Where Rooney ranks compared to other Rams managers

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, jimtastic56 said:

Rooney has sorted the defence out by playing four defence minded midfield players . However he was very quick to give CKR a new contract. So in his judgement Colin was up to the job. Who gets the blame for that one?

The EFL for keeping us in embargo at that time?

[Leeds Ram]

2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Yeah but it's not like we've not had a really sound defence (mostly) so the point is more that if we'd scored more. There can't be many teams with as limited a strike force as we've had for the past couple of seasons.

our defensive XG last time I looked was 1.44 per game yet we've only conceded 0.95 per game whereas our goals scored XG was 0.89 per game whereas we've only scored 0.82. This highlights that we'd expect to concede quite a bit more than we have but not score that many more goals. So, if anything we are outperforming our expected results not underperforming. 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Leeds Ram

[RoyMac5]

Just now, Leeds Ram said:

our defensive XG last time I looked was 1.44 per game yet we've only conceded 0.95 per game whereas our goals scored XG was 0.89 per game whereas we've only scored 0.82. This highlights that we'd expect to conceded quite a bit more than we have but not score that many more goals. So, if anything we are outperforming our expected results not underperforming. 

I presume the XG is based on our current squad not the squad we'd like to have had?

[Anag Ram]

34 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Yep, there definitely is a narrative which separates the two out...leading to the argument 'he has been brilliant defensively,  we just need a striker and we would be top half'.

Reality is we have created absolutely nothing at times and we aren't spaffing away chance after chance. Wayne has got two excellent but gnarled central defenders and has packed the midfield full of steady, defensive midfielders who don't get behind the opposition. We have kept the defence tight at the expense of creating chances.

I think there have been a number of occasions on which the ball has been played into the box and our closest player was on the 18 yard line. 
 

Also, when we break, we don’t really have a forward with the pace to get beyond the last defender.

 I would say we have the passing ability to get the ball to a better quality forward more likely to convert than the current crop, though Plange and Stretton remain on the upgrade .

[Leeds Ram]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

I presume the XG is based on our current squad not the squad we'd like to have had?

The hypothetical was on expected goals scored and our results would be better but the stats currently don't bear that out, rather it's the opposite. Our defence statistically should have conceded quite a few more than it has and we could have scored a couple more but not that many more. The problem is chance creation isn't all that great, especially away from home and defensively we've overperformed, it wasn't that long ago I read that Roos had saved pretty much the highest % save rate in the championship. 

if we'd have had a better squad then we'd have been less cautious which would have opened us up and had a less defensive outlook. Like I said before anyone can play the game of 'what if' and present their own scenario but none of it has any credibility. 

[The Scarlet Pimpernel]

1 minute ago, Leeds Ram said:

The hypothetical was on expected goals scored and our results would be better but the stats currently don't bear that out, rather it's the opposite. Our defence statistically should have conceded quite a few more than it has and we could have scored a couple more but not that many more. The problem is chance creation isn't all that great, especially away from home and defensively we've overperformed, it wasn't that long ago I read that Roos had saved pretty much the highest % save rate in the championship. 

if we'd have had a better squad then we'd have been less cautious which would have opened us up and had a less defensive outlook. Like I said before anyone can play the game of 'what if' and present their own scenario but none of it has any credibility. 

Yes, but this conversation revolves around how well or badly Rooney is doing as our manager. Just as we cant introduce 'what ifs' neither can we exclude the unique circumstances he is operating under. As in all things it comes down to individual opinion.

[Leeds Ram]

1 minute ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said:

Yes, but this conversation revolves around how well or badly Rooney is doing as our manager. Just as we cant introduce 'what ifs' neither can we exclude the unique circumstances he is operating under. As in all things it comes down to individual opinion.

I'm not excluding those circumstances and have factored them in to my assessment of how well I think he's doing as a manager. 

[RoyMac5]

9 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

The hypothetical was on expected goals scored and our results would be better but the stats currently don't bear that out, rather it's the opposite. Our defence statistically should have conceded quite a few more than it has and we could have scored a couple more but not that many more. The problem is chance creation isn't all that great, especially away from home and defensively we've overperformed, it wasn't that long ago I read that Roos had saved pretty much the highest % save rate in the championship. 

if we'd have had a better squad then we'd have been less cautious which would have opened us up and had a less defensive outlook. Like I said before anyone can play the game of 'what if' and present their own scenario but none of it has any credibility. 

But you go along with the XG stats as gospel, not 'what if'? ?

[Leeds Ram]

2 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

But you go along with the XG stats as gospel, not 'what if'? ?

I don't go along with them as 'gospel', I am merely pointing out that statistically we are likely overperforming as opposed to underperforming on the pitch. That's different from making fanciful claims about how if we had a better striker we'd be in playoff form for instance because so many of those draws would now be turned into wins.  

[RoyMac5]

17 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I don't go along with them as 'gospel', I am merely pointing out that statistically we are likely overperforming as opposed to underperforming on the pitch. That's different from making fanciful claims about how if we had a better striker we'd be in playoff form for instance because so many of those draws would now be turned into wins.  

Not really as you then took the assumption that our defence wouldn't be as good because we'd better striker options.

Fanciful claims - ie check out our squad and find the goal-scorer! Or real facts like XG? ?

[Ghost of Clough]

46 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

our defensive XG last time I looked was 1.44 per game yet we've only conceded 0.95 per game whereas our goals scored XG was 0.89 per game whereas we've only scored 0.82. This highlights that we'd expect to concede quite a bit more than we have but not score that many more goals. So, if anything we are outperforming our expected results not underperforming. 

xG is based on the average. If you have a better than average defensive unit you will have better goals conceded column than what xGA predicts.

Same applies for shots. We're performing 'as expected' with players who have never been known for being clinical. Put as better forward in this team and logic says the xGF column will also be better than expected.

[Chester40]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Which 4 will that be?

The most used 5 'mids' are: Bird, Shinnie, Lawrence, Ravel and Knight (Sibley 6th). First time I've seen anyone suggest Lawrence and Ravel are defence minded ?

? Lawrence is a midfielder playing as the centre forward... and Ravel is probably as our most 'attacking midfielder' who takes the ball off the centre back and makes no runs in behind and generally looks neat and tidy with precious little end product.

Edited December 21, 2021 by Chester40

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

? Lawrence is a midfielder playing as the centre forward... and Ravel is probably as our most 'attacking midfielder' who takes the ball off the centre back and makes no runs in behind and generally looks neat and tidy with precious little end product.

Lawrence is still one of the 5 most used players in the 5 CM/AM positions. If you want to exclude him, it's Sibley who is next in line. You're saying Ravel is defensive minded? There are very few players who have less of a defensive impact than him.
No matter which way you look at it, we have at least 2 players out of the five who are not defensive minded.

[Chester40]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Lawrence is still one of the 5 most used players in the 5 CM/AM positions. If you want to exclude him, it's Sibley who is next in line. You're saying Ravel is defensive minded? There are very few players who have less of a defensive impact than him.
No matter which way you look at it, we have at least 2 players out of the five who are not defensive minded.

Just because you are not seen as a defensive midfielder, it doesn't mean when you are played in a midfield and formation with limited pace, width or determination to break the lines that you don't just end up playing in a primarily defensive role.

[Ghost of Clough]

9 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Just because you are not seen as a defensive midfielder, it doesn't mean when you are played in a midfield and formation with limited pace, width or determination to break the lines that you don't just end up playing in a primarily defensive role.

Ravel doesn't play a defensive role though. He comes deep to collect the ball, but does very little actual defending

[Leeds Ram]

8 hours ago, Ghost of Clough said:

xG is based on the average. If you have a better than average defensive unit you will have better goals conceded column than what xGA predicts.

Same applies for shots. We're performing 'as expected' with players who have never been known for being clinical. Put as better forward in this team and logic says the xGF column will also be better than expected.

xgf as far as I am aware is based upon the chances created and the likelihood of you scoring from them, so it does not necessarily follow if you put a 'better forward' in then you'd automatically see an uptick. This kind of thinking assumes a striker acts in isolation rather than affecting numerous different areas which they do. 

Again, the last time I saw the data our expected goals against would be an average of 1.4 per game but we're averaging less than a goal against per game suggesting quite an overperformance on that metric. 

[Leeds Ram]

8 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Not really as you then took the assumption that our defence wouldn't be as good because we'd better striker options.

Fanciful claims - ie check out our squad and find the goal-scorer! Or real facts like XG? ?

That's really not what I said Roy. I have said that our defence is doing better currently than what the XG suggests but our strikers are about on par for what is expected. I did say that if we adopted a more adventurous style of play with a stronger squad up front then this would likely impact the defensive style Rooney has used for us. 

[Ghost of Clough]

58 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

xgf as far as I am aware is based upon the chances created and the likelihood of you scoring from them, so it does not necessarily follow if you put a 'better forward' in then you'd automatically see an uptick. This kind of thinking assumes a striker acts in isolation rather than affecting numerous different areas which they do. 

Again, the last time I saw the data our expected goals against would be an average of 1.4 per game but we're averaging less than a goal against per game suggesting quite an overperformance on that metric. 

A good forward is typically more clinical than a bad one in my experience. Therefore, a good forward will more than likely perform better than the average (xGF), whereas a bad one will perform worse than the average.

[Leeds Ram]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

A good forward is typically more clinical than a bad one in my experience. Therefore, a good forward will more than likely perform better than the average (xGF), whereas a bad one will perform worse than the average.

But it might be that different forwards even if they are more clinical may play in such a way that reduces the chances being created. One example off the top of my head could be of will grigg at Sunderland. A clinical finisher at that level that should score goals but was unable to make much of a difference there. The inverse could be Martin for us, hardly prolific throughout his career until he made a massive difference for us.