Defence or Attack - which is most important

[Ted Hughes]

Well the thing about England is, there is only one team who has actually tried to win the league with 'all out attack' & that is us. And we won it last season. The rags & Arsenal have had spells where they were mainly attacking, and they won it as well.

So I don't think the stats actually mean anything. You would have to put Barca, Bayern & Real Madrid in our league, & see how they got on. I recon there's a fair chance one of them might win it.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Just throwing this in for food for thought. The nation with the most World Cup titles is Brazil and their philosophy is always more attack orientated.

And another thing, have a look at goals conceded since the turn of the century and you will notice that the champions conceded a far higher number of goals on average than they did since the grim reapers of football Mourinho and Benitez rocked up.

[Im_Spartacus]

Well the thing about England is, there is only one team who has actually tried to win the league with 'all out attack' & that is us. And we won it last season. The rags & Arsenal have had spells where they were mainly attacking, and they won it as well.

So I don't think the stats actually mean anything. You would have to put Barca, Bayern & Real Madrid in our league, & see how they got on. I recon there'z a fair chance one of them might win it.

I think your point about Barca and Real is exactly the issue here about the defence. If you put one of them in our league, they might still win it, but if they tried to play the way they do now, week in week out, they would concede a lot of goals against far better equipped English teams than they do in Spain.....suddenly, wins turn to draws which lets the other teams in.

Thus, the biggest predictor of the league winner will not be goals scored (winning 7 nil every week still only gets you 3 points, from a statistical perspective this is no more valuable than winning 1.0). You can take it as a given that Barca and Real would score loads in the premier league, but the number of goals you concede is the direct risks to you of dropping points and thus not winning the league.

[Ted Hughes]

Just throwing this in for food for thought. The nation with the most World Cup titles is Brazil and their philosophy is always more attack orientated.

And another thing, have a look at goals conceded since the turn of the century and you will notice that the champions conceded a far higher number of goals on average than they did since the grim reapers of football Mourinho and Benitez rocked up.

The only way the stats could make any sense, would he if 50% of the teams with a chance of winning the title played 'all out' attacking football. They don't, so there is only a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of a side which does, winning the title.

If that is taken into account, then it's a big thumbs up for all out attack, seeing as we have won it 50% of the time.

[Im_Spartacus]

Just throwing this in for food for thought. The nation with the most World Cup titles is Brazil and their philosophy is always more attack orientated.

And another thing, have a look at goals conceded since the turn of the century and you will notice that the champions conceded a far higher number of goals on average than they did since the grim reapers of football Mourinho and Benitez rocked up.

The only way the stats could make any sense, would he if 50% of the teams with a chance of winning the title played 'all out' attacking football. They don't, so there is only a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of a side which does, winning the title.

If that is taken into account, then it's a big thumbs up for all out attack, seeing as we have won it 50% of the time.

This again is the issue with observations vs facts. Your observation that city won it twice with all out attack ignores the fact that we were incredibly defensive first and foremost for more than half of the first title win. Additionally, individual years can present anomalies - last year was most definitely anomalous being the 2nd highest goals conceded in the last 10 years, negated by being the 2nd highest goals scored, that is the exception, not the rule.

That's why any analysis of this nature has to be long term, you have to be able to see the trends happening rather than focusing on individual anomalies

[Ted Hughes]

Well the thing about England is, there is only one team who has actually tried to win the league with 'all out attack' & that is us. And we won it last season. The rags & Arsenal have had spells where they were mainly attacking, and they won it as well.

So I don't think the stats actually mean anything. You would have to put Barca, Bayern & Real Madrid in our league, & see how they got on. I recon there'z a fair chance one of them might win it.

I think your point about Barca and Real is exactly the issue here about the defence. If you put one of them in our league, they might still win it, but if they tried to play the way they do now, week in week out, they would concede a lot of goals against far better equipped English teams than they do in Spain.....suddenly, wins turn to draws which lets the other teams in.

Thus, the biggest predictor of the league winner will not be goals scored (winning 7 nil every week still only gets you 3 points, from a statistical perspective this is no more valuable than winning 1.0). You can take it as a given that Barca and Real would score loads in the premier league, but the number of goals you concede is the direct risks to you of dropping points and thus not winning the league.

If conceding goals didn't matter, then we wouldn't have a keeper. The thread is about whether the accent should be on attack or defence.

The evidence says it's overwhelmingly in favour of attack. If we had Bayern, City, Barca, & Real Madrid in this league. Mourinho would win a small percentage of titles. The stats would end up overwhelmingly in favour of attacking football & Mourinho aould get fired in favour of a manager who did the same with Chelsea.

We have rarely if ever had a team in the Premier League, attempt to do what City are trying to do. So obviously if nobody does it, nobody will win by doing it.

[Ted Hughes]

Just throwing this in for food for thought. The nation with the most World Cup titles is Brazil and their philosophy is always more attack orientated.

And another thing, have a look at goals conceded since the turn of the century and you will notice that the champions conceded a far higher number of goals on average than they did since the grim reapers of football Mourinho and Benitez rocked up.

The only way the stats could make any sense, would he if 50% of the teams with a chance of winning the title played 'all out' attacking football. They don't, so there is only a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of a side which does, winning the title.

If that is taken into account, then it's a big thumbs up for all out attack, seeing as we have won it 50% of the time.

This again is the issue with observations vs facts. Your observation that city won it twice with all out attack ignores the fact that we were incredibly defensive first and foremost for more than half of the first title win. Additionally, individual years can present anomalies - last year was most definitely anomalous being the 2nd highest goals conceded in the last 10 years, negated by being the 2nd highest goals scored, that is the exception, not the rule.

That's why any analysis of this nature has to be long term, you have to be able to see the trends happening rather than focusing on individual anomalies

No I'm not mentioning Mancini at all. Pellegrini has won 1 title in two seasons by attacking. 50% success rate vs 5 or 6 other equipped teams. So that's 8 or 10 or 12 possible title winning outcomes for the traditional style vs 2 for the attacking style.

So far the stats are hugely in favour of attacking. If we fail to win for the next two or 3 years & a boring team does, it starts to even out.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

If you go back 20 years Sparty a very different picture emerges. I just had a look through starting with 94/95 and it wasn't until I got to around 6 seasons in that the team with the best defence won the league, there were more examples of the best attack winning it.

Like I said above, it seems that since Jose and Rafa rocked up that the accent on defence has been more succesful.

[Im_Spartacus]

Just throwing this in for food for thought. The nation with the most World Cup titles is Brazil and their philosophy is always more attack orientated.

And another thing, have a look at goals conceded since the turn of the century and you will notice that the champions conceded a far higher number of goals on average than they did since the grim reapers of football Mourinho and Benitez rocked up.

The only way the stats could make any sense, would he if 50% of the teams with a chance of winning the title played 'all out' attacking football. They don't, so there is only a 1 in 4 or 5 chance of a side which does, winning the title.

If that is taken into account, then it's a big thumbs up for all out attack, seeing as we have won it 50% of the time.

This again is the issue with observations vs facts. Your observation that city won it twice with all out attack ignores the fact that we were incredibly defensive first and foremost for more than half of the first title win. Additionally, individual years can present anomalies - last year was most definitely anomalous being the 2nd highest goals conceded in the last 10 years, negated by being the 2nd highest goals scored, that is the exception, not the rule.

That's why any analysis of this nature has to be long term, you have to be able to see the trends happening rather than focusing on individual anomalies

No I'm not mentioning Mancini at all. Pellegrini has won 1 title in two seasons by attacking. 50% success rate vs 5 or 6 other equipped teams. So that's 8 or 10 or 12 possible title winning outcomes for the traditional style vs 2 for the attacking style.

So far the stats are hugely in favour of attacking. If we fail to win for the next two or 3 years & a boring team does, it starts to even out.

Fair enough on the Mancini point.....but a data set of 2 years (one of which is a proven anomaly in the context of the previous 10 years) along with ifs and buts means nothing really does it?

[Ted Hughes]

That's my point.

If there are no top sides in the Premier League who actually play such an attacking game, it's impossible to work out stats for it. The only evidence we have, so far, is two seasons of Pellegrini.

Maybe that Brazilian twit at Chelsea counts as one who failed, but then perhaps you would have to include an occasional season by rags when attacked & won it.

[Im_Spartacus]

If you go back 20 years Sparty a very different picture emerges. I just had a look through starting with 94/95 and it wasn't until I got to around 6 seasons in that the team with the best defence won the league, there were more examples of the best attack winning it.

Like I said above, it seems that since Jose and Rafa rocked up that the accent on defence has been more succesful.

A casual observation of goals scored and conceded is far too simplistic to identify causation and relationships, which is why the statistical method is needed.

I'll do the additional 12 years using the same methodology and will report back......what I expect to find, (bear in mind my post about dominance above) is that because the rags were completely dominant during much of the first 12 years of the premier league, they were able to score easier and worry about defence less.

What I suspect is the amount of TV money has increased, the ability of smaller clubs to compete on wages and the transfer market has grown, which has made the entire premier league more competetive as time has gone on.

Perhaps I'm completely wrong, i'll leave this post up either way.

[Ted Hughes]

There are so many factors. Ferguson was boring as fuck at one time & won nothing. Before that he tried attacking & won nothing. Then he found that managers here were so fucking stupid, that if he pretended to attack but actually sat back, they would come rushing out throwing everyone forward but still hoofing long balls; & he could rip them apart on the counter attack. Then he won everything.

[blues2win]

Keegan's Newcastle was perhaps the best example of all out attack; we'll score more than you. He came unstuck. One thought. What happens if both sides want to play counter attack only? You get boring sterile draws.

[Im_Spartacus]

If you go back 20 years Sparty a very different picture emerges. I just had a look through starting with 94/95 and it wasn't until I got to around 6 seasons in that the team with the best defence won the league, there were more examples of the best attack winning it.

Like I said above, it seems that since Jose and Rafa rocked up that the accent on defence has been more succesful.

As promised..........

Pre 2004/5
GF - 53%
GA - 23%
GD - 55%

Post 2004/5
GF - 38%
GA - 65%
GD - 9%

So the pre-Mourinho era as I suspected, champions were more successful by scoring goals than worrying about conceding them. However what is interesting is that the correlation between goals scored and conceded is 70% in the pre-mourinho era, compared to 57% since. What I take from that is that United and Arsenal, on the whole, played attacking football in their title seasons with a 'score more than you' philiosophy. Attack was arguably the best form of defence back then - which may explain why people retain a fondness for this approach - however this was an era, of total and complete dominance by two clubs, exactly as you have in Spain today.

The advent of Abramovich and Mansour to create competition at the top, the increase in TV money which has seen the mid table clubs increase their revenue massively in recent years has clearly seen the game change beyond recognition in England. This has resulted in mid-table clubs being able to acquire better players than ever would have been the case in the early days of the PL, meaning the league gains strength in depth, becomes more competetive and meaning top teams generally can't be cavalier in their approach to steamrollering smaller, far inferior teams, as the rags and arsenal used to do in the 90s.

The game today is totally different to what it used to be because of the increased quality throughout the league, and as a result league winners these days in England generally have to be less cavalier than was the case in the past in order to get over the finish line. An obvious anomaly was last year which was football like we've not seen in ages in the league, but ultimately, what saw us over the line was a considerably better defensive record than liverpool, given that we scored the same number of goals and therefore even in a single anomalous year, the argument stands that the defensive record is more important than the number of goals scored.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

If you go back 20 years Sparty a very different picture emerges. I just had a look through starting with 94/95 and it wasn't until I got to around 6 seasons in that the team with the best defence won the league, there were more examples of the best attack winning it.

Like I said above, it seems that since Jose and Rafa rocked up that the accent on defence has been more succesful.

As promised..........

Pre 2004/5
GF - 53%
GA - 23%
GD - 55%

Post 2004/5
GF - 38%
GA - 65%
GD - 9%

So the pre-Mourinho era as I suspected, champions were more successful by scoring goals than worrying about conceding them. However what is interesting is that the correlation between goals scored and conceded is 70% in the pre-mourinho era, compared to 57% since. What I take from that is that United and Arsenal, on the whole, played attacking football in their title seasons with a 'score more than you' philiosophy. Attack was arguably the best form of defence back then - which may explain why people retain a fondness for this approach - however this was an era, of total and complete dominance by two clubs, exactly as you have in Spain today.

The advent of Abramovich and Mansour to create competition at the top, the increase in TV money which has seen the mid table clubs increase their revenue massively in recent years has clearly seen the game change beyond recognition in England. This has resulted in mid-table clubs being able to acquire better players than ever would have been the case in the early days of the PL, meaning the league gains strength in depth, becomes more competetive and meaning top teams generally can't be cavalier in their approach to steamrollering smaller, far inferior teams, as the rags and arsenal used to do in the 90s.

The game today is totally different to what it used to be because of the increased quality throughout the league, and as a result league winners these days in England generally have to be less cavalier than was the case in the past in order to get over the finish line. An obvious anomaly was last year which was football like we've not seen in ages in the league, but ultimately, what saw us over the line was a considerably better defensive record than liverpool, given that we scored the same number of goals and therefore even in a single anomalous year, the argument stands that the defensive record is more important than the number of goals scored.

Thanks for that. If as you say the league in general has got stronger then why do the results in European Competition by English clubs not back this up?

[Foreverinbluedreams]

Keegan's Newcastle was perhaps the best example of all out attack; we'll score more than you. He came unstuck. One thought. What happens if both sides want to play counter attack only? You get boring sterile draws.

That's why it pains me to see Mourinho's style or an accent on defence being championed. If everyone took the Mourinho approach ( which more or less happened the last time he was in a England ) then the game becomes increasingly boring.

[Im_Spartacus]

If you go back 20 years Sparty a very different picture emerges. I just had a look through starting with 94/95 and it wasn't until I got to around 6 seasons in that the team with the best defence won the league, there were more examples of the best attack winning it.

Like I said above, it seems that since Jose and Rafa rocked up that the accent on defence has been more succesful.

As promised..........

Pre 2004/5
GF - 53%
GA - 23%
GD - 55%

Post 2004/5
GF - 38%
GA - 65%
GD - 9%

So the pre-Mourinho era as I suspected, champions were more successful by scoring goals than worrying about conceding them. However what is interesting is that the correlation between goals scored and conceded is 70% in the pre-mourinho era, compared to 57% since. What I take from that is that United and Arsenal, on the whole, played attacking football in their title seasons with a 'score more than you' philiosophy. Attack was arguably the best form of defence back then - which may explain why people retain a fondness for this approach - however this was an era, of total and complete dominance by two clubs, exactly as you have in Spain today.

The advent of Abramovich and Mansour to create competition at the top, the increase in TV money which has seen the mid table clubs increase their revenue massively in recent years has clearly seen the game change beyond recognition in England. This has resulted in mid-table clubs being able to acquire better players than ever would have been the case in the early days of the PL, meaning the league gains strength in depth, becomes more competetive and meaning top teams generally can't be cavalier in their approach to steamrollering smaller, far inferior teams, as the rags and arsenal used to do in the 90s.

The game today is totally different to what it used to be because of the increased quality throughout the league, and as a result league winners these days in England generally have to be less cavalier than was the case in the past in order to get over the finish line. An obvious anomaly was last year which was football like we've not seen in ages in the league, but ultimately, what saw us over the line was a considerably better defensive record than liverpool, given that we scored the same number of goals and therefore even in a single anomalous year, the argument stands that the defensive record is more important than the number of goals scored.

Thanks for that. If as you say the league in general has got stronger then why do the results in European Competition by English clubs not back this up?

Suppose it depends on what you consider to be results, I think we've been in good shape recently

In the first era, English teams won 1 champions league, appearing in only 1 final.
In the second era english teams have won 3, and there was an English team in 7 of the last 10 finals

[Foreverinbluedreams]

If you go back 20 years Sparty a very different picture emerges. I just had a look through starting with 94/95 and it wasn't until I got to around 6 seasons in that the team with the best defence won the league, there were more examples of the best attack winning it.

Like I said above, it seems that since Jose and Rafa rocked up that the accent on defence has been more succesful.

As promised..........

Pre 2004/5
GF - 53%
GA - 23%
GD - 55%

Post 2004/5
GF - 38%
GA - 65%
GD - 9%

So the pre-Mourinho era as I suspected, champions were more successful by scoring goals than worrying about conceding them. However what is interesting is that the correlation between goals scored and conceded is 70% in the pre-mourinho era, compared to 57% since. What I take from that is that United and Arsenal, on the whole, played attacking football in their title seasons with a 'score more than you' philiosophy. Attack was arguably the best form of defence back then - which may explain why people retain a fondness for this approach - however this was an era, of total and complete dominance by two clubs, exactly as you have in Spain today.

The advent of Abramovich and Mansour to create competition at the top, the increase in TV money which has seen the mid table clubs increase their revenue massively in recent years has clearly seen the game change beyond recognition in England. This has resulted in mid-table clubs being able to acquire better players than ever would have been the case in the early days of the PL, meaning the league gains strength in depth, becomes more competetive and meaning top teams generally can't be cavalier in their approach to steamrollering smaller, far inferior teams, as the rags and arsenal used to do in the 90s.

The game today is totally different to what it used to be because of the increased quality throughout the league, and as a result league winners these days in England generally have to be less cavalier than was the case in the past in order to get over the finish line. An obvious anomaly was last year which was football like we've not seen in ages in the league, but ultimately, what saw us over the line was a considerably better defensive record than liverpool, given that we scored the same number of goals and therefore even in a single anomalous year, the argument stands that the defensive record is more important than the number of goals scored.

Thanks for that. If as you say the league in general has got stronger then why do the results in European Competition by English clubs not back this up?

Suppose it depends on what you consider to be results, I think we've been in good shape recently

In the first era, English teams won 1 champions league, appearing in only 1 final.
In the second era english teams have won 3, and there was an English team in 7 of the last 10 finals

By results I mean coefficient as that is the best indicator for the league as a whole. We are currently on the slide.

[blues2win]

A couple of changes to encourage attacking football. First, use goals scored rather than goal difference to sort out points ties. Second, no points for 0-0 draws. If you don't score you don't deserve a point. It would mean every away team would know they had to score to get something. Of course it doesn't stop a team scoring early and sitting on it but there's a limit to which the rules can change things. At the end of the day very technical games with quality teams cancelling each other out makes commentators drool but bores fans rigid. If that's the future of the game then the game's in trouble. People are not going to pay higher and higher FFP driven ticket prices unless they get entertained.

[Im_Spartacus]

As promised..........

Pre 2004/5
GF - 53%
GA - 23%
GD - 55%

Post 2004/5
GF - 38%
GA - 65%
GD - 9%

So the pre-Mourinho era as I suspected, champions were more successful by scoring goals than worrying about conceding them. However what is interesting is that the correlation between goals scored and conceded is 70% in the pre-mourinho era, compared to 57% since. What I take from that is that United and Arsenal, on the whole, played attacking football in their title seasons with a 'score more than you' philiosophy. Attack was arguably the best form of defence back then - which may explain why people retain a fondness for this approach - however this was an era, of total and complete dominance by two clubs, exactly as you have in Spain today.

The advent of Abramovich and Mansour to create competition at the top, the increase in TV money which has seen the mid table clubs increase their revenue massively in recent years has clearly seen the game change beyond recognition in England. This has resulted in mid-table clubs being able to acquire better players than ever would have been the case in the early days of the PL, meaning the league gains strength in depth, becomes more competetive and meaning top teams generally can't be cavalier in their approach to steamrollering smaller, far inferior teams, as the rags and arsenal used to do in the 90s.

The game today is totally different to what it used to be because of the increased quality throughout the league, and as a result league winners these days in England generally have to be less cavalier than was the case in the past in order to get over the finish line. An obvious anomaly was last year which was football like we've not seen in ages in the league, but ultimately, what saw us over the line was a considerably better defensive record than liverpool, given that we scored the same number of goals and therefore even in a single anomalous year, the argument stands that the defensive record is more important than the number of goals scored.

Thanks for that. If as you say the league in general has got stronger then why do the results in European Competition by English clubs not back this up?

Suppose it depends on what you consider to be results, I think we've been in good shape recently

In the first era, English teams won 1 champions league, appearing in only 1 final.
In the second era english teams have won 3, and there was an English team in 7 of the last 10 finals

By results I mean coefficient as that is the best indicator for the league as a whole. We are currently on the slide.

Our coefficient falling is a direct consequence of improved competition in the domestic league which has seen liverpool out of the champions league for several years (replaced by us), then the biggest drop was rags being pushed out this year.

This could go one of two ways from here:

1: In time, as United build back their coefficient by getting back in the CL and we continue to build ours by qualifying from the group stage, we will find that we start to recover the points we lost in recent years with Liverpool's demise and United's poor performance last year.

2: Or if competition for top 4 gets stronger, as other teams qualify for the CL, our coefficient becomes diluted as clubs like Chelsea, United and Arsenal with big points at stake will drop off the calculation.

It appears that the strength in depth of the national league is inversely proportional to the coefficient....someone like Southampton qualifying for the CL would have been fucking disastrous for our coefficient, possibly even resulting in us losing a place, hence why both the FA and Uefa have effectively stopped teams like Southampton ever qualifying through FFP because they can't build the strength in depth required for a 4th place finish.