A few weeks ago, I crunched some numbers to see just what kind of impact Leon Andreasen had on our defence. This week, I've been working on a similar rating system to chart attacking contributions. Our fullbacks, Pauls Konchesky and Stalteri, have rated very highly here.
My system is far from complete, but the table below shows how we scored at Newcastle. The rating is a weighted combination of passes to defenders, midfielders, and forwards (with passes to forwards being worth the most), as well as shots (on and off target, on target shots worth more), and goals.
| Player | Attack Rating |
| Bullard | 135 |
| Konchesky | 96 |
| Stalteri | 84.643 |
| Davies | 73 |
| Murphy | 72.254 |
| Hangeland | 63 |
| Volz | 56.842 |
| Johnson | 48 |
| Andreasen | 46 |
| Hughes | 44 |
| McBride | 42.273 |
| Dempsey | 33.750 |
| Keller | 27 |
| Healy | 0 |
The formula still has much tweaking to be done (it is currently a bit unfair toward strikers who don't score), and more elements will be added, but this does show us something. Hodgson seems to favor wingbacks vs normal wingers for attacking width, and its hard to argue, seeing as both players have responded well. Still, as someone who likes to see lots of crosses and width, I wonder if we may be better off with a more traditional approach. Is Hameur Bouazza still alive?
ah
The trouble here is that according to the Guardian, Konchesky has been one of the worst crossers in the league this year (12% or something like that). This might explain something (or suggest that he hasn't had any good runs to pick out).
This is always a tricky thing, in that last year Wayne Routledge was scored as one of the best crossers in football (in the 30% area) but apart from the Newcastle away game, I couldn't really remember him setting much up from wide.
Does your work suggest that Simon Davies at right back could yield impressive results in this system? This would leave the team exposed to an extent, but at this point in the season, does this type of shit or bust approach not have some upside?
This would leave you with:
Keller
Davies-Hangeland-Bocanegra (I've decided we need the set piece threat back)- Konchesky
Dempsey-Andreasen-Bullard-Bouazza
Kamara-McBride
Which gives you one more attacking player and two more set piece targets (Dempsey and Bocanegra), without necessarily weakening us dramatically. Or at least, it might weaken us, but it might give us more going forwards.
I'm probably overly paranoid
I'm probably overly paranoid about leaky defence, but like you said, shit or bust. Maybe Davies and/or Bouazza as attacking wingbacks, and add a third central defender? If we're going to use fullbacks in our attack, might as well use the best wide players/crossers we have. Also lets us add Bocanegra for set pieces...two birds with one stone. Throw in Andreasen, Dempsey and Bullard and we can even keep 2 strikers.
I'm actually a little surprised Roy hasn't tried 5 in the back (if you count the wingbacks). One thing I noticed was that, in January, we seemed to be linked with quite a few attacking fullback/winger hybrids (Mendy, Réveillère, N'Zogbia, that Brazillian guy, plus the players we actually signed - Stalteri and Kallio). I'm not overly familiar with RH's previous squads, and I have no idea if there was any truth to those transfer rumors, but it may tell us something about what Roy wanted to do. Who knows, maybe if he were here last summer, we would have ended up with Gareth Bale instead of Cook/Bouazza.
I'd better stop, my head starts to feel squishy when I think too hard about tactics.
Post new comment