Jump to content


frastheowl

Sheffield Wednesday Fan
  • Content Count

    3,913
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,480 Excellent

2 Followers

About frastheowl

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wadsley, S6

Contact Methods

  • Twitter
    N/A
  • Facebook
    fraser.cross@hotmail.co.uk
  • Instagram
    0
  • Pinterest
    N/A

Recent Profile Visitors

3,973 profile views
  1. The "good side on paper" argument became null and void a long time ago. When you spend two whole seasons yoyo-ing between mid table mediocrity and flirting with relegation, there can be no basis to that notion. The squad is lacking in so many aspects. Not only is it woefully unbalanced, and lacks any variation offensively, mentally and physically we are left floundering. The squad is incapable of playing at a high tempo because physically they aren't up to it. We cannot function when put under any stress or pressure whatsoever. It's all well and good possessing players who look nice when things are going well and you're having things your own way. But that's not football. Teams prevent that from happening. Reach, Bannan, Joao, Boyd, Palmer, Fox, Hector, Lees, Pelupessy... all are unable to produce their best when put under pressure...either physically or mentally. That's the heart of the problem. Both Carlos and Jos have lost their jobs on the back of these players failing to do their job. Bruce has to make sure he's not number three. He needs to weed out the pansies and replace them with players capable of performing under a range of circumstances. That's what Wilder's done. United haven't got the best players in the division, but they've got players who stand up and be counted. Players who are willing to go the extra mile. Players who are capable of playing at a tempo other teams cannot cope with it. Thats whats required here.
  2. frastheowl

    Man of the match - Rotherham (A)

    Like I said, I missed a large chunk of the 1st half. Didn't realise Westwood had made the saves you say. Fair enough. I do realise it's difficult for the goalkeeper, but that's what he's there for. If he deals with those situations better, Rotherham don't hit the bar, have two or three cleared off the line. That's just my point. Fletcher makes himself a presence more than Joao, but he never looks like scoring. Over the course of a season, Joao will score more than Fletcher. Sadly, going forward, I think we need better than both of them. Joao's a great option to have, but his consistency is a real issue.
  3. frastheowl

    Man of the match - Rotherham (A)

    Missed large chunk of the 1st half, including the goal, but it wasn't good viewing. Westwood - 5 - Seemed to really struggle with the long throw, got lost in amongst the bodies far too often, and didn't command the air like he often does. Palmer - 5 - Powderpuff performance. Offered nothing going forward, and seemed to just aimlessly hit it long time and time again. Hector - 3 - Horrible performance. I've not seen the 1st goal, but seems he was at fault for that as well as the 2nd. Lacked his normal composure on the ball, Smith rattled him and his indecision seemed to be contagious. Thorniley - 6 - Actually thought he dealt with Smith reasonably well when he went to play on him in the 2nd half. Despite the size difference, he went toe to toe with him. Fox - 5 - Few shaky moments both defensively and offensively. Had the opportunity to stick some decent balls in the box, but didn't really do enough on the whole. Hutchinson - 6 - Tried hard, played on the edge again. But lacked any quality on the ball, and it's issue for us when trying to create things going forward. Bannan - 5 - Struggled with the pace of the game, and the Rotherham's midfield energetic press. But he's our only creative spark in midfield, and there's a lot of expectation on his shoulders. Boyd - 4 - Not sure what he offers that a County standard cross country runner wouldn't? Covers ground, but there's no spark, no creativity, no quality from him. Surely it's time to give Aarons a good run in the side, see what he can offer. Reach - 5 - Another sub-standard performance. Like Palmer, powderpuff. The right hand side was soft, and never looked like getting a grip on the game. Reach's insistence with shooting from long range is doing us more harm than good. Not convinced with him playing as an inverted winger...Reach's strength is getting to the byline and crossing, play him out left and allow him to do it. Forestieri - 7 - MotM - Only real bright spark for me. When he got the ball, he looked after it, despite getting kicked from pillar to post. Scored the 1st, involved in the 2nd, and a constant problem for Rotherham's centre halves. But, as so often the case, it's one step forward, two steps back...good display, got his goal...now banned for two games. Infuriating. Joao - 4 - Powderpuff No. 3. Bullied. No threat whatsoever. Another start where he's flattered to deceive. Fletcher - 6 - Came on the made himself a nuisance, which is more than Joao did. Aarons - 6 - Delivered the ball into the box for the late goal, but other than that, nothing too much of note. Iorfa - N/A - Not on long enough to get a mark, but what a mark he made. Owusu style debut! Overall ... delighted to nick an undeserved point. And I'll be honest, part of me is pleased we're seeing these displays under Bruce's leadership. He needs to see, with his own eyes, the serious deficiencies within this squad, and this performance today (and Millwall to an extent) displays them all in abundance. Too many players are soft...physically and mentally. When the going gets tough, they don't. Too many flatter to deceive, make the wrong decisions far too often. Bruce has the opportunity to press the restart button in the summer, and he has to take full advantage of that. There was a risk that if performances continued to improve, he'd be tempted to stick with a large number of these failing players. They've had their chance, they've had their time at this football club, and on the whole, have failed. Getting battered to a poor Rotherham side, creating nothing against a horrid Millwall side, failing to score against the worst Reading side in years...the signs are there. Bruce will be noticing them, I'm sure of it. Time for him to rip the offensive blueprint up and try something different though...Reach, Boyd, Fletcher, Joao are all underperforming.
  4. frastheowl

    Streams for tomorrow

    How do you get ifollow on IPTV?!
  5. The infogol app predicts, based on the season's xG, a slight favouring towards a Rotherham win (41%), with the draw at 28% and a win for ourselves 31%. So it's a tough game to call really. And if you consider the two teams most recent form, that doesn't really change either. Both sides have been unfortunate not to pick up more points than they have. Rotherham's xG points value over their last six games is 9 points, however they have only achieved 3 points in that time. They were on the end of an undeserved defeat away at Ipswich, creating 1.15xG and conceding only 0.38...yet found themselves on the end of a 1-0 defeat. They arguably deserved a point in the 4-2 defeat at home to Brentford (xG 1.82 - 2.07), and should've beaten Wigan at the New York Stadium creating 0.61xG more than their opponents. Over the course of the last six games, Rotherham have more or less matched their xG with the actual goals they've scored. But they've conceded far more goals (10) than their xG (7.15). Without looking at the goals they've conceded, that suggests either a run of bad luck with some good strikes scored against them or poor goalkeeper (or a mixture of both). Ourselves on the other hand, have suffered with our inability to convert chances. Creating an xG of 7.22 over the six game period, we've only converted 3 of those into goals. Whereas our defensive displays have pretty much matched our conceded xG (4.77), conceding only four goals in those six games. For me, I'd probably opt for a low scoring draw. However, if Wednesday start to correct the discrepancy between xG created and goals scored, then an away victory is on the cards.
  6. frastheowl

    Could have been...

    And yet Bruce had been in position less than a day, and signed three players fitting that requirement. To be fair to Jos, he didn't really get the opportunity to add what was required. He can be criticised for a lot of things, but squad building, he can not.
  7. Each effort on goal is given a xG value, indicating how likely it was to score a goal from that situation. The value given is dependant on a whole host of factors, the biggest two been distance and angle from the goal. Other factors include whether it's a set piece, a header, defenders positioning, from a through ball etc. etc. eventually come together to give the opportunity a xG value which is essentially a decimalised percentage of the chance registering a goal. So a chance in the middle of the goal within the six yard yard is likely to give a high (>0.7) xG, whereas a speculative long shot from 30 yards out on the half volley is likely to give a low (<0.05) xG. Throughout the game, these chances get added up to give a xG for the team. You can then compare the xG to how many goals a team actually score (or concede) to see if the team is overachieving (or underachieving) its expected xG. When Wednesday went through the period earlier in the season when Reach scored a host of wonder goals and Joao chipped in with a couple also, we seriously overachieved our expected xG. Generally speaking, teams overachieving their xG struggle to replicate it over a period of time (they're lucky). The only team in recent years who maintained it over a prolonged period of time were Reading when they finished in the playoffs a couple of seasons back. Generally, the league table correlates with the teams xG diff reasonably well. For example, this seasons top five placed teams in the Championship, would all occupy top five positions if the league table was decided on xG diff.
  8. My mistake actually. Fletcher's chance had a 0.06 xG value, whereas Joao's had a 0.07xG. Both were similar...Fletcher's was from a closer distance than Joao's but he was off balance, but Joao's effort was under less pressure. Regarding the game against Sheff U, Morgan Fox's chance in the 8th minute when he put it over the bar from 6 yards out had a xG value of 0.59 (59% probability of scoring). Interestingly enough, in the game against United, if you use a npxG (Non-penalty xG) model, we created slightly better xG than United did. And it's that type of game which really brings xG into it's own. Looking at basic statistics, possession, shots at goal, shot on target etc, United battered Wednesday. But, penalty aside, United never troubled the Wednesday goal with any real threat, and the xG values show that. Fox's chance, discounting McGoldrick's penalty miss, was easily the best chance of the game. The next best quality chance was Norwood's free kick in the last minute, which had a 0.08 xG value.
  9. Millwall 0.68 - Sheff W 0.36 A 0-0 draw a fair result. Neither side created an opportunity with a better than 11% (0.11 xG) chance of scoring. Statistically, our best chance of scoring coming from Forestieri's woeful free kick (0.08). Fletcher's last minute opportunity had a xG of 6%. It was our 3rd worst attacking display of the season (after Hull (0.15) and Brentford (0.17) away).
  10. frastheowl

    Man of the match - Millwall (A)

    Westwood - 7 - Commanded his area well, but despite Millwall's Heathen-esque direct approach, rarely troubled after the early application of pressure. Palmer - 7 - Man of the Match - Second MotM in a row from me...going to need to go and have a cold shower. Defended well (as did the entirety of the back four) and was a good outlet offensive down the right flank. Hector - 7 - Won some crucial aerial duals in our box, and dealt with Cooper really effectively from set pieces. His distribution wasn't great at times tonight though. Thorniley - 7 - Seem like I always write the same about Thorniley. Heads it, wins it, kicks it. Defending at its simplest. But why complicate it. It's working a treat. Plays well beyond his years. Fox - 7 - Another solid display from Fox, and could have easily got the Man of the Match nod. Got in some great positions in the 2nd half, and was strong aerially once again. Pelupessy - 4 - Our 1st half display was awful...and Pelupessy was the ring leader. Careless with the ball, neither protecting nor pressing in the midfield. Seemed so off the pace, and as a result we could not get a grip on the game nor advance up the pitch. Deservedly dragged at half time. Hutchinson - 6 - He was as poor as Pelupessy in the 1st half, chasing shadows at times. But stepped it up hugely in the 2nd half and dictated the central areas from the restart with Bannan alongside him. Bannan - 6 - Well the decision to move him out to the left wing was a disaster. We couldn't get any grip of the game and the game just bypassed Bannan by. But, like Hutchinson, stepped it up 2nd half and benefitted hugely by moving back into central midfield. Reach - 5 - Another performance lacking any sort of quality in key areas. Things are neat and tidy, but this side needs more from him, with so few creative outlets. Fletcher - 5 - He might as well have gone and sat in the stand in the 1st half. Won nothing (although they wasn't much in the way of quality service) and failed to retain the ball for any meaningful length of time. Improved in the 2nd half, and worked tirelessly again. But he needs to get into goalscoring positions more often. We got to the byline on a number of occasions today, but Fletcher is rarely in a decent poachers position. Should have done better with the chance at the end. Joao - 5 - Abysmal in the 1st half (recurring theme here). Looked uninterested and half-arsed. Benefitted in the 2nd half with Bannan starting to dictate things in the middle, but still wanting more from a talented player. Boyd - 6 - His introduction certainly improved the teams performance. Worked hard, but offers little in terms of quality and creativity. Overall...the 1st half was as bad as it's been all season. Devoid of any quality when on the ball. It literally became a game of who could kick it the furthest. The quality was as bad as I've seen from any two sides all season. Thankfully the change at half time ensured we got a bit more quality into key areas and we started to take control of the game...without really asking Millwall too many questions. It was a poor display, and even though the 2nd half was an improvement...it was nowhere near good enough. Millwall are dreadful (worse than Reading), and we've failed to ask them any meaningful questions. That's a concern. One goal in three games against three of the worst sides in the (a very poor) division isn't good enough. And we'll still have fans thinking we can launch a late surge of the playoffs...we're miles off.
  11. Element of truth in that, but on the flip side, earlier in the season there was A LOT of false hope regarding our promotion chances. Using this anslysis, it was clear our form aroumd that time was unsustainable, and that unless we tightened up defensively, we’d fail to maintain that run of form. We didnt improve, and our fortune waned, and we began to get the results our performances deserved. Like all stats, they tell a segment of the story, and they need to be applied appropriately. But I, for one, think the xG model is as good a model that exists (although it isn’t without its limitations).
  12. Infogol. It’s a free app and a website.
  13. It’s something I could easily confirm, when I get chance. But, just off the top of my head, the games against Norwich, Sheffield United (only as a result of the penalty) and Leeds all equates to a sizeable negative xG difference. The games against WBA, Derby, Boro, Villa not so much. In fact, in both games against WBA we out scored them in terms of xG. Interestingly, our win at Reading was statistically fortunate, and the game away at Wigan, a fully deserved defeat.
  14. And, the departure of Jos, coincided with the reintroduction of key defensive players Hutchinson and Westwood. Although, for the most part, Dawson outperformed the expected xG he should have conceded.
×