⚽ Brighton & Hove Albion 0-4 West Ham Utd (4/3/23)

[jabbaglob123]

Thanks and very instructive.WE need our players to be able to receive the ball under pressure and that is about coaching and confidence.

Maybe that clown Moyes should have watched this before the game.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

https://www.kumb.com/article.php?id=44530

Player by Player Analysis: Brighton & Hove Albion 4-0 West Ham Utd

OUCH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


couldn't have taken Jack about 3 minutes to knock that one up..

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

Thanks and very instructive.WE need our players to be able to receive the ball under pressure and that is about coaching and confidence.

Our players receive the ball under pressure all too frequently, they're just not very good at dealing with it. The pace of our passes is woeful, varying between so slow the opponent gets there first to something Peter Lorimer would have admired.

[Humbug]

and although it may be a bit of a myth, Pep instilled that on his Barcelona squad when he was there which carries over to today's team, which is hardly surprising seeing as they have Xavi there, and that's when you lose possession you've got 6 seconds to win it back.

our lot take about 6 minutes. if that quick. and when we do get it, why we give it right back to the other team again.

don't know how many times I post on here, "you can't score if you ain't got the ball, and your opponent has the opportunity to if they do."

and all I get in response is "I hate tippy tappy football..."

well you don't ever have to worry about that these days.

What sort of logic does that make? Of course you can't score a goal if you don't have possession. Are you really saying you are 'more likely' to score a goal with lots of possession? Then what about Bournemouth's near win against Arsenal? Also, many teams score goals just by counter attacking like we did in our last 2 good seasons. Personally I dislike drab counter-attacking style of football but also tippy tappy pointless 'keep possession' just for the sake of it. If you like tippy tappy , who am I to disagree with your preference, just not my cup of tea.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

from the BBC website

City vs. Newcastle 56/44% score 2-0
Arsenal vs. Bournemouth 80/20% score 3-2
Villa vs. Palace 58/42% score 1-0
Brighton vs. West Ham 66/34% score 4-0
Chelsea vs. Leeds 57/43% score 1-0
Wolves vs. Spurs 46/54% score 1-0
Southampton vs. Leicester 35/64% score 1-0
Nott'ham F vs. Everton 57/43% score 2-2
Liverpool vs. ManU 60/40% score 7-0

so from the above weekend's data, only 2 games where a team had less possession actually won.
the other was a draw.

ergo the team with the most possession in most cases actually won.

I'm not quite sure how hard it is to understand.......

now whether you like tippy tappy or not, facts would "seem" to bear out that's it's difficult to win if you don't have the ball.

and I have not included attempts on goal because only the final result is relevant.

[hammerman11]

Too late to change this season. Next with a different manager then maybe

[Humbug]

from the BBC website

City vs. Newcastle 56/44% score 2-0
Arsenal vs. Bournemouth 80/20% score 3-2
Villa vs. Palace 58/42% score 1-0
Brighton vs. West Ham 66/34% score 4-0
Chelsea vs. Leeds 57/43% score 1-0
Wolves vs. Spurs 46/54% score 1-0
Southampton vs. Leicester 35/64% score 1-0
Nott'ham F vs. Everton 57/43% score 2-2
Liverpool vs. ManU 60/40% score 7-0

so from the above weekend's data, only 2 games where a team had less possession actually won.
the other was a draw.

ergo the team with the most possession in most cases actually won.

I'm not quite sure how hard it is to understand.......

now whether you like tippy tappy or not, facts would "seem" to bear out that's it's difficult to win if you don't have the ball.

and I have not included attempts on goal because only the final result is relevant.

I could find lots of games where the team with least possession won. It's no guarantee of a win because your strikers need to finish but unfortunately ours have gone AWOL.

[Colours never run]

Too late to change this season. Next with a different manager then maybe

You might well be right. Fingers crossed there's at least 3 worse Teams than us.

[SammyLeeWasOffside]

from the BBC website

City vs. Newcastle 56/44% score 2-0
Arsenal vs. Bournemouth 80/20% score 3-2
Villa vs. Palace 58/42% score 1-0
Brighton vs. West Ham 66/34% score 4-0
Chelsea vs. Leeds 57/43% score 1-0
Wolves vs. Spurs 46/54% score 1-0
Southampton vs. Leicester 35/64% score 1-0
Nott'ham F vs. Everton 57/43% score 2-2
Liverpool vs. ManU 60/40% score 7-0

so from the above weekend's data, only 2 games where a team had less possession actually won.
the other was a draw.

ergo the team with the most possession in most cases actually won.

I'm not quite sure how hard it is to understand.......

now whether you like tippy tappy or not, facts would "seem" to bear out that's it's difficult to win if you don't have the ball.

and I have not included attempts on goal because only the final result is relevant.

Kick off
Run to the corner
Surround the ball with 11 men
100% possession
38 points

[Cuenca 'ammer]

I could find lots of games where the team with least possession won. It's no guarantee of a win because your strikers need to finish but unfortunately ours have gone AWOL.

I would bet you won't find loads of teams that win games with less possession..
you'll find some as I have alluded to in my post.


teams with less possession won't win a majority of their games.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

Kick off
Run to the corner
Surround the ball with 11 men
100% possession
38 points

but I do remember a certain manager that said you start every game with 1 point. if you don't concede you won't lose.

38 points.

respect the point.

he got rightly castigated for that.

I actually want to see my team win a game. wait. I want to see my team win more than 2 away games in a 12 month period.

[Coops]

but I do remember a certain manager that said you start every game with 1 point. if you don't concede you won't lose.

38 points.

respect the point.

he got rightly castigated for that.

I actually want to see my team win a game. wait. I want to see my team win more than 2 away games in a 12 month period.

I want to see my team try to win a game.

[MB]

Possession is overrated as is Xg* and any other single stat you care to mention.

It is what you do with the ball that matters and that is where we continue to fall down.

Jack posted something the other day which said we rate really high for the middle section of the pitch but really low for each box despite our defensive record being very good.

We are slow and clueless in possession. That is the problem not how much of it we have.

*was reading something yesterday about single match Xg basically being nonsense and it only really making sense over a long period due to things like low Xg shot spam and outliers like Liverpool the other night which Xg just cannot cope with.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

Possession is overrated as is Xg* and any other single stat you care to mention.

It is what you do with the ball that matters and that is where we continue to fall down.

don't disagree. but you have to have it to do something with it. the more you have it, the more chances you have to score. other than Leicester who won the league with counter attacking football, I would hazard a guess that the teams who win the league overall have more possession.

and the teams that get relegated don't.

you can imvho build a season of fairly successful football with counter attacking. but to build a foundation of overall successful football, you'll need to have the ball more than not.

City have won the league what 4 out of 5 seasons ? can anyone honestly say they won it with less possession than the other 19 teams in the league ?

as I say, I reckon, it's a guess but I would think it's "fairly" accurate that Leicester are the only team in recent history of the PL that a team with less possession than the other teams in the league have won it.

I would go so far as to say even down to 6th place maybe, those teams probably have more possession overall.

it's much harder to spend 90 minutes every game chasing the ball than it is when you actually have it.

because when one team has the ball so little, they probably need to score pretty much every time they have it because the chances when you have so little of the ball are less.

it therefore relies on forwards scoring at far more than the "average" rate of shots to goal ratios.

which is fine for players having a "purple" patch or more than one. it's unsustainable in the long run though.

all of course imvho.

I don't have facts to bear it out but teams like City, Liverpool, Barca, Real Madrid, Bayern, PSG have all won their respective league recently (in years rather than last season) and again I would hazard a guess that they possess the ball far more than their opponents.

and of course also in general have players who can put the ball into the net more often than not.

but having said that, I would think that even Messi, M'Bappe or Benzema would find it difficult to score in our team this past 12 months. not to say they won't, but they'll have a lot more difficulty based on the opportunities that we would present them with. I'd like to think they would score more than Antonio or Bowen but even then.........

[Crouchend_Hammer]

I could find lots of games where the team with least possession won. It's no guarantee of a win because your strikers need to finish but unfortunately ours have gone AWOL.

There is a relatively strong correlation between possession and wins

Of course, that doesn't mean a team that has less possession can't score or win games, or even win enough games over a short period to win the league (as the case of Leicester). However, if you have more possession you are more likely to win

[MB]

I'm sure there is a correlation, but I bet those possession stats are also backed up by other stats which support intent (touches in the opposition half, touches in the opposition box, shots etc).

I don't think a David Moyes team having more of the ball would equate for example. It will just mean our centre halves have been playing pat-a-cake with it or we are passing it along the line in front of a set defence like we saw last season.

I'm less worried about possession and much more worried about how often we are single figures for touches in the opposition bo (for example, like we were on Saturday).

It is quality and quantity which is missing and in our case possession helps one of those but probably hinders the other! I think most of our players are better with less and quicker.

[steps]

Previously, teams like Brighton (specially under Hughton) more or less let us have all the possession because they knew we couldn’t break them down.

Of course they are a different outfit now.

[MB]

Previously, teams like Brighton (specially under Hughton) more or less let us have all the possession because they knew we couldn’t break them down.

Of course they are a different outfit now.

Same way we did with Everton.

CH and CA are right I am sure in a general sense, I just think you need to dig behind some of these stats a bit more to get the full picture.

[Takeiteasy]

What sort of logic does that make? Of course you can't score a goal if you don't have possession. Are you really saying you are 'more likely' to score a goal with lots of possession? Then what about Bournemouth's near win against Arsenal? Also, many teams score goals just by counter attacking like we did in our last 2 good seasons. Personally I dislike drab counter-attacking style of football but also tippy tappy pointless 'keep possession' just for the sake of it. If you like tippy tappy , who am I to disagree with your preference, just not my cup of tea.

I think you’ve completely missed the point of what cuenc was trying to get across.

There is plenty of middle ground between ultra defensive, low block, low possession, feeding-off-scraps counter attacking football and possession-at-all-costs, “tippy tappy” football.

I think Cuenc’s point is fair. We probably don’t see enough of the ball and we definitely don’t have enough possession in dangerous areas.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

MB

don't disagree in general. and I'm sure someone will come up with those stats you spoke of.

however, if you hardly ever have the ball I'm also guessing that you're touches in the opposition box are minimal too.

BUT.

another reason the press because so popular I would think, and it applies also too in the NFL. win the ball back closer to your opposition box (goal line in the NFL) and you're more likely to score.

win it at or around 18 or 20 yards from the opposition goal and you only have to go 18 or 20 yards to score. wait until your keeper has it (your own goal line) and you have to go 100 yards (or however long the pitch is) to score.

ergo you're far more likely to score a goal (or touch down) if you win the ball back much further up the pitch.

in the NFL a premium is placed on turnovers. the team that wins the battle of turnovers is more likely to win.

this is applicable to football (the English kind) when you press. also when you press the ball the opponent normally has to play with their head down and cannot see the options available. if you don't, you give the all kinds of time to pick out the right pass. this another analogy to the NFL in that if you pressure the quarterback he hurries his passes. give someone like Mahomes all day and he'll pick you apart. so now the premium is to pass rushes and the opposite to the players who can protect the quarterback and give him that extra half a second.

you can see how these principles apply in several team sports. the NBA is another similar example.