I Got The Blues - Detailed player scout and tactics analysis: Steaua Bucharest

[Rmpr 8,977]

I feel a bit dumb, but I dont understand what you meant with the article...

What is this negative and positive rating?

[Barbara 15,149]

  On 03/10/2013 at 13:57, agbotek said:

Nice analysis. However, Schurlle was the man of the match for me. Before then I'd been wondering why chelsea spent 18m pounds on him, but i now have my answer. Etoo also put in a decent performance. The opposition is not weak as some people say, trying to belittle our performance, afterall they beat us last season.

Actually in the post I said André was the man of the match, despite Luiz being the player who contributed more. This match wasn't a tight one for us, but closer matches a performance like the one Luiz had for us is what may feed our attack players. 10 interceptions in a match, most of which moving from the common place, anticipating and taking risks is an out of this world stat. But I agree André was the best. And the opposition was weak, but we made them miserable. Our good performance made them seem much worse than they are - except the Geogie...whatever full back that was marking André. He will have all kind of nightmares involving blond Germans for a month, poor thing.

  On 03/10/2013 at 16:25, Rmpr said:

I feel a bit dumb, but I dont understand what you meant with the article...

What is this negative and positive rating?

Rapha, there are two kind of assessments here 1) good plays those are rated from 1 to 5. Remember that ball that André brilliantly passed to Oscar and he shot poorly, the ball seemingly going to Budapest? It was a poor finish, but at least he finished, so it's not a detractor and he got a 1 for that finishing. now remember at the end of the first half that he gave a pass to the defense, but it was sloppy, strong and Cech had to get out of the box to clear it because otherwise their player could reach the ball and we could be in trouble? That's a mistake and he was -5.

Separating the positive and the negative contribution you have a more realistic view of the match because for example Cole although exchanged tons of passes with André didn't exactly take part of many dangerous plays so he had few contributions and consequently a low rating (19), but he also didn't contribute much negatively either. Sometimes a player can have a bad rating because of mistakes he did when in fact he contributed positively in many other things. At the end of the day he will have been a neutral player contributing and detracting, but when you separate things you can say 'he should get better in X because he already is very good in Y'.

Did you open the spoiler section? I decided to put the matches breakdown in a spoiler tag so the post wouldn't be too long - also that is informative the analysis was up in the post. In the breakdown you can see the positive and negative rating clearer

[Rmpr 8,977]

  On 03/10/2013 at 20:19, Barbara said:

Rapha, there are two kind of assessments here 1) good plays those are rated from 1 to 5. Remember that ball that André brilliantly passed to Oscar and he shot poorly, the ball seemingly going to Budapest? It was a poor finish, but at least he finished, so it's not a detractor and he got a 1 for that finishing. now remember at the end of the first half that he gave a pass to the defense, but it was sloppy, strong and Cech had to get out of the box to clear it because otherwise their player could reach the ball and we could be in trouble? That's a mistake and he was -5.

Separating the positive and the negative contribution you have a more realistic view of the match because for example Cole although exchanged tons of passes with André didn't exactly take part of many dangerous plays so he had few contributions and consequently a low rating (19), but he also didn't contribute much negatively either. Sometimes a player can have a bad rating because of mistakes he did when in fact he contributed positively in many other things. At the end of the day he will have been a neutral player contributing and detracting, but when you separate things you can say 'he should get better in X because he already is very good in Y'.

Did you open the spoiler section? I decided to put the matches breakdown in a spoiler tag so the post wouldn't be too long - also that is informative the analysis was up in the post. In the breakdown you can see the positive and negative rating clearer

Oooh, I understand now!

I re-read the whole thing (minus the spoiler, it is way too fucking big) and it makes sense.

Excellent article and very nice idea, it is one of the best ever written in here for sure!!!!

[kellzfresh 7,229]

Fantastic analysis. I think statistical sites should adopt a way like this. Fantastic

Oscar was far better in the second half as i thought.

Luiz was a beast

Schurrle was gold

The only thing I don't understand is which instances do you say its workrate or team chemistry? Or even both of them?

This your style of analysis covers the whole match in full detail which is Brilliant. :worship:

[Barbara 15,149]

  On 04/10/2013 at 02:51, kellzfresh said:

Fantastic analysis. I think statistical sites should adopt a way like this. Fantastic

Oscar was far better in the second half as i thought.

Luiz was a beast

Schurrle was gold

The only thing I don't understand is which instances do you say its workrate or team chemistry? Or even both of them?

This your style of analysis covers the whole match in full detail which is Brilliant. :worship:

I showcased plays that we showed the team working as team, covering one another, linking up plays, pressing together, moving without the ball.

That's supposed to improve from now on. In one analysis it doesn't make much sense, but next match we can compare how the team is progressing into playing the tactics Mourinho has in place. The same goes for chemistry.

It's a way for us to see the team working as a whole. There wasn't a case where they failed - except if you count that messy box play at the very end of the game when we tried to clear the ball away, but no one could until Cech held it (but the referee had stopped the play for a foul on Cech). I don't think that was lack of team work or chemistry, I think that was a hot mess where we just couldn't kick the ball away from the dangerous areas. But let's suppose we show like in the Everton goal - where Luiz moved to anticipate the ball and wasn't properly covered and didn't properly come back to fix his mistake. That's a typical failure in team work. We saw in one of the plays I showcased this time that he made the same mistake at some point, but Ramires (if I'm not wrong, I don't know all the plays by heart, hehehe, but it's in the spoiler tag) was there and covered him and cleared the ball away.

Mourinho has a special player (in his eyes) in Luiz. His vision and boldness are impressive and he offers something else to the defense, but it comes with a risk and we need FB or CMs to cover him for those attempts. It's an aggressive defending, a pro-active and Mourinho said one week ago he doesn't want us to play reactive football. that's how it's made, but for it to work someone has to cover him. It's risky, but with the right amount of chemistry and team work it's actually a good tactic.

In this match it seemed to me he gave Luiz fredoom to do it anywhere he saw fit. I don't think he'll have as much freedom in three weeks against City for example, but even then I expect Luiz to press pro-actively in the second third...

So, next time I do this - I'll try to do for the Norwich match, but I will only provide data and let the tactics analysis for @hjperdeath, so there will be only the rating part, team chemistry, team work and individual highlights, that Sherry may want to use on his tactical analysis or not.

I think it's important to have contextualized rating of the players' contribution... sometimes a player contributed a lot and we don't even realize it because he did the invisible work. There wasn't much of it last match because we played nearly perfectly, but my objective is to start rating players movement as well even when they don't actually touch the ball. There was a couple of cases of that when I mentioned a player pressed, but didn't actually tackle or intercepted, and still he was rated. His off-ball movement and pressing was important and helped someone else to go for the killing.

Sherry, sweetie, do you think we can work this way? I only provide data, but won't 'interpret' it and will leave the whole analysis to you. Feel free to use any of the stats or not. You let me know.

[hjperdeath 2,226]

  On 04/10/2013 at 10:59, Barbara said:

Sherry, sweetie, do you think we can work this way? I only provide data, but won't 'interpret' it and will leave the whole analysis to you. Feel free to use any of the stats or not. You let me know.

Hell no. I want to see more of this.

You go along with whatever you are doing and I'll add mine to it. No problem .