Relegation Battle

[Cozzie]

Dyche needs to fix things or we're in trouble.

That's actually terrifying.

[superpull]

Look at how much better he is than even Carlo in that.

Utterly baffling that he’s changed the way we play off the ball so much this season.

That poor start, high finish last year may explain why Burnley kept surviving despite being wrote off by most Christmas periods.

Maybe all that fitness work only kicks in a few months into a season

[Cods]

Dyche needs to fix things or we're in trouble.

Too much stock is placed on this sort of stuff.
A ten game rolling average of defensive ball recoveries in the attacking third has gone from about 6 to about 4 per game.

"Notably, that dip started after the 6-0 away defeat against Chelsea in April when they made 12 high recoveries but were cut apart in the space vacated.". So effectively the number was heavily inflated by an anomaly, the Chelsea game, (and the rest can probably be explained by Garner's absence and Doucourés shift in position). And that in the Chelsea case, more recoveries actually resulted in significanly worse performance, not better. Most of their argument is falling apart in that counterpoint dressed up as explanation.

In isolation that first assumption (from 6 to 4) could also mean that we've held the ball more and there's less opportunity to nick it if you already have it, or a number of other reasons. Maybe we've been winning it in the middle this more, or deeper. Have they analysed that data?

Yes we've not scored as many at pieces, some of our aerial threat has been removed due to us having to make a big profit on 6'4" Onana.

I think they (the athletic, and others) think that if they graph data they can extrapolate some meaning from it and convince their readers its hugely significant, even sometimes when it's not.

[brap2]

Too much stock is placed on this sort of stuff.
A ten game rolling average of defensive ball recoveries in the attacking third has gone from about 6 to about 4 per game.

"Notably, that dip started after the 6-0 away defeat against Chelsea in April when they made 12 high recoveries but were cut apart in the space vacated.". So effectively the number was heavily inflated by an anomaly, the Chelsea game, (and the rest can probably be explained by Garner's absence and Doucourés shift in position). And that in the Chelsea case, more recoveries actually resulted in significanly worse performance, not better. Most of their argument is falling apart in that counterpoint dressed up as explanation.

In isolation that first assumption (from 6 to 4) could also mean that we've held the ball more and there's less opportunity to nick it if you already have it, or a number of other reasons. Maybe we've been winning it in the middle this more, or deeper. Have they analysed that data?

Yes we've not scored as many at pieces, some of our aerial threat has been removed due to us having to make a big profit on 6'4" Onana.

I think they (the athletic, and others) think that if they graph data they can extrapolate some meaning from it and convince their readers its hugely significant, even sometimes when it's not.

Does it not match your perception of how we've played?

It used to be a major feature of Dyche's Everton. Jumping on defensive errors, turning the ball over and trying to make a chance quickly.

Ram would be on here every week having a go at someone for saying we had a deep line.

Possibly is a result of putting a player with no legs in the ten rather than Doucs who is a pressing machine...but it's deffo changed right, would you disagree?

[Cods]

Does it not match your perception of how we've played?

It used to be a major feature of Dyche's Everton. Jumping on defensive errors, turning the ball over and trying to make a chance quickly.

Ram would be on here every week having a go at someone for saying we had a deep line.

Possibly is a result of putting a player with no legs in the ten rather than Doucs who is a pressing machine...but it's deffo changed right, would you disagree?

Yeah it does match my perception, and yes it certainly has changed this season, no argument there.

But it doesnt imply in itself that because we've played a particular style (that the data apparently shows) that that lends itself to suggest it's the reason "we've been bad/worse".

My comment is more that statistical data is used pretty indiscriminately to push a certain argument after the argument/assumption has been made, rather than the data actually leading the argument. It's selective analysis, very similar to that Athletic article on the 'death of English number 9s' I referred to a few months back. Bad science, that doesn't include the full picture, lazily used. In much the same way as, "more than 80% of dentists recommend Colgate."

[The Doc]

Does it not match your perception of how we've played?

It used to be a major feature of Dyche's Everton. Jumping on defensive errors, turning the ball over and trying to make a chance quickly.

Ram would be on here every week having a go at someone for saying we had a deep line.

Possibly is a result of putting a player with no legs in the ten rather than Doucs who is a pressing machine...but it's deffo changed right, would you disagree?

Baffling that we haven't tried Lindstrom in the 10 yet. Big, fairly quick, can run all day, it's his favoured position, and is better with the ball the Doucoure (low bar).

[brap2]

Baffling that we haven't tried Lindstrom in the 10 yet. Big, fairly quick, can run all day, it's his favoured position, and is better with the ball the Doucoure (low bar).

He has been absolutely woeful to be fair to all involved.

Im backing him long term but he looks shot for confidence atm

[brap2]

Yeah it does match my perception, and yes it certainly has changed this season, no argument there.

But it doesnt imply in itself that because we've played a particular style (that the data apparently shows) that that lends itself to suggest it's the reason "we've been bad/worse".

My comment is more that statistical data is used pretty indiscriminately to push a certain argument after the argument/assumption has been made, rather than the data actually leading the argument. It's selective analysis, very similar to that Athletic article on the 'death of English number 9s' I referred to a few months back. Bad science, that doesn't include the full picture, lazily used. In much the same way as, "more than 80% of dentists recommend Colgate."

I understand your point but tbh I think it's a bit...pointless?

You want every article or tweet to be rigourously scientifically proven by a set of peers?

They're talking points. I'd imagine inside the clubs and recruitment firms they have models that are much more robust, but for talking points that help illustrated what we're seeing they're useful and interesting, and, I'm not trying to be a tit here, but this comes off a bit like you're just kinda showing off how you're too smart for this kind of analysis.

[Cods]

I understand your point but tbh I think it's a bit...pointless?

You want every article or tweet to be rigourously scientifically proven by a set of peers?

They're talking points. I'd imagine inside the clubs and recruitment firms they have models that are much more robust, but for talking points that help illustrated what we're seeing they're useful and interesting, and, I'm not trying to be a tit here, but this comes off a bit like you're just kinda showing off how you're too smart for this kind of analysis.

That's not my intention, and I'm not an expert, I just find it a bit disingenuous that pulp stats analysis gets churned out by writers, some that people pay for, often forthright and exacting, bold claims...

They're red tops masquerading as the Guardian or New York Times alot of the time.

Journalism used to be more than just fancy writing. More than opinion pieces. Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, but could be sub-edited.

Just something that annoys me and I think needs calling out, but never does, the same way we call bullshit on politicians using rubbery figures or rhetoric.

World's gone mad etc.

[Cantoffee]

That's not my intention, and I'm not an expert, I just find it a bit disingenuous that pulp stats analysis gets churned out by writers, some that people pay for, often forthright and exacting, bold claims...

They're red tops masquerading as the Guardian or New York Times alot of the time.

Journalism used to be more than just fancy writing. More than opinion pieces. Doesn't need to be peer reviewed, but could be sub-edited.

Just something that annoys me and I think needs calling out, but never does, the same way we call bullshit on politicians using rubbery figures or rhetoric.

World's gone mad etc.

It's just interesting points that provide some credence how to our play has changed this year which aligns with the eye test.

I doubt we've had more possession this year and we clearly aren't pressing and trapping like we did for long periods last season.

We've also clearly not created the chances from set pieces. Maybe that's because of losing Onana but then that points to Dyche never actually being that good at set pieces. Or does it point to us not changing our set plays and developing more options? Probably a bit of both.

Either way, unless we start producing goals from open play and improving chance creation not just from high press, ball winning - then the above two need to improve or we are in trouble because we can't score goals.

[Cods]

It's just interesting points that provide some credence how to our play has changed this year which aligns with the eye test.

I doubt we've had more possession this year and we clearly aren't pressing and trapping like we did for long periods last season.

We've also clearly not created the chances from set pieces. Maybe that's because of losing Onana but then that points to Dyche never actually being that good at set pieces. Or does it point to us not changing our set plays and developing more options? Probably a bit of both.

Either way, unless we start producing goals from open play and improving chance creation not just from high press, ball winning - then the above two need to improve or we are in trouble because we can't score goals.

I don't disagree that there is data that lines up with what we see, and I don't mind stuff being put forward to back up claims, but by the same token I dont see why there is an issue with it being pulled apart, or questioned, especially when some of it is illogical or misleading by omission/inclusion, or just bad data.

It's not a pop at you or anyone else, if they're using data and making bold claims, then they're not positioning themselves as light entertainment, they're espousing their credibility and maybe even subject-matter expert status, that's why people pay their subs. Most readers then understandably take that credibility as fact/proof rather than opinion or somewhere in between.

Just to be clear this is not a defence of Dyche either, as this stuff happens to any manager whose club's fans are tired of, the media starts its funeral procession, groupthink ensues, the torches come out and it becomes a vicious circle and a self fulfilling prophecy, whether completely warranted or not. They judge, but take no responsibility.

How many more Arteta's might there have been who somehow avoided the knives and proved everyone wrong? We might look differently on Silva now, yet almost universally at the time wanted him gone...were we right, were the media?

[Shogun]

Leicester v West Ham (First Ruud match)
Ipswich v Palace

Decent chance we're in the relegation zone if we lose against Wolves with Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Man City in our following 4 fixtures.

[Cozzie]

Absolutely sleepwalking into the Championship with this cat in charge.

[blueToffee]

Need to drastically improve at the back our goal difference is already terrible and we have some games coming up where it could easily balloon if we’re not careful.

At what point do we hire Moyes? Feels like this path might lead there.

[Kerryblueboy]

We are bang in it but there are at least 6 other clubs in the same boat a new coach a bounce and new ideas could get us up the league and out of danger dyche imo has lost the players fans the whole lot this season with the change of tactics to stop pressing and not being as potent from set pieces