Statman Jon

Keeper no chance

Mon, 17 Sep 2012 17:28:33 -0400

Every man has their breaking point and when it comes to the standard of co-commentary in football I’ve reached mine.

I tolerated “Keeper no chance” for a while but this season it’s just become ridiculous. It’s being said after every goal, regardless of how savable it actually was. There are many culprits, but here’s a selection of a few recent standouts:

Andy Hinchcliffe came out with four “Keeper no chance” utterances in the Bolton v Nottingham Forest game. The game finished 2-2, so the goalkeepers didn’t stand a chance of saving any of them, apparently. I’ve seen those goals and can tell you that they definitely did. Even if the keeper didn’t have a chance (it does happen from time to time) try and phrase it differently. Using the same phrase, perhaps with an “absolutely” thrown in, is repetitive and dull. In fact, at times it resembles a computer game. As we know, commentary on football computer games is terrible. Always has been.

Alan Hansen, a pundit rather than a co-commentator, said a shot that went in off the keeper’s knee left him with “no chance”. I personally think he could’ve stuck his knee out an extra inch and saved it. Had that happened, you can be sure the striker, having hit it straight at the keeper “should’ve done better”.

Matt Le Tissier called three goals in the Everton v Newcastle as “keeper no chance”. This is included, not because the shots were savable (they were) but because it’s just symptomatic of a co-commentator with nothing to say. If you have nothing to say, simply don’t say anything. Let the pictures do the talking. Or you can just say “It’s a fantastic strike, keeper no chance” for every single goal and hope nobody notices.

Big Ron and Andy Gray did stints for ITV and Sky for years and left in controversial circumstances. While they weren’t perfect their departures left a vacuum that both channels have failed to fill. Sky have a rotating cast these days, symptomatic of a station that knows they don’t have anyone good enough to permanently make the job their own. If you’re an ex-footballer, or even a current one, and Sky haven’t given you a try in the last 2 seasons you’re probably feeling a little bit left out.

Gary Neville is the best of those who’ve tried recently, but his voice gets out of control during exciting moments. He’s more suited to the calmer climes of studio analysis for this reason. So who is out there that could make it as a decent co-commentator?

In short, there doesn’t appear to be anyone. If that’s the case, why does there have to be someone? Why can’t we just go back to the days of one commentator?

Kenneth Wolstenholme, David Coleman, John Motson, Barry Davies and others coped on their own for many years. Watch some highlights of football from the 1970’s or earlier and ask yourself if your enjoyment of the game would be heightened with a co-commentator chipping in from time to time. Of all the greatest and most famous bits of football commentary over the years, how many came from co-commentators? Andy Gray and Gary Neville have a Champions League based orgasm each, but there’s not much else.

Match Of The Day copes with one commentator. Always has. I hope it always does. Having Martin Keown or Mark Lawrenson describing the goals is rightly deemed as unnecessary in highlights. So why do we need them in full games then? Is it because they can fill the dead bits of games with interesting tactical insights? That’s what it’s supposed to be. Sadly, this rarely happens. They don’t pick out tactical changes and subtle variations that the casual fan can’t see. In Lawrenson’s case, he just seems bored and unimpressed by everything he watches.

The standard of co-commentary isn’t as bad in other sports. (In fact, football on the radio is actually ok most of the time.) When you consider how much preparation the guys in American Football put in it’s embarrassing how little effort those involved in football give. Will Matt Le Tissier have spoken to both managers and key players before this game? Will he have watched all their recent games in an effort to understand their tactics and tendencies? Of course not. Like everyone else I’m sure he just turns up on the night and talks. It’s unprofessional.

Lead commentators do their research. They know the stats, stories and are prepared for any circumstances. Football co-commentators don’t seem to do any of this. If they do, it doesn’t show and they certainly don’t reference it.

I don’t think we’ll ever see a return to live football matches with just one commentator. It’s more likely that we’ll end up with three. It sort of worked when they tried it in the NFL and Channel 9 do a decent job of this on Australian cricket. But getting it to work in British football or going back to the main commentator working alone? In the words of the co-commentators themselves…

“Absolutely no chance.”

GB Women's Football

Wed, 01 Aug 2012 06:06:13 -0400

I was part of the record crowd at Wembley last night to see Great Britain’s Women defeat Brazil 1-0 in the group stages of the Olympic Football tournament. I saw their warm up match and 2 previous group games on TV, as I have with most of England’s games over the years, but seeing them in person gave me a new appreciation of just how good they are to watch.

Joe DiMaggio said that there might be a kid in the crowd who is seeing you for the first time and they deserve to see your best. Plenty at Wembley would’ve been seeing this team for the first time and they saw an all-round team performance to make the nation proud. They also saw what those of us who have followed this group of girls for a while knew - they’re good. Like, really good.

The GB team is basically England plus Kim Little (Scotland). She’s slotted into the position usually played by Ellen White, Fara Williams or Rachel Yankee, depending on how coach Hope Powell is feeling.

Powell’s tactics have been spot on so far and she’s got a well balanced and hard working team. The 4 forward players link so well together and all bring different things to the team. Kelly Smith leads the line with guile, making clever runs and harassing defenders. Karen Carney has the touch, vision, trickery and delivery to create chances. Eniola Aluko is road runner - her speed can be devastating and it prevents the opposition defending too high up the pitch. Kim Little plays in the hole picking up the bits and pieces and linking play. It’s Aluko’s speed and Smith’s movement that gives her the space.

Jill Scott and Anita Asante are the deep lying midfielders in the 4-2-3-1 but don’t be fooled by that description. They both get forward regularly and effectively. Their main role is to protect the back line and they do it well but if you switch off they will join the attack and can cause problems. At times yesterday Scott was the furthest GB player forward, winning knock downs and flick-ons, moments later she was on the edge of her 18 yard box blocking a shot. Asante made a great recovery run late in the 2nd half. More than 50 meters of sprinting to block a cross. I don’t understand how those two don’t get tired.

Steph Houghton has been a goal scoring sensation so I can’t be uspet that Rachel Unitt hasn’t got a place in the squad. She’s taken all her goals really well. As a right footer at left back she doesn’t look out of place at all but she can’t provide the kind of overlap that Alex Scott can. Carney usually draws the attention of 2 or 3 players but can still slide the pass through to Scott who you can tell has a real desire to get forward. Some full backs look lost when they’re over the halfway line. Not Alex.

Casey Stoney and Sophie Bradley at the back are a solid pair. So solid that you don’t really miss having Faye White around. Karen Bardsley has looked solid and safe all tournament - she hasn’t conceded goal and has made some very good saves.

The thing is, I sort of knew all this already. I’ve seen the on TV lots of times but in person, with the huge crowd behind them I really got to see why I liked them so much. There’s a passion in the team that doesn’t come across on TV. They play the game the way I want them to play - attacking, inventive, hard working. They look like they enjoy being out there. There’s no blame if things go wrong, it’s a supportive group that works together for the greater good.

With a quarter final against Canada coming up on Friday there’s a very good chance these girls can get a medal. Get on the bandwagon now. Despite record interest, seats are still available. You’re not being a glory hunter either. It’s not like suddenly deciding to cheer on the England men’s and women’s cricket teams who’ve swept all before them on the last few years. England’s women footballers have won nothing in recent years. They lost the European Championship Final 6-2 to Germany in 2009 and that’s as good as it’s got. The World Cups have been a disappointment. Don’t let that worry you. This is the Olympics and Great Britain, not England, different rules apply.

People might talk about the future of the women’s game in this country. They’ll mention the Superleague and more TV coverage and professionalism and many other things. Don’t worry about all that. It’s a debate for another day. Just watch the games, cheer on the girls and know that win or lose, you’ll see a performance to be proud of.

Spain are as exciting to watch as...

Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:23:27 -0400

There’s some talk around this morning that Spain might be boring. Some are questioning whether it’s their style of play or the fact that they are just winning everything. Let’s take a look at both of those arguments and try and determine how exciting it is to watch them play.

Uncertainty of result is important in sport. We watch a non-league team take on a Premier League giant just on the off chance they might just win it. We like to cheer for an underdog but very rarely do we get the upset we crave. Still, it’s the potential we like. When a team/individual dominates so completely that the upset just doesn’t seem possible then sport can be dull. There are fewer reasons to watch when you know what the result is going to be.

When Steve Davis dominated snooker in the 1980s he was called boring. His ruthless, tactical style wasn’t easy on the eye at times and the inevitable outcome of his matches didn’t make for great viewing. Perhaps that’s why when things did start to go wrong in 1985 (losing 18-17 from 8-0 up) it was so memorable.

Stephen Hendry took charge of the game throughout the 1990s. Some of his unpopularity came because he kept preventing Jimmy White from winning. He didn’t play as quickly as White but his breakbuilding was the best we’ve ever seen. He racked up century breaks at a rate never seen before. It was snooker that wasn’t fully appreciated at the time. Only now he has retired do we realise that we might never see a player come along and modernise, even redefine the game in the way he did.

Spain have won the last two major international tournaments and it could well be a record third by the end of today, but they aren’t a very attacking team. They keep possession better than any team in history but they don’t score many goals. Through not giving the ball away they have an exceptional defensive record - 0 goals conceded in the knockout rounds of the last 3 tournaments.

Goals make games more exciting. It’s hard to argue against that. When choosing the shortlist of the Premier League’s most exciting games the fewest goals across the 10 games was 5. There were games finishing 4-3, 4-4, 5-3, 8-2 and 7-4. High scoring games are more exciting than low scoring games as a general rule.

Spain’s knockout round results since 2008 have been 0-0, 3-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 2-0, 0-0. They average just 1 goal scored every 90 minutes.

The Germans, meanwhile, bang the goals in. Here’s their run of knockout round results in the last three tournaments: 3-2, 3-2, 0-1, 4-1, 4-0, 0-1, 4-2, 1-2. That’s 2.35 goals per 90 minutes scored. (If you include their 3rd place playoff win - 3-2 v Uruguay - the average goes up even more.) When they haven’t got the goals (v Spain twice and Italy) they’ve been eliminated. Still, Germany games feature 3.9 goals per 90 minutes, Spain games 1.0 goals. Spain might be a better team, but Germany are certainly more exciting to watch.

But does this make Spain dull? The way they keep the ball is skilful and it can be a joy to watch them pass the ball out of trouble and through any defence. However, much of the time, they’re just going sideways and backwards. Keeping the ball and going nowhere isn’t fun to watch. If they’re creating loads of chances then they’re clearly missing them most of them because they don’t have the goals to show for it. If you’re missing a load of chances then you can’t be that good. One of the greatest teams of all time is rubbish in front of goal? Something’s not quite right about that.

Barcelona play in a similar style to Spain. They have many of the same players (Xavi, Iniesta, Pedro, Busquets, Fabregas etc) but Barcelona bang the goals in. Maybe that’s the effect of having Messi, but Barcelona play the same possesion style and manage to score loads of goals. Their games are very exciting because you’re seeing the best of passing football and lots of goals. If Spain scored as many as Barca do then there’d be no need for this discussion.

There have been successful and ‘boring’ teams in the past. Greece relied on great defence and taking their chances to win Euro 2004. They won the knockout games 1-0, 1-0 and 1-0. They were seen as lucky, effective, defensive, boring and many other things besides. Essentially, they had the same philosophy as Spain. Greece kept everything tight at the back, nicked a goal and then hung on. Spain don’t defend in numbers, they do it by not letting the opposition have the ball. But they do play to create a chance, take it and then not give the ball, or anything, away. Spain’s passing is prettier to watch, but it doesn’t score them any more goals than Greece’s method back then.

Greece played like Steve Davis. A strong tactical game would frustrate opponents, not allow them any clear chances and when they got in themselves, they’d get enough to win. You knew what their plans were, but their tactical skills were so strong they couldn’t be beaten.

Spain play like Stephen Hendry. He got in amongst the balls and put together a frame winning break. You never got a chance to get to the table yourself.

Hendry’s the better player of the two. He’s the best of all time, in fact. But the fans love Jimmy White, Alex Higgins, Ronnie O’Sullivan more. They are the players the fans want to see. Spain could win 3 major tournaments in a row tonight and become the most successful international team ever. Nations will copy their infrastructure. People will say they changed the game. They’ll talk about a new era, a modernisation of the game.

But ask the fans who they want to watch, ask them who excites them and they’ll say White, Higgins, O’Sullivan. Hendry and Davis might have been better, but they weren’t as much fun to watch.

Are Spain boring? No. Are they the best ever? Perhaps.

So, in answer to the initial question, Spain are as exciting to watch as Stephen Hendry.

Were Portugal right to let Ronaldo take the 5th kick?

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:47:13 -0400

The pundits on TV didn’t seem to think this was a good idea. One of their best penalty takers never got the chance to step forward and help the team. Strangely, I don’t recall criticism of Portugal or Ronaldo when he took 5^th and scored the winner against England in the 2006 World Cup. Nobody said Chelsea got it wrong by letting Drogba go 5^thin the Champions League Final last month. This is just another case of pundits waiting until the outcome before deciding what their opinion is.

So, where should Ronaldo have gone in the order?

Before starting to look through the numbers I had no idea what to expect. I didn’t really have a major bias on this issue either, so there’s no case for me picking and choosing the data to suit my preconceived ideas.

Due to the limits of time I looked at the 37 penalty shootouts that have taken place in World Cups and European Championships because this information is readily available online. Champions League data is out there too and if I get chance I will add this into the mix. Until then, let’s keep the focus on the major international competitions.

In these shootouts there have been 361 kicks taken and 271 scored – 75%. (I’ve not had chance to see if this percentage has changed in recent years since keepers can now move along their line before the kick is taken. Logically, more kicks should now be saved.)

Of the 91 misses here’s how they breakdown by round:

1^st: 16 missed, 58 scored (22%, 78%)
2^nd: 16 missed, 58 scored (22%, 78%)
3^rd: 16 missed, 58 scored (22%, 78%)
4^th: 27 missed, 44 scored (38%, 62%)
5^th: 8 missed, 38 scored (17%, 83%)
6^th: 5 missed, 9 scored (36%, 64%)
7^th: 1 missed, 3 scored (25%, 75%)
8^th: 0 missed, 2 scored (0%, 100%)
9^th: 1 missed, 1 scored (50%, 50%)

The 4^th kick of a shootout is the one that’s most commonly missed. Percentage wise there’s not much difference between rounds 1, 2, 3 and 5. The sample size is small for rounds 6-9 as not many shootouts go to extras (7 out of 37 – 19%).

Only 3 teams never got to take their 4^th kicks; Mexico lost 4-1 to Germany, Switzerland lost 3-0 to Ukraine and Turkey won 3-1 against Czech Republic.

The above table covers kicks taken and missed by both the winning and losing teams. How does it look when we separate them?

Winning teams

1^st: 5 missed, 32 scored (14%, 86%)
2^nd: 4 missed, 33 scored (11%, 89%)
3^rd: 5 missed, 32 scored (14%, 86%)
4^th: 6 missed, 30 scored (17%, 83%)
5^th: 0 missed, 26 scored (0%, 100%)

No winning team has missed a kick in rounds 5-9 in the shootouts I’ve looked at.

Losing teams

1^st: 11 missed, 26 scored (30%, 70%)
2^nd: 12 missed, 25 scored (32%, 68%)
3^rd: 11 missed, 26 scored (30%, 70%)
4^th: 21 missed, 14 scored (60%, 40%)
5^th: 8 missed, 8 scored (50%, 50%)
6^th: 5 missed, 2 scored (71%, 29%)
7^th: 1 missed, 1 scored (50%, 50%)
8^th: 0 missed, 1 scored (0%, 100%)
9^th: 1 missed, 0 scored (100%, 0%)

There’s a big percentage jump in rounds 4 and 5, but they’ve already missed many more in the opening rounds too.

There have been 18 shootouts where the score has been tied after 3 kicks each (like it was in the Portugal v Spain game) and only once has a team missed their 4^th kick and gone on to win – Argentina against Yugoslavia in 1990. It doesn’t matter whether you’re shooting 1^st or 2^nd, miss in round 4 when it’s tied and you’ve had it.

The 4^th and 5^th kicks in a shootout would seem to carry the most pressure. Winning teams score at a rate of 89%, losing teams at just 41%. Is it this because the winning teams save their better takers for later in the shootout? Probably not, since they’ve already scored at most, if not all, of their earlier kicks.

It seems a bit like you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. If a good player doesn’t get to take one you’ve wasted him, yet if you use up all your good takers earlier you get stuck with players like David Batty taking the 5^th kick. If a poor player can’t score early in the shootout I’m not sure how they can be any better later on when the pressure is even more intense.

There’s always talk about getting off to a good start in shootouts and there’s some support for that theory here – teams 1-0 up after round 1 have a 7-1 record. A couple of those shootouts ended up being tied later on, so that advantage was soon lost.

If you score your first kick, can you get away with missing your 2^nd? Teams going ‘Scored, Missed’ to start a shootout have a 4-9 record.

If you score your first 2 kicks, can you get away with missing your 3^rd? Teams going ‘Scored, Scored, Missed’ to start a shootout have a 4-4 record.

If you score your first 3 kicks, can you get away with missing your 4^th? Teams going ‘Scored, Scored, Scored, Missed’ to start a shootout have a 4-8 record.

Since nobody missing a 5^th round kick has won in 37 shootouts so far, it seems the best place to hide the poorest of your 5 takers is in round 3.

Let’s recap what we know so far. It’s important to get off to a good start, so put one of your best takers 1^st and put your 5^th best taker 3^rd in the order.

Much of the criticism of Ronaldo is because by going 5^th he would get to take the glory penalty to send his team through. That’s not always the case with the 5^th kick though.

Scores level: 1 missed, 12 scored (8%, 92%)
Score to stay in it: 7 missed, 11 scored (39%, 61%)
Score to win: 0 missed, 15 scored (0%, 100%)

One third of the time you won’t take a 5th kick but if you do have to, it’s hugely important. No team has ever missed in round 5 and won.

Based on the numbers, this is the order I’d recommend:

1^st: Best taker
2^nd: 2^nd best taker
3^rd: 5^th best taker
4^th: 3^rd best taker
5^th: 4^th best taker

So, back to Ronaldo. He has a very good penalty record (over 85% scored). If he’s not their best, he’s probably one of their best three takers. Putting him 5th seems like a mistake. On the face of it, Alves is probably the ‘worst’ of the 4 who did take for Portugal. Would he have been any good in a ‘score to stay in it’ situation? Probably no better than if he took 4th. Misses late in the shootout are much worse than those early on, so I wouldn’t have him 5th either. Portugal’s order should have been:

1st Ronaldo
2nd Nani
3rd Alves
4th Moutinho
5th Pepe

For what it’s worth, I have no problem with England’s order. Ashley Cole has scored the 4 shootout pens I’ve seen him take for England, Chelsea and Arsenal. He took 4th on 3 of those occasions.

In my football career I’ve taken just one penalty in a shootout. I went 5th (nobody else wanted the last kick). The first 9 all went in, mine was saved. D’oh.

England - about as good as Sweden

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:38:46 -0400

The World Cup began in 1930, the European Championships in 1960. A total of 33 major tournaments and England have won just one of them. In fairness, we didn’t enter the first 3 World Cups, but 1 out of 30 isn’t great from a nation that thinks of itself as one of the big guns.

Sweden don’t have the same expectations as England do, yet our major tournament performances have been remarkably surprisingly similar.

Both nations have hosted a World Cup and a European Championships. Both made the semi finals of their own Euros (both losing Germany) and Sweden lost the 1958 World Cup Final to Brazil while England beat West Germany in 1966.

Just looking at the World Cups here’s how the records compare:

- England qualified 13 times, made it through the group 11 times and reached at least the semi finals just twice.
- Sweden qualified 11 times, made it through the group 9 times and reached at least the semis 4 times.

Just looking at the Euros here’s how the records compare:

- England qualified 8 times, made it through the group stage 4 times and reached 2 semi finals (no finals).
- Sweden qualified 4 times, made it through the group stage twice and reached 1 semi final (no finals).

So yeah, England qualify for the major tournaments slightly more often but when they get there the performances are remarkably similar. We made our home advantage count in 1966, but although that German side was good, I’m glad they weren’t as good as that Brazil side from 1958 (Pele, Vava, Garrincha etc).

When it comes to Brazil 2014 - assuming we both qualify - we should look at Sweden’s odds and expectations and adopt them as our own.

There are some people who say, we’re England, just qualifying isn’t good enough for us. They’re right, we should be able to achieve more. We have the potential resources, infrastructure and talent etc to be more successful. But that’s all for the future. Right now, we have no better chance of winning the 2014 World Cup than Sweden.

Mike Bassett: England Manager is a massively underrated film because some of the things that happen within it are truer than many people realise. For example, Pele’s interview with Martin Bashir.

Martin: “Pele, who do you think will win this World Cup?”
Pele: “Listen, every World Cup people want to know who gonna win. It’s very difficult to say who gonna win. But normally, you have Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Spain, France. Normally those teams come to the final.”
Martin: “Apart from them…”
Pele: “Oh, yes, well maybe you have some surprises because now we have good teams like Yugoslavia, you have United States, they’re very good.”
Martin: “Apart from them…”

And then the film ends with this:

Martin: “Anybody else?”
Pele: “Maybe Korea, Japan.”
Martin: “Japan?! What about England?!”
Pele: “England qualified?”
Martin: “Yes, yes, England have qualified.”
Pele: “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.”

Roll credits.

And roll on Brazil 2014. (The same country that hosts the World Cup in Mike Bassett: England Manager, in case you were wondering.)

John DeCaro - some theories examined

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 11:52:00 -0400

As expected the announcement of John DeCaro has brought smiles to the faces of fans of the other EIHL teams and elicited these quotes on Steeltalk:

“Disgraceful”
“Stupid”
“Terrible”
“Shocking”
“Disgusting”

Who’d have thought signing someone viewed as a “quitter” would be seen as a “backwards step”?

Still, let’s take a look at the numbers to see if “one of the worst goalies I’ve seen in recent years” is really holding the Steelers back.

“For a 2nd place team we gave up far too many shots last season.”

In 2011/12 the Steelers gave up 1910 shots and conceded 155 goals in 64 games.

In 2010/11 the Steelers gave up 1909 shots and conceded 164 goals in 65 games.

This works out as 29.4 shots per game in our Championship winning season and 29.8 shots per game as we finished 2nd. Our goals against average went down last season. This means our defence allowed (or our goalies rebounded) an extra shot every 2 games compared to last season.

“He’s a decent netminder, but not outstanding.”

2011/12 - Murphy: 1st in SV%, 1st in GAA

2010/11 - Mustukovs: 1st in SV%, 1st in GAA

2009/10 - Hirsch: 4th in SV%, 2nd in GAA

2008/9 - Lehman: 1st in SV%, 1st in GAA

2007/8 - Koenig: 1st in SV%, 1st in GAA

2006/7 - Koenig: 1st in SV%, 1st in GAA

2005/6 - Minard: T2nd in SV%, 3rd in GAA

2004/5 - Lehman: 1st in SV%, T1st in GAA

2003/4 - Bronsard: 1st in SV%, 1st in GAA (Dopson 2nd in both)

Generally the best netminder, statistically speaking, does win the league. Best statistically, doesn’t mean best overall though.

The league’s best goalie might be stuck on a bad team and have no hope of putting up those kind of numbers. What would Garrett Zemlak have done if he’d played for Belfast and had that squad in front of him? We can but speculate.

One, or both, of Murphy and Kowalski won’t win the league next season, so depending on your opinion, the league’s best netminder won’t be champion (again).

You can’t win the league with a rubbish goalie but as long as they’re pretty decent you’ve got a chance to compete. DeCaro certainly fits that bill and if the Steelers score enough goals then they’ll be in with a shout again.

“A netminder is only as good as the ‘D’ in front of him.”

For: The injury hit Steelers defence gave DeCaro no chance to succeed.

Against: If we’d had Kowalski we’d have won the league/been closer to Belfast.

And looking to the future…

For: We’ve improved our defence, so it’s no problem having DeCaro in goal.

Against: What’s the point in improving the defence if there’s a bad goalie behind them?

It’s hard to look at this statistically so we’re relying on opinion and guesswork here I’m afraid.

“DeCaro is not as good as Kowalski or Osaer.”

Let’s see how their debut season in the EIHL went for those 3:

DeCaro - SV% 91.9, GAA 2.58

Kowalski - SV% 91.6, GAA 2.56

Osaer - SV% 92.3 , GAA 2.60

How did they get on the following season?

Kowalski - SV% 92.4, GAA 1.88

Osaer - SV% 91.9%, GAA 2.49

No other goalies have made their debut in this country in the EIHL and stayed with the same team for a 2nd season, so these are the only ones available for direct comparison. For indirect comparions, check these out:

Lehman’s 1st EIHL season with Coventry: SV% 91.0, GAA 2.71

Lehman’s 2nd EIHL season with Coventry: SV% 93.2, GAA 1.86

Lehman’s 1st season with Sheffield: SV% 90.3, GAA 2.88

Lehman’s 2nd season with Sheffield: SV% 91.7, GAA 2.63

His 3rd and 4th seasons with the Steelers were even better. Someone on the forums wrote “We haven’t seen the best of DeCaro.” This is entirely possible. There might also be some regression but with an improved D a slight improvement is more likely.

The league has changed for the upcoming season with more games against the big clubs in the ‘Southern Conference’ and fewer against the weaker squads in the ‘Northern Conference’. Here are the splits:

DeCaro v South - SV% 92.5, GAA 2.63

DeCaro v North - SV% 91.1, GAA 2.52

Kowalski v South - SV% 92.5, GAA 2.25

Kowalski v North - SV% 92.3, GAA 1.62

If the league had been this format last year Kowalski’s GAA would’ve been 2.00, not 1.88 and DeCaro’s 2.59, not 2.58.

Kowalski pads his stats against the weakest teams. He’ll have fewer chances to do that next season. Woolhouse will take a chunk of the easiest games from DeCaro but this will hurt his stats less than it will Kowalski.

“Kowalski doesn’t need to make as many saves as DeCaro because he doesn’t give up many rebounds.”

Murphy - 24.5 shots per game faced

Kowalski - 25.8 shots per game faced

DeCaro - 32.4 shots per game faced

An extra 6.5 - 8 shots per game works out at 360 extra over the course of the 50 games DeCaro is likely to play for the Steelers. If they’re all rebounds that are his fault then that really is a lot. Without the video of every single shot from every single game it’s not possible to tell how many rebounds he gave up that were his fault or how many led to subsequent shots and goals. We also can’t tell if the defence should’ve been blocking the first shots or clearing to prevent the follow ups.

If we make the wild assumption that all these extra shots come directly from bad rebounds given up by DeCaro then at his normal save percentage, they lead to 0.6 goals per game. That’s 30 goals over the course of a season - we conceded 28 more than Belfast last season. An improved defence that stops more shots in the first place and clears more rebounds will help to close that gap.

What has all this taught us then?

Well, even if DeCaro is exactly the same as he was last year his numbers should improve. Despite the tougher league schedule his GAA should drop slightly. You can reasonably expect a personal improvement based on familiarity with his surroundings and the league. This should mean we’re closer to Belfast in terms of goals conceded and if the offence makes the expected improvement (especially on the powerplay) we have a great chance to claim the league title again.

Bringing back John DeCaro doesn’t seem like a disgraceful, stupid, terrible, shocking or disgusting decision to me.

My Euro 2012 predictions

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 17:28:07 -0400

I had a go at the BBC’s pundits for being really predictable in my last post. With the exception of Jan Molby nobody stuck their neck out and broadly they all predicted the same set of results. They were safe, dull and will probably turn out to be wrong anyway.

Picking individual games is a recipe for trouble. At the start of last season would you have backed Wigan to get 40+ points? Quite possibly. Would you have backed them to win at Liverpool, at Arsenal and against Man United within the space of 4 weeks? Almost certainly not.

I’m not going to be able to predict all 31 results, or even all 6 within a group, or even any team’s first 3 games with any certainty. Despite those constraints, here are my predictions, complete with the logic behind them. They aren’t especially shocking but they go against the conventional wisdom on display right now.

1. Spain will not make the final.

Spain’s recent tournament success has come on the back of great defensive displays. Here are their results in knockout games: (2008) 0-0, 3-0, 1-0, (2010) 1-0, 1-0, 1-0, 1-0.

Much of that defence is still in tact (Puyol, Ramos, Casillas) and the quality of their midfield in keeping possession helps the back line out a lot. Still, 7 straight games without conceding a goal is a streak that seems unsustainable. Several times in that run they could (should?) have conceded, fallen behind and possibly lost. They won’t have David Villa this time or an in form Fernando Torres. Llorente is more than just decent but he’s not got Villa’s international pedigree or class.

Spain have been the team to beat for a while now and it seems like teams are finding a way to do it. England did it at Wembley not long back. Barcelona don’t seem so invincible any more either. Yes, it took Messi missing a penalty and a few others off the woodwork, but that’s the sort of bad luck Spain haven’t had recently.

Picture this: In their last group game Croatia scramble and early goal from a set piece. Bilic has them well organised, they pack the defence and Spain can’t find a way through. They don’t panic though because they’re always find a way through eventually but this time when they do, the chances go begging. Time starts to run out. Croatia have all the answers. Spain get frustrated. They’re not used to it. It’s not supposed to end like this…

And it might not. But Spain’s great run will end, and I think it’ll end before the final (unlike 3/4 of the BBC pundits).

2. Germany will not reach the final.

Spain have knocked Germany out of the last two tournaments, 1-0 on both occasions. In previous rounds the Germans had banged the goals in but against a top defence they couldn’t find a way through and their own defence wasn’t strong enough to hold on at the other end. In 2008 they’d won 3-2 and 3-2, in 2010 it was 4-1 and 4-0. The attacking power is still there. Gomez, Podolski, Muller, Ozil etc look to be as strong as ever. The defensive unit just doesn’t look to be much better to me. In a dangerous group they’ll be up against Ronaldo and Nani, van Persie, Robben and van der Vaart. It’s Germany’s turn to end up on the wrong end of one of those 3-2 classics or 4 goal hammerings.

2-0 up against England in the World Cup we scored twice just before half time (one of them was given). We were rubbish and we still did that to them.

That last minute goal might not come in their favour this time, that refereeing decision might go against them, that defence might not have improved enough. If the strikers don’t fire (like they didn’t against Spain, or Serbia) they might be hanging on for draws and I’m not sure they’re set up to do that, or good enough to do that.

3. Denmark will pick up at least 2 points.

Playing in the toughest looking group the odds are stacked against the progressing. If they don’t they’ll drag one of the others with them. Romania came so close to doing this in Euro 2008. Given no chance of progressing out of a group containing France, Netherlands and Italy they drew with the French in their opening game. They got a penalty late on against Italy and had they scored it Romania would’ve gone through and Italy would’ve gone out. As it was, Buffon saved it with his trailing leg and Romania went out, Italy went through.

Denmark are going to give someone a scare. They’ve got a potentially strong defence and Bendtner isn’t perfect but can nod one in from time to time. They’ve only got to have one good day to ruin someone’s tournament and maybe even make it through themselves.

As the tournament goes on I might make some other predictions but those are the only three I’m happy and confident with at the moment.

Here are some others that didn’t quite make the cut.

Republic of Ireland will reach at least the Quarter Finals

Trapattoni has made them very hard to break down and with McGeady, Hunt, Duff, Keane, McClean, Doyle etc they can offer more than 0-0 draws. If they play France in the quarters they’ve got a point to prove and if it’s England I’d be worried. If it’s Sweden or the Ukraine they might even be favourites. The thing stopping me making this prediction is that first game against Croatia. Win that and I think they’d get the point they need from the final two games. If Italy beat Spain and Croatia then they’ll having nothing to play for, and could happily lose, or play out the 0-0 Ireland need.

Croatia will reach at least the Quarter Finals

I don’t expect them and the Irish to both go through but I like Bilic and I like that even without Olic and Klasnic they look dangerous in attack. Again, it’s all on the first match. I know it’s not much of a prediction to say a team with 3 points on the board after 1 game will make it through which might be why I didn’t properly include it. It’s just that in a group with Italy and Spain there’s not perceived to be much hope for either of these teams and I think one of them will get through and have a very good chance of making the semis.

Czech Republic will not get out of their group

The days when the Czechs were everyone’s dark horse seem to have passed. I think they’ll struggle to score goals. Pekhart might well play up front on his own and he’s never scored for his country before. If they lose their opener to Russia it’s all going to be on the last game with co-hosts Poland and that will be tough. I know Poland aren’t expected to be prolific in front of goal but Lewandowski inspires more confidence in me than anyone in the Czech squad, even Baros. Greece look to have more going forward than the Czechs, although whether they’ll be adventurous enough remains to be seen.

So there you go. 3 picks and 3 half picks for Euro 2012. Enjoy the tournament.

(And if you think writing this has made picking my Telegraph Fantasy Football team any easier you couldn’t be more wrong. My final prediction is that my dad’s team will beat mine comfortably.)

The Predictable World of Punditry

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 14:54:00 -0400

BBC Sport asked 16 of its pundits to say who they thought would be the champions and who else would make up the final four. Here’s a breakdown of how often each team was selected to get as far as at least the semi finals:

Germany - 16 (10 wins, 4 runners up, 2 semis)
Spain - 16 (5 wins, 7 runners, 4 semis)
Netherlands - 15 (1 win, 3 runners up, 11 semis)
France - 12 (3 runners up, 9 semis)
Portugal - 2 (2 semis)
England - 1 (1 semi)
Poland - (1 semi)

Germany, Spain, Netherlands and France are the bookies top four teams. You could ask anyone in the street and they’d probably tell you those 4 teams in some order too.

Are the pundits giving us any actual insight here? I don’t think so.

It might well be that the pundits genuinely believe the top four will be the semi finalists, but honestly, how often does that happen in major tournaments?

Here are the last four over recent tournaments:
2010 - Spain, Netherlands, Germany, Uruguay
2008 - Spain, Germany, Turkey, Russia
2006 - Italy, France, Germany, Portugal
2004 - Greece, Portugal, Netherlands, Czech Republic
2002 - Brazil, Germany, Turkey, South Korea
2000 - France, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal

Spain were marginally ahead of Portugal in most bookies eyes in 2000, but 3 out of 4 is still the closest we’ve come recently. Half of these tournaments feature a complete outsider either winning or making the semi finals. If we went back another few tournaments we’d run into Denmark, Bulgaria and Sweden.

One of the top teams not making it through is very probably. One of the real outsiders making it through is also quite likely.

Alan Hansen’s picks feature 3 teams from the same group, so only 2 can possibly make it to the semis or beyond. When Twitter spotted this a change was made so that the intro points out that the pundits were only asked to say who they were tipping. If this is true, given there were no constraints on tournament logistics, nobody backed Italy, Croatia, Russia, the Czechs etc to make the semis. They all went for the favourites anyway.

The only BBC pundit to pick an outsider is Jan Molby.

His selection of Poland is an interesting one because it’s not backed up by a particularly favourable draw. Here’s what he says:

“Poland are one the host nations and in a group where they should get through to the quarter finals. As a host nation in the quarter final a lot can happen.”

To make the semi they would need to defeat one of Germany, Netherlands, Portugal or Denmark in the quarters. Group A might be easier to get out of but running into Group B hurts their chances. Still, it’s a pick that makes a lot of sense.

I’m more interested in the teams not picked by anyone, in particular, Italy.

Italy, Spain, Croatia and Republic of Ireland looks likes two heavyweights and two also rans. Hardly, but they should still progress, even if they were to lose their opener to the holders.

If they do their quarter final opponents will be from Group D - Ukraine, Sweden, France, England. Not one of the BBC’s pundits thinks they can make the final 4 from here. Maybe they’re thinking they’ll lose to France. All of them? Is the French team that good? If it was, wouldn’t somebody have picked them to win it? Only 3 of 16 have them to make the final.

Maybe the pundits are just afraid to stick their neck out. Pick the tournament favourites in some order and they won’t be far wrong. These are the same people who say there are no easy games in international football and “you can’t write off the Germans.” They also say stuff like this:

“They’re a strong team. They’ve got some great individual players and with the right team spirit they can go all the way. They’ve got a good mixture of experienced players from the top clubs in Europe and promising youngsters.”

I made that quote up just now but I think it fits most teams in the tournament.

The problem with picking outsiders is that they’re all capable of making a run (“doing a Greece” or “doing a Denmark” as it’s usually known) so although Molby has gone for Poland, the same can apply to the Ukraine. Picking Poland and the Ukraine would be a bold move but at least he’s shown us his thought process. The other pundits haven’t really. They’ve simply said, “These are the best teams, I think they’ll all make it through, I can’t see anyone else beating them.” Thanks for that insight.

I really don’t see any value in articles like that. They’re about as much fun to read as my Wimbledon 2012 predictions:

Winner: Djokovic
Runner up: Nadal
Semis: Murray and Federer

These are the best players, I think they’ll all make it through, I can’t see anyone else beating them.

Now, where have I heard that before?

(Next blog: My Euro 2012 predictions - guaranteed to be as accurate as anything Alan Hansen comes out with.)