Interesting stat...

[NickDRFC]

Not Rovers related but read in the Sunday Times today that in nearly 50% of Premier League games this year the game has been won by the team with the least possession. Presumably this includes draw which makes it all the more surprising (although it may be badly phrased and they mean in nearly 50% of games with a victor).

Wonder what Mad Mick would make of that...

[RedJ]

He'd spontaneously combust - assuming he didn't remember that he never actually gave a f**k about football and wasted actual years of his life trolling a forum of a football team he doesn't support using various monikers.

[mattco]

What is apparent is that a greater number of away teams now win games.  Teams sit back, pach the defence and frustrate home teams by allowing them possession in midfield and then take advantage of breakaway goals. It's what Rovers did really well the last season we won promotion from League One. We have forgotten how to do it. We allow teams possession until they get into scoring positions, home and away.

[Dutch Uncle]

I wrote in article in Fanzine number 77 about growing greater away successes across the leagues over the last 60 years, and the attached shows the very clear trend. Here is an extract:


"The increasing success of away teams can be clearly seen in the two charts attached which cover the 57 seasons from 1958-59 to 2014-15. The first chart measures the percentage of points won by home teams with the old system of 2 points for a win and one for a draw - this provides a more symmetric measure of success than the 3 point per win system which was introduced in 1981-82. The four Divisions' results in each year have been added together and a clear decrease in home teams' success rate can be seen, decreasing from approximately 66% in 1958-9 to 56% in 2014-15. The second chart measures the average difference in goals scored by home and away sides in each game. The decrease in home advantage is even more clear and steady from nearly 0.8 goals per game in 1958-59 to less than 0.3 goals per game in 2014-15." 

"My own opinion is that up until somewhere around the World Cup of 1966 much of football was played with variations of the attacking W-M or 5-3-2 formations, often with 2 fullbacks, a centre-half and two wing-halves, and a 5 man forward line of a centre-forward, 2 inside forwards and 2 wingers, or the equally attacking 4-2-4 system favoured by teams like Brazil and Hungary. This led to open matches with more goals and generally favouring home teams. Following the introduction of more defensive formations like 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-4-1-1 and more recently 4-5-1, defences have been better organised and that has allowed away teams to negate home teams far more. This is also coupled with better skills on the break which has enabled defensive performances to result more often in away wins rather than draws."

"As a further factor, it is easier and more financially achievable for lower level clubs to improve their defensive capabilities**. This has enabled lower level away teams to negate home teams' attacking play. However the greater financial power of higher level teams, particularly after the Premier League was formed and the attendant Sky TV Contracts, has allowed them to purchase better creative attacking players, so the negation of home teams has been less pronounced. Data supports this showing the steepness of the decline in Tier 4 home success is greater than the steepness of Tier 1 decline."     

** except when DF is the manager apparently

[BillyStubbsTears]

Fascinating discussion as ever Dutch

I've given my two pennorth before, that I see the increase in comfort/reduction in cost of travelling to away matches as a major factor. Travelling the day before in a luxury coach and being able to prepare properly on match day has to give the away team a better chance than arriving on a bone shaker an hour before kick off.

Tell you what would be really interesting. Looking at what happened pre-War, when travel to away games was mainly by slow steam trains, with multiple stops and then final road journeys to the ground. I assume that was even more arduous travel and I wonder if the home advantage was even more marked?

Or what happened in the geographically big countries (Italy, France, Spain) before air travel when travel from Catania to Milan must have been an epic.

[Bentley Bullet]

The introduction of 3 points for a win certainly produced what it was set out to do, encourage (mostly away) teams to attack more, resulting in more open games.

A win, meaning 3 times the reward of a draw means that the incentive of playing defensively is greatly reduced. The extent of this is perhaps best described by theoretically saying if a team drew every game in a season now, they would be relegated. Under the old points system they'd finish mid-table.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Good call BB. That would fit with the trend on DU's points graph.

3 points for a win came in from 1981/82 I think. Without taking DU's graph back a couple of decades, it's hard to say if the trend in blower home advantage in points started around the early 80s, but you can make a good case for it effectively being constant through the 70s.

[Dutch Uncle]

Good call BB. That would fit with the trend on DU's points graph.

3 points for a win came in from 1981/82 I think. Without taking DU's graph back a couple of decades, it's hard to say if the trend in blower home advantage in points started around the early 80s, but you can make a good case for it effectively being constant through the 70s.

Looks like I might have found something to do over those long summer football-league free months.....

[Sammy Chung was King]

Counter attack is widely used, but the problem our team has, is we draw teams in but are not good enough in defence and attack, to keep clean sheets and hit on the break.

[hoolahoop]

Counter attack is widely used, but the problem our team has, is we draw teams in but are not good enough in defence and attack, to keep clean sheets and hit on the break.

Basically we aren't very good but this bad given how poor the Division is this season ? I'm not sure the players we have had at our disposal this season ( even allowing for injuries) should have performed at this level . Yes there has been weaknesses in both managers but  something else is going on , something else is rotten and its far more than a replaced Ferguson will fix .
It's puzzling and in order to fix it someone or group of people has to come clean or it continues unabated.

[Sammy Chung was King]

Counter attack is widely used, but the problem our team has, is we draw teams in but are not good enough in defence and attack, to keep clean sheets and hit on the break.

Basically we aren't very good but this bad given how poor the Division is this season ? I'm not sure the players we have had at our disposal this season ( even allowing for injuries) should have performed at this level . Yes there has been weaknesses in both managers but  something else is going on , something else is rotten and its far more than a replaced Ferguson will fix .
It's puzzling and in order to fix it someone or group of people has to come clean or it continues unabated.

Hoola, it breaks my heart to start believing conspiracy theories, but i trust my eyes, i have been in dressing rooms, with differing managers though not at this level.
And what i see is a manager who has lost his players respect. But also the club reflects that it seems to be being run haphazardly, something major has gone on behind the scenes, what it is i have no idea.

 I am not a glory hunter, i've been around football enough to know somebody has to win and lose, and my support will never change, it's the most worried i have been since Richardson, about the club overall, i'm just hoping i am wrong and it's just pure and simple confidence issues with the players. On the club behind the scenes i am guessing but not much good seems to be coming out.