Forum | Back Four holds the key to U’s fortunes? by noah4x4

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Back Four holds the key to U’s fortunes? 19:09 - Feb 1 with 704 views

The U’s season looks like this if broken down into months;

(sorry the table isn't easy to read - had to insert full stops to create the spaces).

Manager..........................P...W...D...L...Pts...Ave Pts per game
Joe Dunne ......Aug.......... 5...0...1...4...1......0.20
Tony Humes.....Sep...........5...2...2...1...8......1.60
Tony Humes.....Oct............5...2...2...1...8......1.60
Tony Humes.....Nov...........4...0...0...4...0.......0.00
Tony Humes.....Dec...........4...1...1...2...4.......1.00
Tony Humes.....Jan............4...2...1...1...7.......1.75
Total to date....................27...7..7..13..28.....1.03

My personal opinion is that in August Joe Dunne overly committed us to attack and our back four was too often exposed because players like Watt, Sears, and Eastmond (etc) whilst being fine attackers didn't have the necessary defensive qualities. They would lose the ball, give up chasing and suddenly we were swamped by more willing runners. Gavin Massey was also guilty, but has since developed into an all round player with superb ability to steal the ball back (as do Szmodics and Lapslie) - but I digress from the statistical observation I wish to make.

Assuming a target of 50 points to stay up at the outset we needed to average better than 1.09 points per fixture to avoid relegation (50/46). However, after a truly awful start under Joe Dunne, that target had risen to 1.20 points per game by the time that Tony Humes took the reins (49/41). Draws simply won’t do.

To date, Tony has achieved an average of 1.22 points per game (27 from 22) which is, at least, encouraging! But note how November was an utter disaster. If we take that SINGLE month OUT of the equation, Tony Humes has averaged 1.5 points per game (e.g. 27 points from 18 played) which, perhaps rather surprisingly, is form that if maintained over a full season of 46 matches would see us achieve 69 points and hence place the U’s just outside of the play offs. Note how in three of his five months of managerial control the team has exceeded that (1.5 per game) objective.

It seems to me that the problems of November (and early December) can be wholly attributed to the long term injuries to Magnus and Kent at centre back; and the U’s then having no viable replacements. We can’t ever blame Tony Humes for that; and he was also saddled with the salary for (injured) Josh Thomson, whilst Billy Roast wasn’t ready (and has since been released).

In that shocking month of results we tried a host of new centre half combinations to support the established Tom Eastman including 5’10” Sean Clohessy as an emergency centre half; also youngster Michael O’Donahue; and then in the disaster that occurred at Milton Keynes; we saw Will Packwood on loan from Birmingham and his dismissal (so yet another C/H was banned and later injured). In the meanwhile we experimented with loanees Kepkawa and Hewitt at full back. Frankly, we can’t ever say that Tony Humes wasn’t trying hard to get us out of our rather unfortunate 'back four' crisis!

Then, in a moment of inspiration we see the temporary signing of Kaspers Gorkss; whilst Hewitt is pushed forward instead of Watt (who IMHO adds little or no defensive value). Then yesterday this step was repeated with another ‘attacking full back’ Ben Gordon being thrust forward to replace the suspended Hewitt. My view is that if these guys do want to get ‘forward’ (and play as wingers) this is the right move, but we instead then play a proper defender to provide the defence that we need behind them. Yesterday, despite the omission of Gorkss, our new defensive signings; Alex Wynter and Matthew Briggs; put in a sterling performance against the very tricky Jon Stead and a Bantams forward line that sunk four past Chelsea last week. Now let’s add the human dynamos Sammie Szmodics and Tom Lapslie into this new 2015 paradigm; plus the greater range of options that 6' 1" Chris Porter offers. and bang, we have averaged 1.75 points per game in January. Whilst one swallow never makes a summer, that is top six form!

To avoid relegation we now need 22 points from 19 games = 1.15 per game. With most of our loan signings available until the season’s end, plus Chris Porter being an able replacement for Freddie Sears, I remain confident....subject to no further injuries or dismissals.....

[Post edited 1 Feb 2015 19:34]

Back Four holds the key to U’s fortunes? on 20:15 - Feb 1 with 684 views

RSCOSWORTH

Great post Noah, an interesting read as always. I think if Humes can keep at least three of the current back four in there every week then we've got a better chance of getting the results we need to climb the table.

Either on here or on a separate thread I'd be interested to see your statistical analysis on the division as a whole as I think it's a bit of a strange one this season. With the top three being a long way ahead, Preston in no-man's land in 4th and then a log jam all the way from 5th to 24th. Despite being in the bottom four we're only 11 points off 5th and 9 points off 8th. There are a number of teams with games in hand but no one team had been cut adrift at the bottom of the table so far. With the points seemingly being spread around more this year do you feel we'll need a higher than normal total to stay up and also a lower than normal total to make the play off's?

Poll:

How many polls will Leadbelly do this season?

Back Four holds the key to U’s fortunes? on 20:23 - Feb 1 with 682 views

bwildered

Simple equation is to score one extra goal per game than the opposition, which gives us three times the amount of points than a equal amount each.

Poll:

No half measure either 1 or 2 ?

Back Four holds the key to U’s fortunes? on 21:22 - Feb 1 with 669 views

noah4x4

Back Four holds the key to U’s fortunes? on 20:15 - Feb 1 by RSCOSWORTH

When I get time I will take a look - but it is perhaps a bit too far from the season's end to have statistical significance. But here is a gut feel...

Boarders may recall that last season (and from a very long way out) I was predicting that as few as 47 points with a superior goal difference would keep the U's up. Tranmere were relegated in 21st place on 47 points and -27 goal difference. Hence my prediction was spot on (albeit that we finished 16th on 53 points; merely five points from a top half finish!).

The reason why the expected target of 50 points wasn't necessary (albeit that is what Notts County did get in 20th place) was because Wolves and Brentford were so dominant (Wolves getting to 109 points, Brentford on 94). Orient, Rotherham and Preston all topped 85 points too. This means that far fewer points than normal were shared between the teams placed sixth to twentieth; hence avoiding the drop zone required fewer points than in any year since the modern Division One was formed. Such data allowed me to predict with reasonable confidence that 47 was probably the safety parameter for 2013-14 (but nobody believed me until after the Walsall game!)

This season we have two teams on target to exceed 92 points and another two on schedule to exceed 80. This has allowed Chesterfield and Sheffield United to get in to the current top six with as few as 39. In theory, the former might hence make the play offs on a few as 66 (pro-rata); when last year Peterborough required 74. It's too early to say, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the top five in 2014-15 have been so dominant that the thresholds for both the play offs and avoiding relegation may be a record low. The fact that merely 11 points seperate the bottom of the top six from the relegation zone perhaps confirms this.

[Post edited 1 Feb 2015 21:24]

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread