that would be expected to go in better than other keepers. Top strikers score difficult goals more often, chances that statistically they should miss far more often. Obviously this all complicates things.

But chance creation is a weakness of ours, and we often fail to test their keeper.

Also, the problem is a lot of people around here define how good the performance is by the result:

1-0, Great Neves goal, Maddison misses a sitter - "we deserved to win and it was an excellent performance"
0-1, Neves hits someone in row Z and Maddison taps in - "very bad performance".

The actual performance in these hypothetical games is nearly identical.

The result is all that matters and we are getting results.
You don't get points for XG

 

[DasWolf]

The result is all that matters and we are getting results.
You don't get points for XG

No, but xG indicates ultimately how likely you are to get points. Same thing if you have 20 shots on target vs 1 shot on target. No one is calling up the PL and asking them to change yesterday's result because they had a higher xG. But it shows we weren't creating that much and they were creating a lot more, which is completely true.

There's a difference between playing extremely well and winning 1-0, and a bad performance with a lucky 1-0 win. The result is identical. The former means you are far more likely to win.

Which is why all the talk about "we won, what are you talking about" is silly, because there's a lot of things we can do better based on yesterday to increase the chances we win.

 

[DasWolf]

Thanks for your thoughts DasWolf.

To some degree, I do agree with you as well mate, because some stats are overrated. Personally I think Traore contributes far more than his statistics show. I don't want to derail this into a Traore thread, but if other teams play a cautious low line and don't press because of Traore's pace, this means less chances for them.

Stats don't account for everything and aren't the be all and end all. But it does indicate areas that can be improved which increase the chances of success.

Which ultimately I think we all want!

 

[Minimalist]

I thought that Lookman played well.
He was one I was hoping we might sign last summer, think he’d slot in well in our team.
Presumably it’s only a formality Leicester will take up their option to buy.

 

[tamwolf]

Thanks for your comments Tamwolf. What you say is spot on however, the two Wolves goals were far from conventional. I do feel that the obsession for stats is rather overrated. I watched the opening minutes of the Leicester v Randers match the other day and certainly didn't need any stats to tell me that Leicester would win comfortably.

Had Ait-nouri's shot from the Podence pass gone in instead of just missing, I guess the xg machine would be well and truly bamboozled!

I'm surprised Ait-Nouri's effort didn't score higher on the XG to be honest. I'd have thought it would score as a pretty good chance.

Stats in isolation don't tell you everything, but they are useful. Football clubs hire teams of data analysts now to identify weaknesses in opposing teams and assess their own players and teams performance. It's a huge part of the modern game and shouldn't be played down.

 

[AndyWolves]

The issue is people misinterpret it mate.

Let's imagine every game we play, each team has one chance. We have a very speculative shot from distance that you'd expect to go in 1 in a hundred, and their striker has an open goal from 10 yards out.

Let's roll the dice this time. Neves scores a world class goal, and Maddison blasts over in miss of the season, and we win 1-0. "Aha, this xG stuff is bull**** and meaningless, see!"

Except if you did this 38 times, you'd expect to lose pretty much every single time. That's what the stat indicates. What 'should' happen, and where a team's strengths and weaknesses lie. A bit like winning the lottery, a sensible person wouldn't win and then say "see anyone who told you it's almost impossible to win is lying!", because it would still be true.

This is also where better players come in. Sa is saving shots that would be expected to go in better than other keepers. Top strikers score difficult goals more often, chances that statistically they should miss far more often. Obviously this all complicates things.

But chance creation is a weakness of ours, and we often fail to test their keeper.

Also, the problem is a lot of people around here define how good the performance is by the result:

1-0, Great Neves goal, Maddison misses a sitter - "we deserved to win and it was an excellent performance"
0-1, Neves hits someone in row Z and Maddison taps in - "very bad performance".

The actual performance in these hypothetical games is nearly identical.

I was just thinking how different this thread would be if Podence's shot had gone a foot in either direction

 

[Wagstaffe Was Magic]

I was just thinking how different this thread would be if Podence's shot had gone a foot in either direction

 

[KBWWFC]

Is it preferable to score only goals from within the box? Penalties, Set Pieces, Inside the box, Outside the box they all count the same.

An actual worrying trend would be not scoring goals. Like was the case in the first 3 games this season where we created plenty of chances inside the box.

Assuming say 24 games is considered a “long period“...
If, relying on individual errors or low percentage occurrences: without creating shots in the box was not sustainable. How did we get to where we are in the league table?

Disingenuous.
I'm clearly referring to the past 5 games where we have stopped creating anything in the box from open play.

I wouldn't be concerned if we were working the ball into the box and getting shots away, but we are not.

Goals are goals and they all count, the first three games are the equal and opposite of the last few and they've probably evened themselves out, which is fortunate.

The worrying trend is that Raul/Silva/Forwards aren't getting shots away in the box (starved of supply), and that we are instead relying on Moutinho (1.3 goals per season averaged over the past 7 seasons) and Neves to score from statistically improbable positions, rather than creating better quality chances.

We have gone from creating some chances in great positions to creating virtually nothing.
We've become reliant on corners and long range shots against packed defences - we've seen lots of times this season that this approach doesn't pay off (normally when we've gone behind, say Brentford, Arsenal, or Vs Burnley where they were content for us to shoot from range or compete with their mutants for headers), we have become pretty toothless when the onus is on us to attack.

People on here were losing their heads about the statistical improbability of not scoring in those first three games. I wasn't complaining, create quality chances and you're likely to score. We're currently doing the opposite of that, and those that were worried earlier in the season aren't worried now and think this is sustainable until the end of the season.

 

[Zico]

A huge three points against a good (if out of form side) and a win that sets us up nicely for a massive few days in the capital that could really kick us on in this chase for Europe

But

Add it to the ever growing list of games where we've created little up top, rode our luck at the back and somehow emerged with a positive result. You can't keep on getting away with it and that's what we've been doing. Seen it said a few times that playing badly and winning is the mark of a good side - not when it's every other week it isn't. I get it, people are totally blinded by the results and ignore all the frailties in our play but if we want to be serious challengers for this and future seasons we can't keep on playing like this, things have to improve in our play

When was the last lucky win before yesterday?

 

[KBWWFC]

The issue is people misinterpret it mate.

Let's imagine every game we play, each team has one chance. We have a very speculative shot from distance that you'd expect to go in 1 in a hundred, and their striker has an open goal from 10 yards out.

Let's roll the dice this time. Neves scores a world class goal, and Maddison blasts over in miss of the season, and we win 1-0. "Aha, this xG stuff is bull**** and meaningless, see!"

Except if you did this 38 times, you'd expect to lose pretty much every single time. That's what the stat indicates. What 'should' happen, and where a team's strengths and weaknesses lie. A bit like winning the lottery, a sensible person wouldn't win and then say "see anyone who told you it's almost impossible to win is lying!", because it would still be true.

This is also where better players come in. Sa is saving shots that would be expected to go in better than other keepers. Top strikers score difficult goals more often, chances that statistically they should miss far more often. Obviously this all complicates things.

But chance creation is a weakness of ours, and we often fail to test their keeper.

Also, the problem is a lot of people around here define how good the performance is by the result:

1-0, Great Neves goal, Maddison misses a sitter - "we deserved to win and it was an excellent performance"
0-1, Neves hits someone in row Z and Maddison taps in - "very bad performance".

The actual performance in these hypothetical games is nearly identical.

Another good example, city, for all of their quality, pepper the goal with low quality shots (headers from set pieces, long range efforts), and score a penalty and their only other clear cut effort in the box.

Spurs create four good quality shots, score three of them.

 

[KBWWFC]

When was the last lucky win before yesterday?

Brentford.

 

[wolvesaywe]

Brentford.

How was that lucky? By far the better team after drone stopped play

Hurry up and die on that hill

 

[AndyWolves]

Playing well and winning is optimal, second best is playing poorly and winning.

I agree that at some point it theoretically catches up with you, like villa last season. Until then I'm going to enjoy it!

 

[Oliwolf44]

Brentford.

Hi Thomas, you should be concentrating on keeping your side in the division rather than making accounts on other teams forums.

 

[thommo1984]

I'm almost happier with that result than the Spuds game. Spuds were calamitous and gave us a two-goal lead to sit behind. Yesterday we were well off the pace, up against a decent team on a high from their midweek performance, and we seemingly lost all ability to keep hold of the ball, yet we still found a way to take all three points. At this stage of the season that's huge.

Not quite sure what happened in the second half. Their press was really good but we totally panicked in the face of it. Raul's ball retention and decision making definitely didn't help us and it's becoming a real issue – without an obvious answer.

What a season this is turning out to be though. Roll on Thursday night, and let's overturn another unjustified 1-0 defeat...

 

[The Runner]

Disingenuous.
I'm clearly referring to the past 5 games where we have stopped creating anything in the box from open play.

I wouldn't be concerned if we were working the ball into the box and getting shots away, but we are not.

Goals are goals and they all count, the first three games are the equal and opposite of the last few and they've probably evened themselves out, which is fortunate.

The worrying trend is that Raul/Silva/Forwards aren't getting shots away in the box (starved of supply), and that we are instead relying on Moutinho (1.3 goals per season averaged over the past 7 seasons) and Neves to score from statistically improbable positions, rather than creating better quality chances.

We have gone from creating some chances in great positions to creating virtually nothing.
We've become reliant on corners and long range shots against packed defences - we've seen lots of times this season that this approach doesn't pay off (normally when we've gone behind, say Brentford, Arsenal, or Vs Burnley where they were content for us to shoot from range or compete with their mutants for headers), we have become pretty toothless when the onus is on us to attack.

People on here were losing their heads about the statistical improbability of not scoring in those first three games. I wasn't complaining, create quality chances and you're likely to score. We're currently doing the opposite of that, and those that were worried earlier in the season aren't worried now and think this is sustainable until the end of the season.

I've already highlighted the fact that we did create chances in the box against United which you seem to have ignored. Also, how far inside the box does a shot have to be before it counts as 'in the box'? Suggest you have another look at Moutinho's goal against Brentford. Lovely build up and finish, inside the box.

 

[AndyWolves]

How was that lucky? By far the better team after drone stopped play

Hurry up and die on that hill

From an xG perspective we were lucky, however, Brentford have conceded about 8 goals more than they should.

So maybe it wasn't us being lucky, but Brentford underperforming defensively.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

I think yesterday showed the problem of having no Traore.

We had no pace at all and Leicester knew this so pushed up so much and were aggressive in their press.

At one stage I saw them camped in our half and it was like we were playing City, two full-backs high and two centre-backs 15 yards into our half.

So fair play to them for that. It was a smart, risky approach that paid off as they did dominate and had the pass to the full backs as an out ball every time.

If we had Traore I can’t help but think they wouldn’t have played that way. Just an example of how he influenced games without even having the ball.

Obviously we need Neto to be that outlet with pace, maybe Hwang, otherwise we will be very easy to defend against and teams can do what Leicester did.

Yep. But people are content because we have loads of options and hwang Trincao and chiquino offer just as much as traore

 

[KBWWFC]

How was that lucky? By far the better team after drone stopped play

Hurry up and die on that hill