Playstyle wheels

[justsomebloke]

The Athletic has a fun article where they compile a number of key team statistics into a pie chart wheel, showing how each team stacks up in different areas in terms of decile rankings compared to all other PL teams the last five years (ie, 100 team ratings divided into tens - if you're second decile, there'll have been a group of just ten PL teams the last five years who did worse. And "team" in this context will mean a given club in a given season, so there'll be five Liverpools in the sample, for instance). The main idea is to describe each team's style, and several of the stats reflect stylistic choices as much as performance, but it also says something about quality.

For a United fan, this amounts to some gruesome reading. I thought maybe it would be interesting to compare 21/22 United to the other top 7 teams (City, Liverpool, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal, West Ham), and see what it seems to indicate that we have most need of improving. Sort of a to-do list for EtH (but with stylistic caveats).

AREAS WHERE NO TOP 7 TEAM IS WORSE THAN US:

1. Ball retention and moving the ball forward quickly and efficiently. This is captured by the "Safety" stat, which is defined as " likelihood that team will retain possession or move the ball out of the first 60 per cent of the pitch within eight seconds of winning it there". In simpler terms, how good are we at not quickly losing the ball within the 40% of the pitch closest to our own goal? In this, we are actually in the lowest decile, meaning that we have been one of the worst sides in recent PL history in this part of the game, and we are the worst of the top 7. West Ham and Spurs are also poor in this area, while City and Liverpool are great.

2. Set pieces. Offensive and defensive both. We're in the second decile for offensive setpieces, and the third for defensive. Meaning again that we have been significantly worse than most PL sides in the last five years, and we rank last among the 7 in both categories. Spurs, Arsenal, West Ham and to a lesser extent Liverpool are really good at offensive set pieces, while Chelsea and City surprisingly aren't much better than we are. On set pieces defence, City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Arsenal have that well sorted, while West Ham are almost as bad as we are.

3. Low defence. This is about how well you perform defensively as a team in your own third. The stat is defined as " average non-penalty expected goals conceded per opponent possession that reaches team’s third". In simpler terms: How much of a scoring threat does the oppo create when they move the ball into our defensive third? In this, we are also absolutely worst among the seven, and below the average PL team performance in recent years; 3rd decile. City is top notch in this area, Chelsea and Spurs not far behind. Arsenal is the only top 7 team almost as bad as us.

4. High Press. This is one that reflects stylistic choice as well as ability of course. It's defined as " passes allowed per defensive action in highest 40 per cent of pitch ". Ie, how many times is the oppo allowed to pass the ball around in the 40% of the pitch closest to their own goal, before someone tries to do something about it. Here we're well below the PL average, in the 3rd decile, and tied with West Ham for last among the top 7. It'll surprise no one to learn that Liverpool, City and Chelsea are in a class of their own here, with only Arsenal close to our (and West Ham's) abysmal level.

5. Progressive passing. Or more precisely, progressive passes per possession. Again we are dead last among the 7 (and well below PL average, in the 4th decile), reflecting our maddening propensity to move the ball sideways or backwards when in possession. All of the other 6 teams are much better than us at this, and especially Liverpool, City and Chelsea.

6. Chance creation. This stat is defined as " average non-penalty expected goals per each possession that reaches final third". In other words the inverse of "Low defence": How much of a scoring threat do we create when we bring the ball into the attacking third. The answer is " a fair bit" - we were at least significantly over the PL 5-year average, in the 7th decile. The problem is that all of the other top 6 teams are better than that.


AREAS WHERE WE'RE BEHIND THE MAJORITY OF TOP 6 TEAMS

7. High Defence. This is defined as " likelihood that team will prevent opponents’ open play possessions starting in opponent’s third from reaching team’s third". In other words, when the oppo gets the ball in his own third, how good are we at getting it back before he can move it into our third? We were a pretty average PL side in this, 6th decile. Spurs and West Ham were considerably worse, while once more City and Liverpool were much better.

8. Winning the ball back high. The stat here is "Start distance", which is defined as " average starting distance from opponent’s goal of team’s open play possessions ". Ie, when we win the ball back, how far are we, on average, from the opponent's goal? Again we are in the 6th decile, with West Ham and Spurs narrowly behind us. And again, City and Liverpool are way ahead. Of course, this is partly a stylistic stat, reflecting among other things how deep you drop when defending.

9. Offensive dominance. The stat here is Field Tilt, which is defined as " team’s percentage share of both teams’ attacking third passes ". In simpler terms; How many passes are we making in the attacking third, compared to the oppo? We're not too bad at this - better than Spurs and West Ham, and 7th decile. However, City, Liverpool and Chelsea are on a different level.


AREAS WHERE WE'RE BASICALLY COMPETITIVE

10. COUNTERPRESSING. This is defined as " likelihood that team will recover a ball in the highest 60 per cent of the pitch within eight seconds of losing it there". This is the inverse of "Safety". And we're actually not bad at quickly winning the ball back high in the pitch, a bit surprisingly to me. 7th decile, better than Arsenal, Spurs and West Ham. Although still a good distance behind the top 3 clubs.

11. GETTING THE BALL TO THE ATTACKING THIRD. The stat here is "Build-up", which is defined as "likelihood that an open-play possession starting in team’s own third will reach the final third". In other words, if you win the ball back deep, how often do you manage to move it into the attacking third before you lose it or finish? Here we're not bad - 8th decile. This is better than Spurs and West Ham, and not that far behind the top teams. Seen in conjunction with some of the other stats though, it's clear that we get there more slowly.

12. DRIBBLING. This is also pretty decent, 8th decile. Much better than West Ham, and a little better than Liverpool and Arsenal. But behind City and Chelsea.

13. SWITCHES. Unsurprisingly, we're really good at switches (successful passes that cross at least half the width of the pitch per possession) - 9th decile. Only City does it more & better, and we're way better than Arsenal, Spurs, Chelsea and West Ham at this. I suppose it's debatable whether it's something you necessarily want to do as much of as possible, but it's notable that both City and Liverpool score high in this.

14. HIGH TRANSITION. This is defined as "likelihood that a possession starting in final 60 per cent of pitch will end in a shot within 12 seconds". Simply put, how good are you at getting a finish quickly when you win back the ball in the middle or high end of the pitch? This is the sole area where none are better than us, and we're in the 9th decile. That being said, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs are equally good, and West Ham close behind. City and Chelsea are very markedly lower, but that of course also reflects stylistic choices.

 

[Trex]

This shows generally we're a transitional team, not great or creative in possession. The exact opposite to what Eric would want us to become.

 

[tomaldinho1]

Is there a separate chart for each of our last 5 seasons?

 

[flappyjay]

That was a nice read thanks.

 

[justsomebloke]

Is there a separate chart for each of our last 5 seasons?

Sadly no.

 

[MattJ166]

Great read, it's nice to see some Data to back up the eye test and its brutal to see how far behind we are not only against the top 3 (as expected) but the rest of the top 7. ETH has a big job on his hands. Obviously this season we have been absolutely gash and it may not reflect how we've been in the previous seasons. I feel like i need a stiff drink after reading this and it's only just turning 10 am here.

 

[Sky1981]

You need all this to show us how shit we are@

 

[Daengophile]

Better get the players back from holiday right away!

 

[House Mkhitaryan]

This is excellent, thanks for posting!

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

Is there a link to the article? I can't seem to find it.

 

[justsomebloke]

Is there a link to the article? I can't seem to find it.

It's tucked away in the Stats Attack section. Here you go: Introducing playstyle wheels – The Athletic’s way of capturing ways a team play well (or not) - The Athletic

 

[Valencia Shin Crosses]

Shows that our weaknesses are mainly in our defense and midfield being unable to progress the ball into the final third, which is why teams pressed us with 0 fear knowing we couldn't play out of it. Also we notably can still transition decently, but the problem this year is our defense was so shaky that there wasn't an actual foundation to counter attack off of like there were the past couple of years under Ole when we could pick teams off often.

 

[UpWithRivers]

It just shows what we are - a counter attacking team.

 

[justsomebloke]

It just shows what we are - a counter attacking team.

Yes, but with important reservations. What exactly do we mean by "counterattack team"? To me, a counterattack style implies sitting deep and relying on quick breaks from deep, and deep runs behind the oppo line, with little interest in moving the ball forward or controlling the possession. In that sense, we are not a counterattack team, and haven't been one for quite a long time. Employing intensive high pressing with a view to creating turnovers high in the pitch is not to me a counterattack style, but rather a particularly aggressive form of control football. It's what Liverpool do (and City, although they generally prefer to keep possession rather than quickly exploit those turnovers).

If you look at the stats, we score high on Switches and Build-up, both of which implies the opposite of a counterattack approach. So arguably does our awful Safety stat - one way to get at least decent values there is if you quickly hit long passes after gaining possession, which is what a counterattacking team would generally do. The low score on progressive passing also argues against this. We're pretty good at creating turnovers and put an emphasis on exploiting them quickly. But we were also a team that tended to have a lot of possession, and took a long time to move the ball up when we started from deep (which we often did, see the "start distance" stat). That kind of makes me think "trying to play like Liverpool".

Shows that our weaknesses are mainly in our defense and midfield being unable to progress the ball into the final third, which is why teams pressed us with 0 fear knowing we couldn't play out of it. Also we notably can still transition decently, but the problem this year is our defense was so shaky that there wasn't an actual foundation to counter attack off of like there were the past couple of years under Ole when we could pick teams off often.

Progressing the ball into the final third was actually one of the things we were quite good at ("Build-up"). But that's a great point about why teams were pressing us high. The extreme Safety stat (where we are in the worst 5% of PL teams over the past five seasons!) amply illustrates the double rewards of pressing us high - not only does it limit our counterattacks, there is also an excellent chance of regaining the ball and creating a turnover. And if you do, there is a high likelihood of that turnover becoming a scoring chance (as illustrated by the "Low Defence" stat). Also, consider that we had a pretty good "Build-up" stat, but a very weak "Progressive passing" one. This seems to indicate that when we did not lose the ball quickly deep, we were generally well able to move it into the attacking third, but it took a lot of non-progressive passing to do so. Which is of course also something that high pressing would contribute to. All of this tallies well with eye-test, I think.

It's striking, and maybe a little bit surprising, that among our strongest suits are two of the three most obviously "Rangnick-stats": High Transition and Counterpressing. The general view is that we really did not manage to implement these key aspects of Rangnick's style, but these stats seem to indicate that we actually did, to some extent. But it would be interesting to see how these stats changed under Rangnick compared to earlier. Scoring off high turnovers wasn't exactly unknown to this team under OGS either.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Really confirms what’s been obvious for years. We’re a bang average, mid to lower table team who gets repeatedly dragged to the top six thanks to having some very very talented individuals in our team. What happened in the second half of this season is that those individuals seemed to stop trying/caring (and/or missed a lot of games due to injury). And lo and behold, we start getting the results our overall team performances have always deserved.

 

[JPRouve]

Yes, but with important reservations. What exactly do we mean by "counterattack team"? To me, a counterattack style implies sitting deep and relying on quick breaks from deep, and deep runs behind the oppo line, with little interest in moving the ball forward or controlling the possession. In that sense, we are not a counterattack team, and haven't been one for quite a long time. Employing intensive high pressing with a view to creating turnovers high in the pitch is not to me a counterattack style, but rather a particularly aggressive form of control football. It's what Liverpool do (and City, although they generally prefer to keep possession rather than quickly exploit those turnovers).

If you look at the stats, we score high on Switches and Build-up, both of which implies the opposite of a counterattack approach. So arguably does our awful Safety stat - one way to get at least decent values there is if you quickly hit long passes after gaining possession, which is what a counterattacking team would generally do. The low score on progressive passing also argues against this. We're pretty good at creating turnovers and put an emphasis on exploiting them quickly. But we were also a team that tended to have a lot of possession, and took a long time to move the ball up when we started from deep (which we often did, see the "start distance" stat). That kind of makes me think "trying to play like Liverpool".




Progressing the ball into the final third was actually one of the things we were quite good at ("Build-up"). But that's a great point about why teams were pressing us high. The extreme Safety stat (where we are in the worst 5% of PL teams over the past five seasons!) amply illustrates the double rewards of pressing us high - not only does it limit our counterattacks, there is also an excellent chance of regaining the ball and creating a turnover. And if you do, there is a high likelihood of that turnover becoming a scoring chance (as illustrated by the "Low Defence" stat). Also, consider that we had a pretty good "Build-up" stat, but a very weak "Progressive passing" one. This seems to indicate that when we did not lose the ball quickly deep, we were generally well able to move it into the attacking third, but it took a lot of non-progressive passing to do so. Which is of course also something that high pressing would contribute to. All of this tallies well with eye-test, I think.

It's striking, and maybe a little bit surprising, that among our strongest suits are two of the three most obviously "Rangnick-stats": High Transition and Counterpressing. The general view is that we really did not manage to implement these key aspects of Rangnick's style, but these stats seem to indicate that we actually did, to some extent. But it would be interesting to see how these stats changed under Rangnick compared to earlier. Scoring off high turnovers wasn't exactly unknown to this team under OGS either.

The concept is a way simpler than that and is limited to your transition from defense to attack. You are a counter attacking team when your goal is to transition quickly enough to not allow your opponents to get in his a defensive setup. The height of your defensive line or your ability to run behind the defense don't really define the goal of your transition.

 

[justsomebloke]

Really confirms what’s been obvious for years. We’re a bang average, mid to lower table team who gets repeatedly dragged to the top six thanks to having some very very talented individuals in our team. What happened in the second half of this season is that those individuals seemed to stop trying/caring (and/or missed a lot of games due to injury). And lo and behold, we start getting the results our overall team performances have always deserved.

I don't think it tells any such thing. On the contrary, the fact that we finish sixth in a season where we have been hugely below par collectively and almost every key player has performed far below peak clearly shows the exact opposite of that. If a "mid to lower table team" is what we essentially are, then we should have been something less than that under such circumstances. What we are is a top 4 team who underachieved.

 

[JPRouve]

Really confirms what’s been obvious for years. We’re a bang average, mid to lower table team who gets repeatedly dragged to the top six thanks to having some very very talented individuals in our team. What happened in the second half of this season is that those individuals seemed to stop trying/caring (and/or missed a lot of games due to injury). And lo and behold, we start getting the results our overall team performances have always deserved.

Some of us have said that for a while. Not so long ago someone tried to argue that United weren't currently where it belongs when it's quite obvious that we are. Even last season's stats point to a team that is anywhere between 4th and 7th.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Some of us have said that for a while. Not so long ago someone tried to argue that United weren't currently where it belongs when it's quite obvious that we are. Even last season's stats point to a team that is anywhere between 4th and 7th.

Stats aside if you apply the “eye test” to our performances last season it’s actually incredible we finished with more points than 13 other teams. Still can’t quite believe that happened.

 

[justsomebloke]

The concept is a way simpler than that and is limited to your transition from defense to attack. You are a counter attacking team when your goal is to transition quickly enough to not allow your opponents to get in his a defensive setup. The height of your defensive line or your ability to run behind the defense don't really define the goal of your transition.

Sure, if what we're talking about is the definition of "counterattack". But what constitutes a counterattack style of play is less clear-cut. That's about the level of emphasis and reliance you have on counterattacks. What if you're a team who aims to get to a finish quickly if you win the ball high, but prioritises maintaining possession if you win the ball deep? Are you a counterattack team then?

 

[justsomebloke]

Stats aside if you apply the “eye test” to our performances last season it’s actually incredible we finished with more points than 13 other teams. Still can’t quite believe that happened.

And yet it did. So maybe it's your eye test that needs adjustment?

 

[JPRouve]

Sure, if what we're talking about is the definition of "counterattack". But what constitutes a counterattack style of play is less clear-cut. That's about the level of emphasis and reliance you have on counterattacks. What if you're a team who aims to get to a finish quickly if you win the ball high, but prioritises maintaining possession if you win the ball deep? Are you a counterattack team then?

A counter attack style is simply about putting an emphasis on transitioning quickly from defense to attack when you regain possession with little time spent in the "setting-reshaping" phase. As a concept it's not that deep, it's barely a style and shouldn't really be treated as such.

In the scenario that you gave, you are neither a possession or a counter attacking team which is what the vast majority are, most teams are hybrids. People try to put teams in rigid blocks when it's not needed or accurate, it's probably better to talk about tendencies in given situations.

 

[justsomebloke]

Some of us have said that for a while. Not so long ago someone tried to argue that United weren't currently where it belongs when it's quite obvious that we are. Even last season's stats point to a team that is anywhere between 4th and 7th.

Sorry, but I don't understand how you'd make that work. No matter how you cut it, we were better than everyone else save City in 20/21. Few would argue that this was due to a sort of collective or tactical excellence that made us better than the sum of our parts. And few would also argue that a lot of players greatly overperformed relative to their expected levels. This season, it is surely beyond question that we were a good deal less than the sum of our parts, and that nearly the whole squad individually performed below reasonable expectation. If that is the case, then this is fundamentally and obviously incompatible with a view that these results represents the true and natural level of the team. If you want to argue that, you'd also have to argue that Maguire, Rashford et al performed way above their level the couple of previous seasons, and/or that the 20/21 season was a tactical and motivational masterclass by OGS. Your argument simply falls apart on its own internal contradictions.

 

[justsomebloke]

A counter attack style is simply about putting an emphasis on transitioning quickly from defense to attack when you regain possession with little time spent in the "setting-reshaping" phase. As a concept it's not that deep, it's barely a style and shouldn't really be treated as such.

In the scenario that you gave, you are neither a possession or a counter attacking team which is what the vast majority are, most teams are hybrids. People try to put teams in rigid blocks when it's not needed or accurate, it's probably better to talk about tendencies in given situations.

Well said, and agreed. My main point here is that I don't think it's accurate to describe United as a team that stylistically should be described with that term.

 

[didz]

The wheels strongly suggest that we should be spending big in defensive areas. We can't defend our own half and when we do win it we seriously struggle to retain it under any sort of pressure or progress it up the pitch effectively.

We're also still terrible at set pieces. I had thought we had improved defensively on them this season, but from the data it looks like we were lucky not to concede more from them.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

And yet it did. So maybe it's your eye test that needs adjustment?

Not really. Over the course of the season we probably won 3 or 4 games (at the very least) our overall team performance in those games didn't deserve because an individual did something brilliant. Knock 8 points off our total and we're mid table.

 

[justsomebloke]

Not really. Over the course of the season we probably won 3 or 4 games (at the very least) our overall team performance in those games didn't deserve because an individual did something brilliant. Knock 8 points off our total and we're mid table.

Okay. So, the team is a tactical and organisational shambles, pretty much everyone underperforms individually, we knock 8 points off what is actually gained, and that represents the natural, actual, real level of the squad? Are you listening to yourself here?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Okay. So, the team is a tactical and organisational shambles, pretty much everyone underperforms individually, we knock 8 points off what is actually gained, and that represents the natural, actual, real level of the squad? Are you listening to yourself here?

Well I wrote that, so yeah. I’m aware of what I said. But I’ll repeat myself, one more time. Even though our whole squad have underperformed we still have some extremely talented players who can occasionally pull game changing moments out of their arse in matches when the team as a whole isn’t playing well. Even though they haven’t been playing consistently well, individually, over the whole season. Players who are a hell of a lot more talented than their equivalents in the teams that actually finished mid-table. Which is my point.

 

[georgipep]

Well I wrote that, so yeah. I’m aware of what I said. But I’ll repeat myself, one more time. Even though our whole squad have underperformed we still have some extremely talented players who can occasionally pull game changing moments out of their arse in matches when the team as a whole isn’t playing well. Even though they haven’t been playing consistently well, individually, over the whole season. Players who are a hell of a lot more talented than their equivalents in the teams that actually finished mid-table. Which is my point.

I think you do not acknowledge the definition of the word "underperformed". And thus are writing nonsense

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I think you do not acknowledge the definition of the word "underperformed". And thus are writing nonsense

Great contribution. Well done.

 

[justsomebloke]

Well I wrote that, so yeah. I’m aware of what I said. But I’ll repeat myself, one more time. Even though our whole squad have underperformed we still have some extremely talented players who can occasionally pull game changing moments out of their arse in matches when the team as a whole isn’t playing well. Even though they haven’t been playing consistently well, individually, over the whole season. Players who are a hell of a lot more talented than their equivalents in the teams that actually finished mid-table. Which is my point.

What, and they're not supposed to do that? It doesn't really count? Isn't that what extremely talented players do?

So, our actual, real level is the way we play when we're badly managed and organised, use ineffective tactics, the squad performs far below their normal levels individually and no single player has a special game?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

What, and they're not supposed to do that? It doesn't really count? Isn't that what extremely talented players do?

So, our actual, real level is the way we play when we're badly managed and organised, use ineffective tactics, the squad performs far below their normal levels individually and no single player has a special game?

Jesus. You’re making this much harder work than it needs to be. I’m saying we’ve been playing badly because we’ve been badly managed/organised. With some very good players not playing consistently well as a result. You seem to be interpreting this as me saying we have a mid-table squad that couldn’t possibly do any better under a better manager. If anything I’m saying the opposite.

 

[Utuhu]

It just shows what we are - a counter attacking team.

Counter attack is a general tactics almost every team use. Its part of quick transition when ball is won. Right from Fergie, we have always been a wingplay team. ETH will change the tactical culture.

 

[tjb]

The wheels strongly suggest that we should be spending big in defensive areas. We can't defend our own half and when we do win it we seriously struggle to retain it under any sort of pressure or progress it up the pitch effectively.

We're also still terrible at set pieces. I had thought we had improved defensively on them this season, but from the data it looks like we were lucky not to concede more from them.

Think that has more to do with our midfield's lack of protection of our defence. It exposes our poor transition defence and our inability to retain possession to recycle possession effectively.

 

[didz]

Think that has more to do with our midfield's lack of protection of our defence. It exposes our poor transition defence and our inability to retain possession to recycle possession effectively.

Absolutely, by 'defensive areas' I meant the backline and holding midfield. We all know the midfield is a horrorshow! I'd say the fullbacks are a large part of the problem too, as good sides often progress the ball out wide in a way that we just can't.

 

[tjb]

Absolutely, by 'defensive areas' I meant the backline and holding midfield. We all know the midfield is a horrorshow! I'd say the fullbacks are a large part of the problem too, as good sides often progress the ball out wide in a way that we just can't.

I don't think fans understand how important the full back and midfield positions are too how teams play in the modern game. Our attackers can have anyone there, but if the team can't control games or they can't get the ball quickly and consistently enough to create chances, we will always struggle.

I would actually say part of the reason we finished 2nd last season was Luke Shaws form. His ability to carry the ball and play in midfield gave us a little bit extra in our ability to move the ball up the pitch. I would love for us to get another attacker, but I really believe if we addressed the full back and midfield positions, our fans will be surprised at how talented some of our attackers can be. Arsenal and Chelsea do not have better attackers than we did, but they get goals and create chances. Why? Because they don't have lower end of the table players playing in the positions that are most important for the build up play in the modern game.