Data : Why Scoring Goals is more important than Conceding Less

[Skills]

Wait - this is a real thread?

Yes.

The thread title is awful tbh. The gist of my message is that attacks are more important than defenses. More potent attacks seem to result in more points and higher finishes.

While good defenses seem to have a smaller impact.

 

[romufc]

Yes.

The thread title is awful tbh. The gist of my message is that attacks are more important than defenses. More potent attacks seem to result in more points and higher finishes.

While good defenses seem to have a smaller impact.

Good defenses have smaller impact? Every team that wins a title, or challenges for a title has the best defence..

Liverpool attack was potent but they leaked goals - plugged it with 2 defensive signing.

Once the defence plays better, the whole team is more confident that they can attack knowing they have solid defence behind them. Our defence in the first few games under Ole done well hence we scored more - once the defence is leaky, the attack suffers.

 

[Schneckerl]

Good defenses have smaller impact? Every team that wins a title, or challenges for a title has the best defence..

Not really. Barca was 4th in GA this year, Real 4th in 2017.
Real Madrid won 3 CLs in a row and they conceded about as much goals as random Spanish teams like Getafe or Espanyol.

 

[JPRouve]

The reality is a little bit more boring than that, both statements that attack or defense win you title is kind of wrong. It's simply a matter of balance and will depend on the personnel at your disposal, in the end the best teams will try to score as many goals as possible while conceding as little as possible and the way you do that depends on who you have in your team.

If your best players are defenders you can do what Mourinho or Simeone respectively did with Chelsea and Atletico, you will win titles and be almost unbreakable as long as you are able to regularly not concede goals. The same is true for teams that have their strength up top, like Barcelona or some of the older United, in that case you will rely on your ability to easily create and score goals. Both work in the league because at least 30 of your games will be played against teams that are supposed to be inferior to you and that can't handle your main strength but things get a little bit more complicated in cup competitions because match ups will have a big importance, no team is able to deal with everything.

 

[sunama]

Hmm. So the solution to finishing higher is to concentrate more on scoring goals than conceding them?

Correct.

 

[Skills]

The reality is a little bit more boring than that, both statements that attack or defense win you title is kind of wrong. It's simply a matter of balance and will depend on the personnel at your disposal, in the end the best teams will try to score as many goals as possible while conceding as little as possible and the way you do that depends on who you have in your team.

If your best players are defenders you can do what Mourinho or Simeone respectively did with Chelsea and Atletico, you will win titles and be almost unbreakable as long as you are able to regularly not concede goals. The same is true for teams that have their strength up top, like Barcelona or some of the older United, in that case you will rely on your ability to easily create and score goals. Both work in the league because at least 30 of your games will be played against teams that are supposed to be inferior to you and that can't handle your main strength but things get a little bit more complicated in cup competitions because match ups will have a big importance, no team is able to deal with everything.

Don't deny any of that but there's a reason attackers are a lot more valuable than defenders. The simple reason is that over 38 games I'd back a great attack to compensated for a weaker defense than a great defense to be able to do the same for a poor attack.

 

[JPRouve]

Don't deny any of that but there's a reason attackers are a lot more valuable than defenders. The simple reason is that over 38 games I'd back a great attack to compensated for a weaker defense than a great defense to be able to do the same for a poor attack.

The reason is scarcity, the difference between a good and great defender is shorter than the difference between a good and attacker. It's also easier to rely on numbers when defending than attacking.

And midfielders are relatively cheap, even though you can't do much without a good midfield, the reason is also scarcity, there is plenty of midfielders.

 

[Skills]

The reason is scarcity.

It's always been the case though. Throughout the history of football - attackers have always been worth more than defenders. Is there an abundance of great defenders relative to great attackers?

Is defending just a much easier part of football, so it's easier to find great defenders?

 

[Harry190]

But how do you achieve moral victory?

 

[JPRouve]

It's always been the case though. Throughout the history of football - attackers have always been worth more than defenders. Is there an abundance of great defenders relative to great attackers?

Is defending just a much easier part of football, so it's easier to find great defenders?

I added to my post, you don't need great defenders to have a very good defense, you don't defend individually and defenders are less isolated than attackers. Also great attackers have skills that are fairly specific, mentally and physically, which make them rarer.

 

[Dutsey]

Is defending just a much easier part of football, so it's easier to find great defenders?

I hate the thinking that defending is easier? Is it really? How many teams actually defend really well for a full 90 minutes over a season. Good defending is an art form. The goal ratio has increased because you can hardly touch an attacker these days and a foul is called.

How many truly great defensive sides has there been?

 

[Fosu-Mens]

@Skills
Good post. While some people might argue that the sample population is not big enough to support any form of conclusion or that this is statpicking of the highest order, one should take into consideration that football is always evolving, and comparing football over a 25+ years period will not necessarily give a better probability of being correct(external variations are to many and have changed to much).

Supports the argument that having the approach "score one more goal than the opposition" is more likely to yield success than "concede one less goal than the opposition". Basically why Mourinhos approach is out of date.

Would be interesting to see if there is a similar correlation between possession and points.

 

[giorno]

I hate the thinking that defending is easier? Is it really? How many teams actually defend really well for a full 90 minutes over a season. Good defending is an art form. The goal ratio has increased because you can hardly touch an attacker these days and a foul is called.

How many truly great defensive sides has there been?

Defending is still far easier than attacking. Proof of that is that football is a low-scoring game. When a weaker team plays a stronger one, the vast majority of the time they will rely on defence&counter tactics because it gives them a better chance of competing. Because it's easier to keep the better side from running up a tennis score than keep up with a tennis score