Some stats to ponder...

I've been vocal on a few threads, commenting on our current style of play, ref decisions and behaviour of the opposition teams we come up against. So I thought I'd have a look at what the stats said. Obviously stats can be interpreted in many different ways, but I thought it was interesting.

We have the 4th highest rating for 'Profile' rating in the league, and the highest in the top 6. This basically calculates the ratio of fouls committed/against. There's only Watford in the top 6 that have committed more fouls. Meanwhile, Reading have the lowest Profile in the league, as well as committing the lowest number of fouls per game.

You could infer all kinds of things from that, however it's probably no surprise that Reading may feel they try to play football, and in the process tend to get kicked up and down every game. I guess they probably get a bit pi$$ed off with that after a while.

Also might stand to reason that the more fouls you commit, the more likely it is that decisions go against you, the more likely it is you will pick up cards etc.

Genuine thread, feel free to chip in...

Source: http://www.footstats.co.uk/index.cfm?task=league_fouls

 

fair dos mate. but if we're now wearing that boot, we have to accept what comes with that, don't we?

 

My own view is that the level of shithousing is more likely to be higher in teams who commit more fouls, not the ones who commit less. As for the level of refereeing, my assumption is that it's equally bad for all teams. I've got nothing else to go on. If anything, probably more likely that the teams at the higher end of the table get more decisions in their favour, than those at the bottom. we got a penalty today that we probably wouldn't have got in days gone by

 

agreed

 

yeah nowt wrong wi that. there's a line though for me, where you (not you personally) risk becoming Neil Warnock. must be how Anakin Skywalker felt.

 

opinions innit. I can only comment on the teams I've watched us play against, but in those I would personally say our shithousing has generally been way more than the teams we've played against. I'm talking about shirt pulling, barging, leaving feet in, clipping ankles, backing in. today at times I thought it was ridiculous. so many completely unnecessary fouls.

 

yep agreed. totally agree we needed that bit in our game. and I'm glad we have it now. but it's starting to get a bit too much for my liking. novelty's starting to wear off. after a point, it's as bad as diving for me. not saying we're there yet, but at this rate we're heading that way

 

Cant agree with your analysis. We play a pressing game refs tend to give a lot more and softer fouls when a defender is under pressure deep in his own half - we often get fouls given against us when we win the ball by crowding a player - some are real fouls but a lot are what can euphemistically be called soft. All sides get away with a lot more when its their defenders doing it. Because of the high press we are almost bound to give more free kicks. As said above it doesnt mean they are all correct we are only averaging 2 more fouls per game than Reading - annoyingly in our last 2 games of those fouls have incorrectly been given costing us a goal and probably 5 points

 

they definitely won't all be correct. I've got nothing to go on though, to suggest they're less correct for us than any other team.

 

agreed.

 

None of us have and its difficult to judge as we are all biased in games involving us and tend to notice errors against us but not in our favour but my contention still is defenders get much softer fouls than strikers and a lot of our fouls are given away when pressing defenders and a fair few are ones that wouldnt be given if the same offence committed deep in our own half I can think of at least 3 fouls given against us in Readings box that wouldnt have been given. That explains why we are around 2 fouls a game worse than some sides. We do get away with a lot at the other end though as do most other sides