Defence or Attack - which is most important

[Mikhail Chigorin]

At the end of the day, I feel, albeit somewhat simplistically, that all questions of attack and defence, as ensconced in this thread, could be mirrored in City's performances this season.

If we ask the question as to why, statistically speaking, our title defence has been so (relatively) disappointing, I'd have to say that it's not because of the number of goals we've conceded, but because of the number of goals we haven't scored.

Irrespective of the reasons for this (loss of form of key players, injuries, not replacing Negredo etc), if we'd scored another twenty or more goals this season, the title run in would have had a markedly different complexion.

Apologies Sparty but I honestly believe that it's goals scored that win matches (and titles) and that defensive considerations are only of secondary importance after this.

[Ted Hughes]

Sorry Ted, but you're missing the point so spectacularly, I'm not wasting my time trying to explain it to you again.

As to your assertion that 'most of the time the team who scores the most wins', the percentage of times in the last 10 seasons that a title winner scores the most goals, is identical to the percentage of times a team concedes the least. (around 55%)

At least if you're going to accuse someone of bringing only 1 side of a debate to the table, don't do the fucking same yourself.

You can't win a fucking game of football, without scoring ffs ! It's that simple.

The team who wins tends to be the one who scores the most. So therefore any attempt to PROVE this wrong is bollocks.

There is no proof, your stats are nonsense. Just stick to opinion instead of thinking you have found the holy fucking grail, that's what I'm pointing out. I'm not claiming that it proves attacking football is the answer, I'm claiming it proves there is insufficient data.

It is all down to OPINION not a proven science.

Did Ted just say statistical analysis aren't a proven science?

Well end of, lock the thread, we have a winner.

No I said the discussion of defence vs attack cannot be proven one way or the other by the statistics available. They are not directly relevant to the question posed in the op.

It's impossible to tell a set of footballers to go out & have a .3267 difference between goals scored & goals conceded.

[Slim]

At the end of the day, I feel, albeit somewhat simplistically, that all questions of attack and defence, as ensconced in this thread, could be mirrored in City's performances this season.

If we ask the question as to why, statistically speaking, our title defence has been so (relatively) disappointing, I'd have to say that it's not because of the number of goals we've conceded, but because of the number of goals we haven't scored.

Irrespective of the reasons for this (loss of form of key players, injuries, not replacing Negredo etc), if we'd scored another twenty or more goals this season, the title run in would have had a markedly different complexion.

Apologies Sparty but I honestly believe that it's goals scored that win matches (and titles) and that defensive considerations are only of secondary importance after this.

Chelsea F:69
City F:71

City have only failed to score in 3 matches this season, whereas they have dropped points in 10 matches in which they've scored (6D 4L).

[Ted Hughes]

At the end of the day, I feel, albeit somewhat simplistically, that all questions of attack and defence, as ensconced in this thread, could be mirrored in City's performances this season.

If we ask the question as to why, statistically speaking, our title defence has been so (relatively) disappointing, I'd have to say that it's not because of the number of goals we've conceded, but because of the number of goals we haven't scored.

Irrespective of the reasons for this (loss of form of key players, injuries, not replacing Negredo etc), if we'd scored another twenty or more goals this season, the title run in would have had a markedly different complexion.

Apologies Sparty but I honestly believe that it's goals scored that win matches (and titles) and that defensive considerations are only of secondary importance after this.

This surely is the discussion ? Whether a different approach is needed to tighten up the defence & be more cautious, thus often score less but perhaps succeed being a Chelsea type side, or whether we can bring in the players to blow teams away.

There are arguments for both.

[Ted Hughes]

At the end of the day, I feel, albeit somewhat simplistically, that all questions of attack and defence, as ensconced in this thread, could be mirrored in City's performances this season.

If we ask the question as to why, statistically speaking, our title defence has been so (relatively) disappointing, I'd have to say that it's not because of the number of goals we've conceded, but because of the number of goals we haven't scored.

Irrespective of the reasons for this (loss of form of key players, injuries, not replacing Negredo etc), if we'd scored another twenty or more goals this season, the title run in would have had a markedly different complexion.

Apologies Sparty but I honestly believe that it's goals scored that win matches (and titles) and that defensive considerations are only of secondary importance after this.

Chelsea F:69
City F:71

City have only failed to score in 3 matches this season, whereas they have dropped points in 10 matches in which they've scored (6D 4L).

So if we'd scored more goals then ?

[Ted Hughes]

That stat re City's goalscoring compared to Chelsea is very relevant imo. If we are going to play attacking football, & rely on it, we need to be finishing most seasons having scored a lot more goals than Chelsea.

Otherwise they will finish above us. No point knocking the ball around nicely & not putting it in the net. Also we need to bury teams like Burnley, not leave them with a sniff of getting back in or even winning.

[Slim]

Sorry Ted, but you're missing the point so spectacularly, I'm not wasting my time trying to explain it to you again.

As to your assertion that 'most of the time the team who scores the most wins', the percentage of times in the last 10 seasons that a title winner scores the most goals, is identical to the percentage of times a team concedes the least. (around 55%)

At least if you're going to accuse someone of bringing only 1 side of a debate to the table, don't do the fucking same yourself.

You can't win a fucking game of football, without scoring ffs ! It's that simple.

The team who wins tends to be the one who scores the most. So therefore any attempt to PROVE this wrong is bollocks.

There is no proof, your stats are nonsense. Just stick to opinion instead of thinking you have found the holy fucking grail, that's what I'm pointing out. I'm not claiming that it proves attacking football is the answer, I'm claiming it proves there is insufficient data.

It is all down to OPINION not a proven science.

Did Ted just say statistical analysis aren't a proven science?

Well end of, lock the thread, we have a winner.

No I said the discussion of defence vs attack cannot be proven one way or the other by the statistics available. They are not directly relevant to the question posed in the op.

It's impossible to tell a set of footballers to go out & have a .3267 difference between goals scored & goals conceded.

I agree with that, football is a lot harder than baseball to isolate an individual stat and play players because of that.(Moneyball reference for those that didn't get it) You can't look at Aguero and say "well that player scores 20 goals a season, that's 20 in the bank, how many do we need for the title again?" But they are indicators for how a team should set out. Should we be more defensively minded? Well I got sick of saying "three man midfield, screen the fucking defence" this season because anyone who'd been watching football for longer than 5 minutes and wasn't a complete moron would know the reason our centrehalves look shit is because they have zero cover, roaming fullbacks and a 2 man midfield in front of them covering half the pitch. Not sure who I'm referring to there, (Can't Arseholes Read Lineups?) It's also why we've leaked goals like we hit an iceberg and why, I believe, we lost the title. Not saying attacking isn't important, but when we're defended against deep and narrow, we needed width we didn't have and we don't need another body drawing midfielders into defense. What worked last season would not have worked this season and the Summer transfer window was still open when that should have been realised.

[Slim]

At the end of the day, I feel, albeit somewhat simplistically, that all questions of attack and defence, as ensconced in this thread, could be mirrored in City's performances this season.

If we ask the question as to why, statistically speaking, our title defence has been so (relatively) disappointing, I'd have to say that it's not because of the number of goals we've conceded, but because of the number of goals we haven't scored.

Irrespective of the reasons for this (loss of form of key players, injuries, not replacing Negredo etc), if we'd scored another twenty or more goals this season, the title run in would have had a markedly different complexion.

Apologies Sparty but I honestly believe that it's goals scored that win matches (and titles) and that defensive considerations are only of secondary importance after this.

Chelsea F:69
City F:71

City have only failed to score in 3 matches this season, whereas they have dropped points in 10 matches in which they've scored (6D 4L).

So if we'd scored more goals then ?

If we'd have scored one more goal in each of our matches, we'd have 19 more points.
If we'd conceded one goal less in each of our matches, we'd have 18 more points.

That's a pretty good outcome actually.

[Wonderwall]

At the end of the day, I feel, albeit somewhat simplistically, that all questions of attack and defence, as ensconced in this thread, could be mirrored in City's performances this season.

If we ask the question as to why, statistically speaking, our title defence has been so (relatively) disappointing, I'd have to say that it's not because of the number of goals we've conceded, but because of the number of goals we haven't scored.

Irrespective of the reasons for this (loss of form of key players, injuries, not replacing Negredo etc), if we'd scored another twenty or more goals this season, the title run in would have had a markedly different complexion.

Apologies Sparty but I honestly believe that it's goals scored that win matches (and titles) and that defensive considerations are only of secondary importance after this.

Chelsea F:69
City F:71

City have only failed to score in 3 matches this season, whereas they have dropped points in 10 matches in which they've scored (6D 4L).

So if we'd scored more goals then ?

If we'd have scored one more goal in each of our matches, we'd have 19 more points.
If we'd conceded one goal less in each of our matches, we'd have 18 more points.

That's a pretty good outcome actually.

Have you just gone and blown this whole defence is best argument to pieces?

[Ted Hughes]

We need more energy imo. Whatever the formation. We are so lacking that we need 4 players to do the job Keane & Ince for example could do after a night on the piss.

But also we need the back 4 to defend better. If we are an attacking team, they are going to be exposed & have to rescue stuff. We have conceded a lot of goals when they have all been in place & just basically been shit. Chelsea's back 4 have defended the same situations plenty of times & on the whole done it much better.

[Wonderwall]

Good job its not an exact science isnt it
4-4-2
4-5-1
4-3-3
4-6-0
5-3-2
5-4-1
5-5-0
3-4-3
3-5-2
3-6-1
4-1-4-1
4-2-3-1
4-2-2-2
4-3-2-1

then there are:
strategies for dealing with individual opposition players,
strategies for different opposition teams,
strategies for operating in certain areas of the pitch,
strategies for what we do when in possession and what we do when we dont have the ball,
strategies for your own game plan for certain players who are on your team,
strategies for playing at home
strategies for playing away

then there are the gamefactors thrown in during match play:
Injuries
sendings off
substitutions
poor officiating
utility players

Its a pretty simple game innit

[Ted Hughes]

Tbh re the '1 more goal in each of our matches' thing above, that's an example of where the stats go pear shaped.

I'm talking about Negredo gets a hat trick in 5 mins at home to Burnley & we're 5 up by half time. Then Aguero does it in the return fixture. That's last season's City, killing teams off by scoring.

There's 5 points. It's not unreasonable for that to happen if we go back to the way we were playing 1st half last season & the amount of ball we had this season v Burnley. We should have ripped them to pieces both games. Then if we let 2 in, it doesn't matter. But chances are they gave up anyway.

We have been slow witted, lethargic & uninspired. That's why we are where we are.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

I think our biggest failing this season is not defending from the front. I'd love to see stats on turnover of possesion in the oppo half compared to last season. If you're going to play an attacking style then you're naturally going to leave yourself exposed to the counter, you counter that yourself by aggressive pressing in the oppo's half. We either couldn't be bothered to do that enough this season or we hadn't got the legs to do it.

Nothing really to do with the question posed but I thought I'd share that anyway.

[Im_Spartacus]

At the end of the day, I feel, albeit somewhat simplistically, that all questions of attack and defence, as ensconced in this thread, could be mirrored in City's performances this season.

If we ask the question as to why, statistically speaking, our title defence has been so (relatively) disappointing, I'd have to say that it's not because of the number of goals we've conceded, but because of the number of goals we haven't scored.

Irrespective of the reasons for this (loss of form of key players, injuries, not replacing Negredo etc), if we'd scored another twenty or more goals this season, the title run in would have had a markedly different complexion.

Apologies Sparty but I honestly believe that it's goals scored that win matches (and titles) and that defensive considerations are only of secondary importance after this.

Arguably, we could have won the league had we scored 10 more in the right games, or conceded 10 less in the right games, and if my auntie had a dick she'd be my uncle - we just don't know! The minute the argument changes to an after the fact reflection on a particular season, you can't say with any more certainty than I can, that either scoring more or conceding less would have been more likely to win us more points. But long term, the answer is clear, the most effective strategy would have been to concede less.

It's interesting to note than before Mourinho, Ferguson's average goals tally in title winning seasons was f79 / a37, in order to see off Mourinho, Ferguson's teams won 3 consecutive titles where their goals record went to f77 / a24. In other words, it appears that Ferguson responded to Mourinho's 2 titles not by scoring more goals, but by sorting his defence out, if people think that was a coincidence, fair enough, we will never know, but it's a persuasive argument that Ferguson recognised that the period of 2 team dominance had come to an end, and saw the benefit of conceding less, even if it meant scoring less.

So if you were a manager in the next few years, up against Mourinho, would you just carry on going balls out scoring loads but losing or drawing stupid games like this season, or would you respect your opponent who has a talent for grinding out results (and thus points), by tightening the defence up? Your job depends on getting the answer right!

[Ted Hughes]

I think our biggest failing this season is not defending from the front. I'd love to see stats on turnover of possesion in the oppo half compared to last season. If you're going to play an attacking style then you're naturally going to leave yourself exposed to the counter, you counter that yourself by aggressive pressing in the oppo's half. We either couldn't be bothered to do that enough this season or we hadn't got the legs to do it.

Nothing really to do with the question posed but I thought I'd share that anyway.

We can't play this way unless we start doing that properly. One or the other has to change. I think the lack of bite & energy from mids & fullbacks contributes to that though. If Aguero presses then turns round & the mids are 30 yards away he waves his arms shouts & stops doing it. I've seen him do it.

[Wonderwall]

I think our biggest failing this season is not defending from the front. I'd love to see stats on turnover of possesion in the oppo half compared to last season. If you're going to play an attacking style then you're naturally going to leave yourself exposed to the counter, you counter that yourself by aggressive pressing in the oppo's half. We either couldn't be bothered to do that enough this season or we hadn't got the legs to do it.

Nothing really to do with the question posed but I thought I'd share that anyway.

We can't play this way unless we start doing that properly. One or the other has to change. I think the lack of bite & energy from mids & fullbacks contributes to that though. If Aguero presses then turns round & the mids are 30 yards away he waves his arms shouts & stops doing it. I've seen him do it.

It doesn't help when a misplaced pass gives away possession, but instead of going hell for leather to regain possession, Aguero and Silva stand have a full on argument about who was at fault. Or when Silva/Yaya gets dumped on their arse and should have a free kick, but the ref doesn't give it so they just sit there throwing their arms up in disgust and protest instead of getting on with it and helping their team mates.

This type of attitude needs to change. Since we are in cliché mode in this thread, we should "Play to the whistle"

[Slim]

At the end of the day, I feel, albeit somewhat simplistically, that all questions of attack and defence, as ensconced in this thread, could be mirrored in City's performances this season.

If we ask the question as to why, statistically speaking, our title defence has been so (relatively) disappointing, I'd have to say that it's not because of the number of goals we've conceded, but because of the number of goals we haven't scored.

Irrespective of the reasons for this (loss of form of key players, injuries, not replacing Negredo etc), if we'd scored another twenty or more goals this season, the title run in would have had a markedly different complexion.

Apologies Sparty but I honestly believe that it's goals scored that win matches (and titles) and that defensive considerations are only of secondary importance after this.

Chelsea F:69
City F:71

City have only failed to score in 3 matches this season, whereas they have dropped points in 10 matches in which they've scored (6D 4L).

So if we'd scored more goals then ?

If we'd have scored one more goal in each of our matches, we'd have 19 more points.
If we'd conceded one goal less in each of our matches, we'd have 18 more points.

That's a pretty good outcome actually.

Have you just gone and blown this whole defence is best argument to pieces?

I don't think statistics that simple can explain the whole situation. I am sure someone somewhere has a complex algorithm that they believe does. But in the end like Ted and others have said, get more points than everyone else, win title.

Why hasn't squad depth been brought up yet? There is a reason Soton fell away, a reason in recent times why WHU, Hull and Newcastle have all fell away in the second half of the season and that I believe to be a hugely overriding factor. How does one quantify squad depth? Value on players sitting on the bench?

[Im_Spartacus]

I think our biggest failing this season is not defending from the front. I'd love to see stats on turnover of possesion in the oppo half compared to last season. If you're going to play an attacking style then you're naturally going to leave yourself exposed to the counter, you counter that yourself by aggressive pressing in the oppo's half. We either couldn't be bothered to do that enough this season or we hadn't got the legs to do it.

Nothing really to do with the question posed but I thought I'd share that anyway.

We can't play this way unless we start doing that properly. One or the other has to change. I think the lack of bite & energy from mids & fullbacks contributes to that though. If Aguero presses then turns round & the mids are 30 yards away he waves his arms shouts & stops doing it. I've seen him do it.

Where I think Mourinho has it right this season, is by having goalscoring defenders on the pitch, their regular 4 this year I believe have chipped in more than 20 goals. By doing this principally at set pieces, it means that his defensive system doesn't get stretched - wheras it would if he tried to achieve these goals from open play. Arguably, if we'd had that sort of contribution from defenders this year, then I think we'd have been in good shape, as I reckon this is the one scenario where scoring more goals doesn't necessarily result in conceding more.

If Mourinho didn't have the defenders chipping in, he'd be fucked but as we play an attacking game and score goals anyway, it would seem like a no brainer to focus on increasing our goals scored by say 10 a year without changing our entire style of play and risking conceding more.

This is one scenario where pellegrini could buck the trend by grabbing a few 'free' goals.

[Slim]

Games in which one extra goal scored/conceded would have made a difference:12
Games in which we won by 2 or more goals 14

This one doesn't focus so much on attack or defence but a better distribution of those 14 games' goals into other games means we could have still scored 71 and been clear leaders in the league.(As we know from the previous stat, defensively or offensively, was 18 or 19 points respectively)

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Nobody ever fell in love with football because of statistics, or defensive football (apart from Alan Hansen). Beautiful football is to do with possibilities opened up through attacking play. Mourinho's negative football never put a bum on a seat. In the end football would die if everyone played his kind of football, regardless of how successful it was.