Very interesting and good post.
Win Percentage Under Solskjaer
- Thread starter sugar_kane
- Start date
Hell of a lot of words to basically say exactly what I'd said in the post you actually replied to, that since Liverpool in October we've won 50% of our PL games, which is absolutely acceptable, and has been beefed up due to an excellent February. I'm cautiously optimistic considering how we followed up a good December but the squad is much more balanced to do it now.
The tedious feck at SB says this is proof the players are starting to get it but:
Games 1-5 - 2 wins
Games 6- 10 - 1 win
Games 11 - 15 - 2 wins
Games 16 - 20 - 3 wins
Games - 21-25 - 1 win
And now we've won the first two from 26-30, but feck me, considering how this season has gone, I think we, and SB man should calm the feck down and wait and see how Everton and the next two games go before claiming any proof that players now "get it". Everton away, City home and Spurs away in our next 3 could easily have that list looking as shite as it has all season. Win none of 3 and it's another group of 5 in which we've won just 2 of our 5 games.
So seriously people, hold off and wait for true signs of progress before we all get giddy as fook.
I won't listen to a point I actually made myself in the previous post? Weird.
All I've "demanded" of Ole since 31st Jan is that he win at least 50% of his games until the end of the season now that's he's learnt his lesson and balanced out his squad. If he manages to actually have 50% since the 21st October, even better still.
Last edited:
I'm not sure 6th is acceptable given the January reinforcements. It has to be a champions league place and/or at least a good cup run. Fortunately for Ole this is quite realistic due to an upsurge in form, an excellent signing (Bruno) and a reinforcement striker, and the rest of the teams chasing being pretty inconsistent too.
4th would be a good season but I would still dispute that the planning for this season was, at best, very risky, at worst pretty shocking. You only have to think back to the Burnley game at OT and the fan discontent to realise how bad things were getting.
Agreed.
6th would be wank and a result of dogshit planning.
4th would be a good season and would come about as a result of correcting that dogshit planning in January. All in all you'd have to be over the moon if they manage it.
The annoying thing is, and please someone correct me if i'm wrong with the figures, if we had got a cheap backup striker and also payed the money for Bruno in the summer which was 15 million more than we got him for in January (?) and he'd made the same type of impact all season long, then we might be in 3rd place right about now with CL qualification looking much more likely. The money spent back then would have generated the money gained from champions league qualification and more.
If Bruno keeps up his form and saves Ole's job but we just miss out on Cl football I hope people will give Ed some stick over this.
Who knows if we were really in for Bruno in the Summer, we seemed more interested in trying to get Dybala and according to Sporting made no offer, only Spurs did.
Add to that, Ole and Mike went to scout Bruno the other week before we bought him and I get the impression he simply wasn't deemed a top enough target and only a dog shit start to the season and his availability in January changed that.
I think they counted on Pogba in the summer.
Aye, that too. I think it's too easy to always try and blame Ed.
I just don't see why Ole and Mike would be flying to scout Bruno if he was deemed a top target in the Summer that Ed just ignored, it makes no sense. As you say, most likely they counted on Pogba and how we left the striker situation shows they didn't do a great job of forward planning for eventual injuries etc. It was all a little rosey eyed that Andreas and Greenwood would step up etc.
I'm not blaming Ole solely either here, but the entire transfer structure didn't plan well enough, it was way too focused on the future and not enough on the here and now. Thankfully they all learnt their lesson come January.
After spending over £200 million anything less than a top four spot should be sack worthy.
The money spent needs perspective. Other teams spend similar amounts. It's not like we spend 200 million and everyone else stands still. I think we're making progress but the purchase of Bruno has pushed us on. It's not about star names at this point. The club needs to learn their lessons to support the manager and bring the right players in. City have a quality squad as do Liverpool. Who's mentality is stronger then ours for now. There's is competition for other places but I feel we're placing ourselves in a good position at this point. We do need more players, to build the squad and to sell liabilities but I think when you talk about win percentage - we're talking about having a great squad and we don't have that...yet. Ole seems to have the dressing room but if we go one down tomorrow, we want to see fight. We want to see strength and not capitulation. Looking to see character in the team and a belief from the fans that's it's not over. Stats are good but the character is coming through.
We see Bally coming back (and hopefully he turns out to be a great player), we see Shaw looking strong, we see Mctominay who's doing well, Mata looked lively last game, Fred...etc...There's no perfect formula but a win percentage will improve IF we show the right ambition, if we're intelligent and that will boost the win percentage. Bruno alone might do that against tight defences but we focus one game at a time and who knows where we end up.
We see Bally coming back (and hopefully he turns out to be a great player), we see Shaw looking strong, we see Mctominay who's doing well, Mata looked lively last game, Fred...etc...There's no perfect formula but a win percentage will improve IF we show the right ambition, if we're intelligent and that will boost the win percentage. Bruno alone might do that against tight defences but we focus one game at a time and who knows where we end up.
Quick update after the last few games, seeing as we probably won't play again for a while.
Our current win rate under Ole overall after 76 games is 52.6%, putting Ole slightly ahead of LVG (52.4% in 103) but weirdly still behind Moyes (52.9% in 51)
This season now looks closer to last season at 51% vs. 55%. This season has a larger sample at 47 games vs. 29.
Coming back to my original point, we've been fairly consistent barring a ridiculously awful run from the win in Paris through to around the first Liverpool came back in October, when we only won 5 games in 23 (a 22% win rate). The club did well to stand by him during this time as that is insanely bad.
Since then we've played 36 games and been at around 58%.
Our current win rate under Ole overall after 76 games is 52.6%, putting Ole slightly ahead of LVG (52.4% in 103) but weirdly still behind Moyes (52.9% in 51)
This season now looks closer to last season at 51% vs. 55%. This season has a larger sample at 47 games vs. 29.
Coming back to my original point, we've been fairly consistent barring a ridiculously awful run from the win in Paris through to around the first Liverpool came back in October, when we only won 5 games in 23 (a 22% win rate). The club did well to stand by him during this time as that is insanely bad.
Since then we've played 36 games and been at around 58%.
not really weird, Moyes started with a PL winning team whereas Ole with a team far far from it.
That's a huge bulk of time. Inconsistency has been the main characteristic during Ole's tenure. Bruno seems to be the likeliest of corners turned, but we'll have to wait quite a few months to see I guess.
With the state of the squad at the start of the season, I'd have said said 4th was the very best we could do so I have to disagree. How much you spend in isolation is not indicative of anything.
Agree. Some buy for immediate short term success whereas Ole has recruited sustainably.
Anyone knows our win rate, in all competions, after getting a creative midfielder (Bruno)?
Since a majore problem used to be beating defencive minded teams, parking the buss, the win rate in all games should give us an indication on how good we are now.
Beating the biggest teams and managers have always been Ole strong side.
So, how is our win rate since Bruno started to play?
Since a majore problem used to be beating defencive minded teams, parking the buss, the win rate in all games should give us an indication on how good we are now.
Beating the biggest teams and managers have always been Ole strong side.
So, how is our win rate since Bruno started to play?
There's some cannonfodder in there, but's honestly pretty impressive. The goal difference in particular. Especially with no Rashford.
'Their are lies, damned lies and statistics'
Far more important to understand what might have led to 'good' and 'bad' results, whilst also allowing for the fact that football results are heavily influenced by randomness
Far more important to understand what might have led to 'good' and 'bad' results, whilst also allowing for the fact that football results are heavily influenced by randomness
Isn't it about the same/better against top six?
Now all we need is a dedicated stat rat to break down how we fared against 'the bottom fifteen' in the years of plenty.
It wasn't meant as critique(I've been firmly "Ole in" the whole time), but championship teams and weak EL teams are not as tough to break down as weak PL sides.
Still, I feel confident that we will keep this up going forward. Get Rashford back, sign a proper RW and some padding in midfield, and I think we can at least challenge for the title. Top 4 should be achievable without breaking a sweat.
Oh no, that was pretty clear from the '...it's honestly pretty impressive' part. My question was in earnest; AKA I vaguely remembered seeing a 'vs. top six' percentage along those lines but wasn't sure.
I don't have the stats in my head, but I think you're right. The issue was always to break down defensive sides. And fecking Wolves
@hungrywing
Win percentage against non Top 6 teams in the league:
* 1992/93 (19W, 8D, 5L): 59.4%
* 1993/94 (24W, 6D, 2L): 75%
1994/95 (22W, 7D, 3L): 68.7%
* 1995/96 (20W, 5D, 3L): 71.4%
* 1996/97 (17W, 8D, 3L): 60.7%
1997/98 (18W, 6D, 4L): 64.3%
* 1998/99 (19W, 7D, 2L): 67.9%
* 1999/00 (21W, 5D, 2L): 75%
* 2000/01 (21W, 4D, 3L): 75%
2001/02 (21W, 4D, 3L): 75%
* 2002/03 (18W, 6D, 4L): 64.3%
2003/04 (19W, 2D, 7L): 67.9%
2004/05 (17W, 9D, 2L): 60.7%
2005/06 (21W, 5D, 2L): 75%
* 2006/07 (22W, 3D, 3L): 78.6%
* 2007/08 (19W, 5D, 4L): 67.9%
* 2008/09 (25W, 2D, 1L): 89.3%
2009/10 (21W, 3D, 4L): 75%
* 2010/11 (19W, 8D, 1L): 67.9%
2011/12 (23W, 3D, 2L): 82.1%
* 2012/13 (24W, 3D, 1L): 85.7%
Break between 22/20 team seasons.
* signifies league title.
Win percentage against non Top 6 teams in the league:
* 1992/93 (19W, 8D, 5L): 59.4%
* 1993/94 (24W, 6D, 2L): 75%
1994/95 (22W, 7D, 3L): 68.7%
* 1995/96 (20W, 5D, 3L): 71.4%
* 1996/97 (17W, 8D, 3L): 60.7%
1997/98 (18W, 6D, 4L): 64.3%
* 1998/99 (19W, 7D, 2L): 67.9%
* 1999/00 (21W, 5D, 2L): 75%
* 2000/01 (21W, 4D, 3L): 75%
2001/02 (21W, 4D, 3L): 75%
* 2002/03 (18W, 6D, 4L): 64.3%
2003/04 (19W, 2D, 7L): 67.9%
2004/05 (17W, 9D, 2L): 60.7%
2005/06 (21W, 5D, 2L): 75%
* 2006/07 (22W, 3D, 3L): 78.6%
* 2007/08 (19W, 5D, 4L): 67.9%
* 2008/09 (25W, 2D, 1L): 89.3%
2009/10 (21W, 3D, 4L): 75%
* 2010/11 (19W, 8D, 1L): 67.9%
2011/12 (23W, 3D, 2L): 82.1%
* 2012/13 (24W, 3D, 1L): 85.7%
* 1992/93: 50%
* 1993/94: 30%
1994/95: 40%
* 1995/96: 50%
* 1996/97: 40%
1997/98: 50%
* 1998/99: 30%
* 1999/00: 70%
* 2000/01: 30 %
2001/02: 30 %
* 2002/03: 70 %
2003/04: 40 %
2004/05: 50 %
2005/06: 40 %
* 2006/07: 60 %
* 2007/08: 80 %
* 2008/09: 30 %
2009/10: 60 %
* 2010/11: 40 %
2011/12: 50 %
* 2012/13: 40 %
* 1993/94: 30%
1994/95: 40%
* 1995/96: 50%
* 1996/97: 40%
1997/98: 50%
* 1998/99: 30%
* 1999/00: 70%
* 2000/01: 30 %
2001/02: 30 %
* 2002/03: 70 %
2003/04: 40 %
2004/05: 50 %
2005/06: 40 %
* 2006/07: 60 %
* 2007/08: 80 %
* 2008/09: 30 %
2009/10: 60 %
* 2010/11: 40 %
2011/12: 50 %
* 2012/13: 40 %
Break between 22/20 team seasons.
* signifies league title.
Even against the cannon fodder we used to struggle.
That LASK team were being built up as a good team, they beat FC Twente (in our group) and won the league ahead of RB Saltzburg who nearly drew with Liverpool at anfield. The lack of home crowd probably helped but still beating them 5-0 in their own ground is no mean feat at all.
Bah gawd. I hope you cut and pasted that from somewhere.
So to play some stats games:
- Average league position during those twenty-one seasons of plenty: 1.6
- Average win% against the bottom fifteen during those seasons: 71.8% (those seasons approaching 90% are disgusting)
- 1 PL win = 2.6 percentage points
- Current streak win% = 66.7%
- Assuming Tranmere, Brugge and LASK are equivalent to 18-20th place PL teams on a really really really really bad day (note to anyone casually reading: don't actually do this), but also counter-balancing that assumption by normalizing the wins over City and Chelsea (pretending they're lesser opposition to balance pretending Tranmere/Brugge/LASK are better than they are), we're only two wins (over the whole season) off being around a similar 72 win% pace, (and in fact, aren't that far off at all from the seasons in the 60-66% range.) Yay.
Also noteworthy stuff regarding this season:
- An 85 point season = 2.2 ppg
- Before Bruno joined, against the bottom fifteen we went 17G 6W 6D 5L for a measly 1.4 ppg (but 2.0 ppg against top six)
- After Bruno joined, in the PL we're at 2.2 ppg; on pace for an 85 point season (but tiny sample size)
- Woohoo.
The rest of this is semi-joking (but not necessarily) and not directed at Invictus (who could probably do the below should (s)he wish):
Now all we need is a super-dedicated-uber-alpha stat rat* in the club's employ to look at our draws and losses (and wins) to gauge how fine (or not) the margins are, AKA are we truly not far off from turning the required amount of those draws/losses into wins. It's possible to approximate items such as 1 goal = x ppg. 1 goal conceded = y ppg. goal difference wrt ppg. Doing that helps you know if we're really close to 2.2 ppg (or even actually performing above it or below it etc.)
*It's also possible for these folk to further fine tune their analysis according to things like opposition strength, formation, individual player statistics etc. And from there the list is literally infinite. You can go so far as to track what the players ate, what boots they wore, when they were in a stable relationship, matchday weather, weather on the day before matchday, etc. You can go absolutely nuts to try and find margins of improvement. This is the kind of sh*t that Liverpool's analytics guy is doing (the one in that article about how their data people pushed for Klopp's hire) It's what Liverpool's owners did with their American baseball team to win championships.
Then do an analysis of how much of the total points the top three (maybe four) clubs have traditionally taken out of the entire supply. There's around 1040-1070 points distributed each season (it fluctuates because of draws, in which case a possible allotted point is removed from the pool), with the top five taking roughly 380-410 and recently the top two taking an increased share. Then gauge how far off we are.
The reason you do these two parts is if 'the money in the game'/'two best coaches in the world' have altered the landscape enough, then historical data is going to be a little bit off and 89-93+ points/2.3-2.4 ppg (or even more) is the new actual title-challenging range. Doing the above helps the club gauge whether that new trend is true and whether it's a good idea to make an extra push and do all sorts of 'weird' analytics things (like Pool's throw ins) for those incremental ppg gains over the whole season.
The simple eye-test obviously says 'duh-Einstein-the-landscape-has-changed' with Pool/City at 2.5-2.7 ppg. But as we've seen in both cases, a single player/manager addition (and conversely removal) can drastically alter those figures, you might not necessarily have to aim for those numbers mid/long term, and whether you choose to do so is up to the club. Especially if your manager has proven he can beat/match them consistently.
*It's also possible for these folk to further fine tune their analysis according to things like opposition strength, formation, individual player statistics etc. And from there the list is literally infinite. You can go so far as to track what the players ate, what boots they wore, when they were in a stable relationship, matchday weather, weather on the day before matchday, etc. You can go absolutely nuts to try and find margins of improvement. This is the kind of sh*t that Liverpool's analytics guy is doing (the one in that article about how their data people pushed for Klopp's hire) It's what Liverpool's owners did with their American baseball team to win championships.
Then do an analysis of how much of the total points the top three (maybe four) clubs have traditionally taken out of the entire supply. There's around 1040-1070 points distributed each season (it fluctuates because of draws, in which case a possible allotted point is removed from the pool), with the top five taking roughly 380-410 and recently the top two taking an increased share. Then gauge how far off we are.
The reason you do these two parts is if 'the money in the game'/'two best coaches in the world' have altered the landscape enough, then historical data is going to be a little bit off and 89-93+ points/2.3-2.4 ppg (or even more) is the new actual title-challenging range. Doing the above helps the club gauge whether that new trend is true and whether it's a good idea to make an extra push and do all sorts of 'weird' analytics things (like Pool's throw ins) for those incremental ppg gains over the whole season.
The simple eye-test obviously says 'duh-Einstein-the-landscape-has-changed' with Pool/City at 2.5-2.7 ppg. But as we've seen in both cases, a single player/manager addition (and conversely removal) can drastically alter those figures, you might not necessarily have to aim for those numbers mid/long term, and whether you choose to do so is up to the club. Especially if your manager has proven he can beat/match them consistently.
And all of that is a long-winded way of saying: buy a good RW and it looks like we're in business.
Thanks