Six out of Ten Outfield Players

[el gringo]

Are in the box. Who would these be for us? Why are Brighton not shipping loads of goals? Asking for a friend.

 

[TooMutchBull]

They lost didn't they? Currently sat 4 points outside the relegation zone. Who is your friend, Scott Parker?

 

[Bill McCai]

Brighton have the same goal difference as us, yet are seven points worse off. Weird thread.

 

[Mile End Wanderer]

Brighton have had some tremendous results this season too

 

[Oldgold Wolfcub]

They lost didn't they? Currently sat 4 points outside the relegation zone. Who is your friend, Scott Parker?

More likely to be Lady Penelope - m'Lady.

 

[Mardenboroughs Shoulder]

Parker take off my dress . Yes m'lady. Parker take off my bra. Yes m'lady. Parker take off my panties. Yes m'lady. And Parker. Yes m'llady. Don't let me catch you wearing my clothes again!

 

[arctic rime]

Brighton & Newcastle are being dragged into the mix.

 

[The Wolf In The North]

Brighton & Newcastle are being dragged into the Mix.

Well, I hope they behave themselves and don't start multiple match day threads.

 

[Hot Fuss]

Are in the box. Who would these be for us? Why are Brighton not shipping loads of goals? Asking for a friend.

View attachment 20129

Brighton have scored the same amount of goals as us, have won 5 out of 25, are 7 points and 5 places behind us....

and you start a “why can’t we be more like Brighton?” thread.

Well done.

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

Are in the box. Who would these be for us? Why are Brighton not shipping loads of goals? Asking for a friend.

View attachment 20129

And the inadvertent irony post of the year award goes to........... el gringo
View attachment 20130

 

[Big Saft Kid]

I think all the OP is suggesting is that we could be a tad more attacking in the way we play. The usual clever dicks will take the ****, so ****ing predictable. Only five clubs have scored fewer than we have, and only about six have conceded more (can't be bothered to check). So all is for the best in the best of all worlds apparently. Why not try making a constructive response?

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

 

[Wonder Boyo]

I think all the OP is suggesting is that we could be a tad more attacking in the way we play. The usual clever dicks will take the ****, so ****ing predictable. Only five clubs have scored fewer than we have, and only about six have conceded more (can't be bothered to check). So all is for the best in the best of all worlds apparently. Why not try making a constructive response?

But Brighton have the exact same goal difference as us. Scored 26, conceded 32. I think people are making the point that, while we could possibly learn from other teams, trying to hold Brighton up as a team we should be emulating is very strange don't you think? Same goal difference, same goals scored, 7 points behind us, five places below us and in danger of relegation. But yes Nuno, learn from Brighton and their attacking genius. Very odd.

 

[Hot Fuss]

I think all the OP is suggesting is that we could be a tad more attacking in the way we play. The usual clever dicks will take the ****, so ****ing predictable. Only five clubs have scored fewer than we have, and only about six have conceded more (can't be bothered to check). So all is for the best in the best of all worlds apparently. Why not try making a constructive response?

In Brighton’s last 2 games at Molineux I’d be surprised if they ever had 6 men in our half, never mind the penalty area.

It’s been mentioned, correctly, we need to be more positive about a million times since the bad run started but we were on the front foot more in our last game, and hopefully we’ll have the squad to continue pushing that way next season.

im really not sure a random screen shot of a team that have struggled to score goals just as much as we have should be used as yet another stick to beat our team with.

 

[Olivergoldblack]

If we're picking teams to be like, I vote Man City. 10 points clear, and don't even bother with strikers anymore.

 

[Deleted member 11332]

But Brighton have the exact same goal difference as us. Scored 26, conceded 32. I think people are making the point that, while we could possibly learn from other teams, trying to hold Brighton up as a team we should be emulating is very strange don't you think? Same goal difference, same goals scored, 7 points behind us, five places below us and in danger of relegation. But yes Nuno, learn from Brighton and their attacking genius. Very odd.

Brighton also have miles worse players than we do collectively. How many geniunely get into our side. 2 maybe?

 

[rincewind]

If we're picking teams to be like, I vote Man City. 10 points clear, and don't even bother with strikers anymore.

Just about to say similar. Rarely see City flood the penalty area in open play. Seems to work for them.
Teams have different styles, different players.

 

[maws]

If I could be ***** I’d get the clip from the mam city game the other day where Cancelo crossed to 0 Man City players in the box, that’s a zero. It was mentioned in commentary.

So are we saying Man City have it wrong and Brighton have it correct?

 

[pacamac]

They lost didn't they? Currently sat 4 points outside the relegation zone. Who is your friend, Scott Parker?

Thread should have just ended here.

Weird original post.

 

[AndyWolves]

To be fair to OP, Brighton should be about 5th in the league based on xG and xGA.

Maybe the system is good but the players aren't

 

[WW1963]

I think all the OP is suggesting is that we could be a tad more attacking in the way we play. The usual clever dicks will take the ****, so ****ing predictable. Only five clubs have scored fewer than we have, and only about six have conceded more (can't be bothered to check). So all is for the best in the best of all worlds apparently. Why not try making a constructive response?

I would do so if I could work out what the hell is going on.

 

[reanswolf]

I must admit, Brighton probably go a bit too gun-ho for their ability. I do think they are considerably improved thiis season but lack a quality finisher.

Despite the sarky comments, I think the OP was made to highlight the number of players getting into the box. It is a genuine issue I feel, at Wolves, as it's all very well Pedro and Adama storming down the wing to cross, but Jose and Raul before him were literally the only player in the box when crosses come in, so its 1 against 5 or 6. We do need to get more players in the box at times, but our midfielders are so far away that they rarely get there.

 

[North West Wanderer]

To be fair to OP, Brighton should be about 5th in the league based on xG and xGA.

Maybe the system is good but the players aren't

Or maybe expected goals isn’t accurate?

 

[Ginger Chimp]

If I could be ***** I’d get the clip from the mam city game the other day where Cancelo crossed to 0 Man City players in the box, that’s a zero. It was mentioned in commentary.

So are we saying Man City have it wrong and Brighton have it correct?

Yes. Clearly.

 

[AndyWolves]

Or maybe expected goals isn’t accurate?

It's based on historical data, from what I know

 

[Big Saft Kid]

But Brighton have the exact same goal difference as us. Scored 26, conceded 32. I think people are making the point that, while we could possibly learn from other teams, trying to hold Brighton up as a team we should be emulating is very strange don't you think? Same goal difference, same goals scored, 7 points behind us, five places below us and in danger of relegation. But yes Nuno, learn from Brighton and their attacking genius. Very odd.

I think his point is that even though they are down among the dead men, Brighton still try to score goals. It is apparent that they are not very good at that, as their stats suggest. But they try. We don't even try -- how many times in any game do we get 6 men in theopposition box, even on corners, let alone in open play? Yet we have a better team than Brighton in terms of quality. If we attacked more, and in numbers, we would score more. Simples.

 

[Big Saft Kid]

Is that a photo of Hot Fuss or Pagey?

 

[Leominster_Wolf]

Or maybe expected goals isn’t accurate?

The thing with xG and all other statistical analysis - it is an indicator and nothing more. Yes it has a point and a purpose, but in isolation it is quite often a blunt tool. 'blocked' shots often get a very low xG tariff/rating regardless of where they were.
Prior to the Leeds game, I was looking at the away fixture as I recall someone claiming at the time they had battered us on xG and we had been lucky to win.
For all Leeds huffing and puffing that night, at the time we scored (if you look at the xG timeline, the game was virtually even 0.45 vs 0.46.
the game finished on xG ; Leeds - 1.08 Wolves - 0.62

However Leeds xG was inflated by a chance in 82nd minute which was given an xG rating of 0.43

So in isolation it may appear we have been 'battered', but in reality it was very close barring one high tariffed chance and we generally controlled the game.

Although in fairness last night was daylight robbery palace had 3 shots (2 on target), had an xG of 0.18 and scored 2 goals!!

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

I must admit, Brighton probably go a bit too gun-ho for their ability. I do think they are considerably improved thiis season but lack a quality finisher.

Despite the sarky comments, I think the OP was made to highlight the number of players getting into the box. It is a genuine issue I feel, at Wolves, as it's all very well Pedro and Adama storming down the wing to cross, but Jose and Raul before him were literally the only player in the box when crosses come in, so its 1 against 5 or 6. We do need to get more players in the box at times, but our midfielders are so far away that they rarely get there.

Which is one of the reasons why Nuno has changed it .

We simply get no joy out of traore on the right and Neto on the left , unless we play 4 2 3 1 and can get bodies forward.

in the new system it works better because neves becomes an option 35 yards out and there’s so much more movement and fluency from the front 3.

this way - we are able to create runs in between defenders more centrally - like the goal Friday and the dozens of shots we had

 

[tamwolf]

Or maybe expected goals isn’t accurate?

Just because an XG stat doesn't match the goals scored doesn't make it inaccurate, that is just an over simplified way of looking at it.

Its based on flow of the game and quality of chances created. If a team has a high expected goals stat but low goals scored, that tells you that they are really poor at converting chances and dominance. A team with low expected goals but high goals scored, would be really good at converting half chances.

For team like Brighton, they have a lot of possession and do create a lot, but they do not have any goalscorers in their team. Maupay and Connelly are workhorses with no one to work off. Wolves on the other hand create little and never really control the game from an attacking perspective, so it shouldn't be a surprise to any of us that our XG is low.

All premier league teams now have statisticians and analytics departments to look at things like this. Thankfully the club won't just be writing it off if it doesn't say what they want it to.

 

[Fenrir_]

That from open play then? Can't really tell. We had five in the box when Neto scored at Southampton and that was from a pretty quick transition in open play, and against less defenders as a result



Not all swarming the ball like five year olds either

 

[Bawtry Wolf]

It would be interesting to look at the stills/action prior to that shot. Had Brighton just had a corner or free kick? I don’t know but the configuration of the defenders suggests that could be the case. There are also 10 Palace players in the frame and only 6 Brighton, which also suggests a dead all situation. It’s also just after half time and if it was Brighton’s kick off they do charge forward, they did against us and caught us cold and Moutinho gave away the penalty. Looking at that still, if I were Nuno I would be saying get the ball and counter because they’re wide open in .

Brighton have had 34 more shots than us this season but only 94 of their shots are on target. We’ve had 101 shots in target. Our shooting accuracy is 34% whilst Brighton’s is 28%. We need to improve our conversion rate whereas Brighton are almost scoring with every shot on target.

 

[moseleyite]

I think all the OP is suggesting is that we could be a tad more attacking in the way we play. The usual clever dicks will take the ****, so ****ing predictable. Only five clubs have scored fewer than we have, and only about six have conceded more (can't be bothered to check). So all is for the best in the best of all worlds apparently. Why not try making a constructive response?

Okay, I'll try to make a constructive reply: perhaps the OP should have chosen a less utterly-stupid example than Brighton? If the OP wanted to make a point about getting people in the box and scoring goals then, according to the stats you provide, there are 14 clubs to chose from (excluding us and the five that have scored fewer goals than us) ... and yet Brighton are the example? BHA have scored and conceded exactly the same number of goals as Wolves so flooding the box seems to make sod-all difference to their scoring prowess.

Don't get me wrong, we'd all love to see a cavalier, attacking Wolves team but using Brighton as a stick to beat that particular drum is comical.

EDIT: also, I think it's about 9 or 10 teams with a worse defence than ours. I haven't looked but we're not too bad defensively but, as we've all seen this season, if we try to be more attacking in our set up it can come at the cost of our solidity. Right now, that's where we are.

 

[tamwolf]

Okay, I'll try to make a constructive reply: perhaps the OP should have chosen a less utterly-stupid example than Brighton? If the OP wanted to make a point about getting people in the box and scoring goals then, according to the stats you provide, there are 14 clubs to chose from (excluding us and the five that have scored fewer goals than us) ... and yet Brighton are the example? BHA have scored and conceded exactly the same number of goals as Wolves so flooding the box seems to make sod-all difference to their scoring prowess.

Don't get me wrong, we'd all love to see a cavalier, attacking Wolves team but using Brighton as a stick to beat that particular drum is comical.

EDIT: also, I think it's about 9 or 10 teams with a worse defence than ours. I haven't looked but we're not too bad defensively but, as we've all seen this season, if we try to be more attacking in our set up it can come at the cost of our solidity. Right now, that's where we are.

Isn't the OP's point that they are not shipping a load of goals despite committing a lot of players forward? That is the question he asks in the original post and doesn't actually mention Brighton's goalscoring. Seems to me his point was that teams can get players in the penalty area and not compromise themselves defensively, rather than our safety first approach.

So continuing your theme of constructive replies; maybe you should answer the points in the posts, rather than being a complete ******** and looking to point score by ridiculing it.

 

[moseleyite]

Isn't the OP's point that they are not shipping a load of goals despite committing a lot of players forward? That is the question he asks in the original post and doesn't actually mention Brighton's goalscoring. Seems to me his point was that teams can get players in the penalty area and not compromise themselves defensively, rather than our safety first approach.

So continuing your theme of constructive replies; maybe you should answer the points in the posts, rather than being a complete ******** and looking to point score by ridiculing it.

"also, I think it's about 9 or 10 teams with a worse defence than ours. I haven't looked but we're not too bad defensively but, as we've all seen this season, if we try to be more attacking in our set up it can come at the cost of our solidity. Right now, that's where we are."

There you go.

Signed

A complete ****er.

EDIT: added smiley as I was originally trying to be sarcastic rather than belligerent but that obviously did NOT come across.

EDIT EDIT: more broadly, comparing two teams with different players and then asking why team 1 doesn't play like team 2 is daft anyway. The reason team 1 don't play like team 2 is because, if they really want to, they have to have players like team 2.

 

[WeAreTheWolvesII]

Okay, I'll try to make a constructive reply: perhaps the OP should have chosen a less utterly-stupid example than Brighton? If the OP wanted to make a point about getting people in the box and scoring goals then, according to the stats you provide, there are 14 clubs to chose from (excluding us and the five that have scored fewer goals than us) ... and yet Brighton are the example? BHA have scored and conceded exactly the same number of goals as Wolves so flooding the box seems to make sod-all difference to their scoring prowess.

Don't get me wrong, we'd all love to see a cavalier, attacking Wolves team but using Brighton as a stick to beat that particular drum is comical.

EDIT: also, I think it's about 9 or 10 teams with a worse defence than ours. I haven't looked but we're not too bad defensively but, as we've all seen this season, if we try to be more attacking in our set up it can come at the cost of our solidity. Right now, that's where we are.

It's not stupid at all.

Brighton haven't scored goals because of poor finishing. Man City, Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Villa and Leeds are the only clubs ahead of them in the xG for table. And, Villa's is because of a freak massive win at the start of the season.

They 'should' have scored 11 more goals than us. Which is a pretty considerable amount when you consider that we've only played 25 games and hardly anyone would want any of their attackers in our team.

This comes back to the merits of xG. Some think it's good, some rubbish. I think it's a good indicator and this shows to me that Brighton are a very good side in the way they play, and they're let down by finishing, which was perfectly backed up by last night.

So, I'd then ask why Brighton should have scored 11 more goals than us this season, and it's down to things like the OP has highlighted. They play with more attacking intent and get more men into the box.

It's also worth noting that Brighton have a lower xG against than us. And, I'd like to think anyone who has seen them play would be surprised at their position. They play some very good stuff, look generally solid, but the only thing you would say is that it can't keep being bad luck. They clearly lack quality in the final third and are prone to making the odd defensive mistake.

I don't expect this to hold much weight with some on here, but it shows Potter is doing a lot right. So, if/when Brighton stay up and are then competing for a top 10 finish next season, don't be too surprised, because the reality is that not much will have changed in the way they play, they'll probably have just added a more clinical striker and current players will find a bit more form.

 

[tamwolf]

"also, I think it's about 9 or 10 teams with a worse defence than ours. I haven't looked but we're not too bad defensively but, as we've all seen this season, if we try to be more attacking in our set up it can come at the cost of our solidity. Right now, that's where we are."

There you go.

Signed

A complete ****er.

EDIT: added smiley as I was originally trying to be sarcastic rather than belligerent but that obviously did NOT come across.

EDIT EDIT: more broadly, comparing two teams with different players and then asking why team 1 doesn't play like team 2 is daft anyway. The reason team 1 don't play like team 2 is because, if they really want to, they have to have players like team 2.

You seem to have a knack for oversimplifying everything to try to shut down any discussion you don't like. I don't think I will waste my time.

 

[AndyWolves]

It's not stupid at all.

Brighton haven't scored goals because of poor finishing. Man City, Liverpool, United, Chelsea, Villa and Leeds are the only clubs ahead of them in the xG for table. And, Villa's is because of a freak massive win at the start of the season.

They 'should' have scored 11 more goals than us. Which is a pretty considerable amount when you consider that we've only played 25 games and hardly anyone would want any of their attackers in our team.

This comes back to the merits of xG. Some think it's good, some rubbish. I think it's a good indicator and this shows to me that Brighton are a very good side in the way they play, and they're let down by finishing, which was perfectly backed up by last night.

So, I'd then ask why Brighton should have scored 11 more goals than us this season, and it's down to things like the OP has highlighted. They play with more attacking intent and get more men into the box.

It's also worth noting that Brighton have a lower xG against than us. And, I'd like to think anyone who has seen them play would be surprised at their position. They play some very good stuff, look generally solid, but the only thing you would say is that it can't keep being bad luck. They clearly lack quality in the final third and are prone to making the odd defensive mistake.

I don't expect this to hold much weight with some on here, but it shows Potter is doing a lot right. So, if/when Brighton stay up and are then competing for a top 10 finish next season, don't be too surprised, because the reality is that not much will have changed in the way they play, they'll probably have just added a more clinical striker and current players will find a bit more form.

Absolutely spot on

 

[moseleyite]

You seem to have a knack for oversimplifying everything to try to shut down any discussion. I don't think I will waste my time.

I'm shutting nothing down, the discussion is ongoing but the point is taken - I disagree and so don't have a lot to add so I should move on.

 

[Contrarian]

It's also worth noting that Brighton have a lower xG against than us. And, I'd like to think anyone who has seen them play would be surprised at their position. They play some very good stuff, look generally solid, but the only thing you would say is that it can't keep being bad luck. They clearly lack quality in the final third and are prone to making the odd defensive mistake.

I don't expect this to hold much weight with some on here, but it shows Potter is doing a lot right. So, if/when Brighton stay up and are then competing for a top 10 finish next season, don't be too surprised, because the reality is that not much will have changed in the way they play, they'll probably have just added a more clinical striker and current players will find a bit more form.

Yes, Brighton this season are one of the strangest teams I've seen! They do play generally at a top half the table level, but are nowhere near on results.

Let down by quality of player in key positions, I think. Certainly up front. Maupay has got something like 7 goals which seems OK, but is 4 or 5 less than his XG. When the player you have as your main striker is misfiring that much.. Wellbeck is as bad, probably worse. Then their throws in regular howlers to concede. For example Dan Burn was terrible against us, looked League 1 level and he has been just the same every time I see them. Maybe he turns into Maldini in some matches that I missed? We don't score many goals, yet we scored 3 v Brighton, that says something. Brighton made us look like Leeds! So maybe they are a little too attacking minded given the quality of their defending and they should stay back a bit more?

Tactically sound, some very good players, but serious lack of quality in key areas, I think. They probably wont go down, the test will be if Potter can get a better striker than Maupay in. Getting a better defender than Dan Burn shouldn't be too difficult. Who knows, maybe they could be next seasons Leicester?