Big Game Charlies?

[Granite Fox]

It has been mentioned quite a bit that we perform well in the big games, but not so well in the games we are expected to win.

I have done 10 mins research on this and came up with the following:

Looking at West Ham, Southampton, Birmingham, Cardiff, Middlesborough, Hull, Leeds, Reading & Blackpool as promotion contenders/big clubs plus derby games against Florist, Sheep & Covscum in one group and the also rans in the other group (Bristol City, Barnsley, Brighton, Watford, Millwall, Burnley, C Palace, Portsmouth, Peterboro, Doncaster, Ipswich) we have performed as follows:

Promotion Contenders/Derbies:
Played 15
Won 6
Drew 4
Lost 5
Goals for 21
Goals Against 16
Points 22

Also rans:
Played 16
Won 5
Drew 5
Lost 6
Goals for 21
Goals Against 20
Points 20

So we have scored more points in the bigger matches (1.47 points per match vs 1.25 points per match for the also-rans) when you would expect it to be the other way around.

Maybe we get complacent when we are playing the smaller clubs?

 

[Jeff]

I have done 10 mins research

You could have done it the easy way and just looked at this table, where we're 6th: http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/vtophalf.html

 

[drew]

Maybe the players are as arrogant as idiot fans.

 

[Granite Fox]

You could have done it the easy way and just looked at this table, where we're 6th: http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/vtophalf.html

Would have taken me longer than 10 minutes to find that Jeff!

 

[Si Nick]

It has been mentioned quite a bit that we perform well in the big games, but not so well in the games we are expected to win.

I have done 10 mins research on this and came up with the following:

Looking at West Ham, Southampton, Birmingham, Cardiff, Middlesborough, Hull, Leeds, Reading & Blackpool as promotion contenders/big clubs plus derby games against Florist, Sheep & Covscum in one group and the also rans in the other group (Bristol City, Barnsley, Brighton, Watford, Millwall, Burnley, C Palace, Portsmouth, Peterboro, Doncaster, Ipswich) we have performed as follows:

Promotion Contenders/Derbies:
Played 15
Won 6
Drew 4
Lost 5
Goals for 21
Goals Against 16
Points 22

Also rans:
Played 16
Won 5
Drew 5
Lost 6
Goals for 21
Goals Against 20
Points 20

So we have scored more points in the bigger matches (1.47 points per match vs 1.25 points per match for the also-rans) when you would expect it to be the other way around.

Maybe we get complacent when we are playing the smaller clubs?

It's hardly a significant difference between the 2 groups - the most noticeable stat to me is that we have conceded 4 more against "weaker teams" so perhaps switch off defence wise.

 

[dpjfox]

or"weaker teams" tend to have big physical strikers eg Ilewumo, who we tend to struggle agaist, thats why we brought in Morgan

 

[Granite Fox]

It's hardly a significant difference between the 2 groups - the most noticeable stat to me is that we have conceded 4 more against "weaker teams" so perhaps switch off defence wise.

That is my point, we are a little better against the stronger teams, when you would expect us to be MUCH better against the weaker teams in the league.

It backs up (to a degree) opinions that maybe we have a mindset issue when playing the lesser teams (arrogance as some have called it), or that the league is just very tight.

 

[Matt_B]

That is my point, we are a little better against the stronger teams, when you would expect us to be MUCH better against the weaker teams in the league.

It backs up (to a degree) opinions that maybe we have a mindset issue when playing the lesser teams (arrogance as some have called it), or that the league is just very tight.

Is there any team in the league that follows your formula? It seems most teams are having enough shock results to suggest not.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

That is my point, we are a little better against the stronger teams, when you would expect us to be MUCH better against the weaker teams in the league.

I wouldn't expect that at all.

Isn't the media mantra of the Championship "the league where anyone can beat anybody" and constantly going on about how tight and competitive it is?

 

[Jeff]

I wouldn't expect that at all.

You should do, because it's generally what happens.

If you look at the table in the link I posted earlier, and the league table based on performances against teams in the bottom half, you'll see most teams typically average 0.5 to 0.6 points better per game against teams in the bottom half compared to their record against teams in the top half.

We stand out as a team that doesn't do that, we do better against teams in the top half than against teams in the bottom half. No other team has a better record against the top half than they do against the bottom half.

 

[Jeff]

No other team has a better record against the top half than they do against the bottom half.

Yes they do, idiot. Barnsley do too.

This should be the real league table...

Leicester City (12)	-0.09
Barnsley (16)	-0.07
Coventry City (22)	0.07
Middlesbrough (8)	0.18
Reading (6)	0.29
Burnley (10)	0.35
Bristol City (21)	0.39
Blackpool (4)	0.46
Doncaster Rovers (24)	0.47
Southampton (2)	0.49
Portsmouth (18)	0.49
Ipswich Town (17)	0.5
Nottingham Forest (23)	0.57
Derby County (13)	0.59
Crystal Palace (14)	0.64
West Ham United (1)	0.66
Leeds United (11)	0.69
Watford (15)	0.69
Birmingham City (5)	0.73
Cardiff City (3)	0.73
Millwall (20)	0.77
Brighton & Hove Albion (9)	0.8
Hull City (7)	0.85
Peterborough United (19)	1.17

The "points" column is the number of points per game on average gained against teams in the bottom half, minus the number of points per game on average gained against teams in the top half.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Yeah, well, Jeff. You can prove anything with facts.

 

[drew]

Yes they do, idiot. Barnsley do too.

This should be the real league table...

Leicester City (12)	-0.09
Barnsley (16)	-0.07
Coventry City (22)	0.07
Middlesbrough (8)	0.18
Reading (6)	0.29
Burnley (10)	0.35
Bristol City (21)	0.39
Blackpool (4)	0.46
Doncaster Rovers (24)	0.47
Southampton (2)	0.49
Portsmouth (18)	0.49
Ipswich Town (17)	0.5
Nottingham Forest (23)	0.57
Derby County (13)	0.59
Crystal Palace (14)	0.64
West Ham United (1)	0.66
Leeds United (11)	0.69
Watford (15)	0.69
Birmingham City (5)	0.73
Cardiff City (3)	0.73
Millwall (20)	0.77
Brighton & Hove Albion (9)	0.8
Hull City (7)	0.85
Peterborough United (19)	1.17

The "points" column is the number of points per game on average gained against teams in the bottom half, minus the number of points per game on average gained against teams in the top half.

Great post, but now you have to explain why

 

[Jeff]

Great post, but now you have to explain why

You've not been paying attention.

 

[TornadoShaunUK]

I'd just like to say that this sums up Leicester City pretty well for practically the whole time I have been following them :icon_lol:

 

[Chuck T Masala]

I think it may have more to do with the colour of the opposition strip? Some colours we just don't do well.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

I think it may have more to do with the colour of the opposition strip? Some colours we just don't do well.

No it's only the colour of the strip with regards to rehiring formerly successful managers.

Everyone knows teams who play in blue who rehire formerly successful managers do no good. Of course Harry Redknapp at Portsmouth and Darren Ferguson at Peterborough do not count as their kits are really more of a navy than a blue.

 

[Chuck T Masala]

No it's only the colour of the strip with regards to rehiring formerly successful managers.

Everyone knows teams who play in blue who rehire formerly successful managers do no good. Of course Harry Redknapp at Portsmouth and Darren Ferguson at Peterborough do not count as their kits are really more of a navy than a blue.

I knew the strip had a hand in it somewhere, I defer to your greater knowledge on this matter sir.

 

[drew]

You've not been paying attention.

I want you to explain why we've been poor against lower placed teams please.

 

[Graz]

You should do, because it's generally what happens.

If you look at the table in the link I posted earlier, and the league table based on performances against teams in the bottom half, you'll see most teams typically average 0.5 to 0.6 points better per game against teams in the bottom half compared to their record against teams in the top half.

We stand out as a team that doesn't do that, we do better against teams in the top half than against teams in the bottom half. No other team has a better record against the top half than they do against the bottom half.

You could've just left that at the first line really, as it seems obvious that the majority of teams do better against the bottom half teams...

If the majority of top half teams were doing better against top half teams than they were against the bottom half teams, wouldn't the bottom half teams mostly be in the top half (and vice versa)?