Duff, Sheehan, Williams

[CroJack]

I've looked at the data for Duff, Sheehan and Williams over a six-game period, excluding games where either Swans or the opposition were red-carded. Playing 10 against 11 men has a huge impact on the stats and gives a false picture of a team's strengths and weaknesses. We have to be aware that a six game run is too small a sample, but I was curious to see if there were any improvements under Williams compared to Duff and Sheehan, and if Sheehan is superior to Williams and Duff as @Yankee_Jack suggests.

Duff's games
(two games against top four teams)



Sheehan's games
(one game against top four teams)



Williams' games
(four games against top four teams)

​

As we can see, Williams has had the toughest run of fixtures. Of the six games he has managed, four have been against top-four sides.

 

[CroJack]

​

 

[CroJack]

​

 

[CroJack]

​

 

[CroJack]

1. As we can see, the possession and pass accuracy figures are almost identical, although Williams' lower possession figures can be explained by the tougher opposition.

2. Despite the tougher opposition, both Duff and Williams outshoot Sheehan by almost 30 shots over the six games. The difference in shots on target is not as significant, but again can be explained by tougher opposition.

3. The biggest difference between these three managers is the number of crosses. The difference is huge.

​

4. Duff and Williams' Swans attempt significantly more dribbles than Sheehan's, and Williams's Swans attempt significantly more tackles than Duff and Sheehan's.

5. Williams' Swansea make fewer forward passes than Duff and Sheehan's, but this could be explained by tougher opposition.

6. Despite facing much tougher opposition than Sheehan, Williams' Swans have completed 150 more passes in the final third.

7. None of these managers play long ball football.

8. Sheehan's Swans lose possession of the ball significantly more than the Swans managed by Duff and Williams.

9. Sheehan's Swans hoof the ball significantly more than Swans managed by Duff and Williams.

10. Both Williams' and Sheehan's Swans make relatively more defensive mistakes that lead to goals.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

Very nice. But regardless of the intra-game metrics, it's the aggregate 90 minute result that counts and speaks loudest. At the end of 7 games, Sheehan harvested more points, had a better position in the table, had resolved a negative situation into a positive situation and was on a positive trajectory. Duff and Williams were/are not.

Sheehan consistently spoke pre-match about how he was looking at ways to hurt the opposition and working with the squad to implement. Sheehan was clearly irritated post-match when the effort and execution was not what he wanted. Williams speaks of bravery ... whatever the fuck that means ... and "players were tired" and the "quality of the opposition" .... all excuses. Williams seems to operate regardless of the opposition in exactly the same way as though banging your head consistently against the wall is going to make the headache go away.

Sheehan took us away from the threat of relegation. Williams has dumped us right back in it.

And as I summarized in my last post on the Ipswich thread: Sheehan demonstrated what this squad, properly organized and motivated, can achieve. Duff and Williams have demonstrated the exact opposite. Where does the fault lie? Same players, totally different outcomes! It's not the players.

Williams has to start harvesting points now. He has to start being tactically aware, coaching to the immediate situation and the opposition and not the delusion he has in his head. Because the numbers don't lie ... it's not working ... he's not working. Williams has to put a competitive team on the field regardless of the opposition and how star-spangled-wonderful he thinks they are. We're playing fucking Leeds not City ... Do I have to remind us how we performed in the last two times we played City in cup competitions. We lost, but we competed, looked the part and made them earn their win - and but for some dubious officiating we should have won the first game even with all of City's top guns on the field at the end of the match.

Williams uses "bravery", fatigue, the quality of the opposition as excuses. The reasons for his failing lies elsewhere. You can't fix excuses, you can look at the root cause of reasons and fix those. We lost badly to Leeds not because of bravery/fatigue/quality, but because we went into the match tactically blind, with an absurdly naïve approach that we are no where close to mastering, that permitted Leeds to play to their strengths, and exposed our vulnerabilities. Those are the reasons. This is not good management. This is stupid.

 

[ivoralljack]

Really enjoying this debate, guys, where you both make great points. @CroJack producing those figures and charts was nothing short of a superb piece of work which must have taken a lot of time and trouble to produce . As for the response from @Yankee_Jack, his arguments are also compelling when looked at from the perspective he's explaining. I guess the reasons for our predicament hover somewhere between the two views. My thanks to you both for an entertaining insight into your opinions.

 

[CroJack]

More shots, more shots on target, more crosses, more dribbles, more tackles, more passes in the final third, more intensity, fewer losses of possession...and all of this against a much tougher opposition is not a good management and is stupid?

 

[CroJack]

The reasons for his failing lies elsewhere. You can't fix excuses, you can look at the root cause of reasons and fix those. We lost badly to Leeds not because of bravery/fatigue/quality, but because we went into the match tactically blind, with an absurdly naïve approach that we are no where close to mastering, that permitted Leeds to play to their strengths, and exposed our vulnerabilities.

Leeds scored the first goal with a lucky deflection when we were defending with everything we had. There was nothing naive about that approach. And when you're a goal down, it's normal to take a bit more of a risk. This gives the opposition a chance to counter-attack, which is what Leeds did. I really don't care if we lose 1, 4 or 7 nil. A defeat is a defeat and I don't think the number of goals scored is going to determine our position at the end of the season.

 

[Yankee_Jack]

For all I know, Williams may be a superbly technically gifted coach ... but he's riding the wrong horse, in the wrong race, the wrong way.

The risks are these: Williams cannot round-off his square pegs quickly enough to make it all come together. We keep dropping points. Our GD goes to shit. Williams is nowhere near pragmatic enough to look at the situation and realize that he's running out of track and he needs to stop the train now, and do something far less "adventurous" and far more on point with the squad he's got.

Nobody will care about all those pretty intra-match metrics if next season we start away to Burton Albion. Is Williams a big enough man to modify his approach now to earn points, give himself more time, another transfer window and preseason to implement is fantasy?

We're going in the wrong direction in the table. Williams is doing a Rooney, when he ought to be doing a Sheehan. Williams walked into a positive situation, not a negative one, but he's making a dog's dinner of it so far. Another little fact, when Williams took over we were only 6 points off 6th with something for the optimists to play for; now we're 15 points adrift. At this point, Williams just has to get us to mid-table and safety ... be smart young man, and live to fight another day.

 

[Victoria Swan]

I'm a data fiend like @CroJack and I'm definitely sceptical about drawing conclusions from a sample size of just six games - it's just not enough games for a stable estimate of performance @Yankee_Jack . What's more it's an apples versus oranges comparison when there's no adjustment for the strength of the opposition.

So my conclusion is that your adherence to Sheehan based on his brief tenure is misplaced @Yankee_Jack, unless you can magically a) add another six games to the sample and b) adjust for the strength of the opposition. And @CroJack I think your implied defense of Williams (where the only truly compelling difference, as you state, is the number of crosses) is premature until we a) have another six games in hand and b} we see whether against lesser opposition Williams is more flexible about his tactic of playing a high line. (Is it a tactic or a strategy? I never could keep the difference clear!)

The jury is out.

 

[Victoria Swan]

P.S. Thanks for the data @CroJack - great job! And thanks for the assertions @Yankee_Jack - always good to be reminded that the only data that really counts are goals and league position!

 

[Yankee_Jack]

@Victoria Swan ... I appreciate your point about a small sample size, but we have to look at what we have. Just as you can only play the team on the field, and weaker or stronger you still have to get a result. The differences are not subtle in terms of outcomes - they are stark. There is a clear spell of sunlight sandwiched between two spells of night. This is not figure skating, it's football. There are no points for style, or attempts, or how tight the pirouettes are, only results. And when a team is up against "elite" opposition, it is planning, organization, tactical nous, motivation and a sprinkle of luck that can win the day on the one hand or avoid or succumb to a debacle on the other. This is the approach that Sheehan employed. This has not been Williams' approach ... as best as I can tell.

If I had to bet on a Sheehan XI v Williams XI, two identical teams of cloned players, I'd bet my money on Sheehan. Not because he is a better coach per se (he may be, he may be not), but because his approach has been to deal with the challenge at hand and craft a game plan, rather than play his fantasy system and pray that it clicks. IMO, he has a higher probability of success as demonstrated by his results and he works the odds pretty well.

Williams' nightmare has a chance to redeem itself on Saturday. Although not among the "elite" of the league, Sunderland is going to be a rigorous test. What will he do? Will he double-down? Will he look at the opposition and produce a game plan to grab a victory? Williams is dithering over Yates v Cullen, then out of desperation tried Big Myk with Cullen. He may have yet stumbled onto a winning combination.

The sand is slipping through the hour glass and Williams had better figure it out soon.

I would also point to the comments by players and commentators that have followed Duff and Sheehan. Reading between the lines, there wasn't much harmony and respect for Duff within the squad. Darling and radio and tv comms have been effusive about Sheehan and the job he did. Take it for what it's worth. Nobody is commenting yet on Williams, other than us lot.

 

[Victoria Swan]

Sunderland is going to be a rigorous test. What will he do? Will he double-down? Will he look at the opposition and produce a game plan to grab a victory?

I agree wholeheartedly. I do NOT want to see a high line on Saturday, I do want to see the continuation of fast wingers with lots of crosses and I do want big Myk in there to take advantage of those crosses and Cullen to feed off any second balls in the box. Mostly I just want to see us win and to do it convincingly.

 

[CroJack]

And @CroJack I think your implied defense of Williams (where the only truly compelling difference, as you state, is the number of crosses) is premature...

I am not defending him. You all know that three years ago, when Martin was appointed, I criticised the "high line played by slow players" crap and called for a change in formation and personnel. Now I am constantly criticising Williams for his high line and want him to either play deeper or sign pacey centre-backs. I think Williams is wrong when he asks his players to concentrate more in order to play a perfect game. That's impossible. Even Man City and Liverpool's £100m players make sloppy passes and get dispossessed in dangerous areas from time to time. There will always be sloppy passes and turnovers and that's not the problem. The problem is that we can't rectify those mistakes because our defenders are too slow.

And it's not just the number of crosses, it's also the intensity and the pressure. Unfortunately, I don't have the data (pressing, gegen-pressing, build-up disruption and passes per defensive action) for just the last six games for each manager.

 

[ivoralljack]

Came across the following article today in WOL. Many interesting things emerged and I was particularly interested by the Field Tilt figures. See what you guys make of it:

Inside Luke Williams' Swansea City reign amid training ground pain

Luke Williams is set to oversee the tenth game of his Swansea City career on Saturday - and we've already learned a fair bit about his reign

www.walesonline.co.uk

 

[Yankee_Jack]

A lot of grist for the mill in that article, especially commentary on training and conditioning. What @ivoralljack has been harping on about a long time - seems highly justified now. Williams in the prematch also commented on some players exchanging verbals during training ... about time on that too if somebody is slacking ... and that he thought it was a positive. Let's see what this translates to at Sunderland

 

[CroJack]

Many interesting things emerged and I was particularly interested by the Field Tilt figures. See what you guys make of it

The field tilt is not that important. It represents possession and that's it. It's about how much you dominate the ball in different areas of the pitch. Under Martin we had the best field tilt stats in the Championship and did nothing with it. The author of the WOL article is wrong to say that pitch possession is just possession in the final third. It's more than that.

Much more interesting than field tilt are the figures for pressing, counter-pressing, disrupting the build-up and PPDA (passes per defensive action). Unfortunately, we don't have access to Opta's data to compare Williams' figures with those of Duff and Sheehan. But from what I've seen so far, we've improved enormously in that department under Williams. We are running more, we are pressing more and pressing better, we are stealing the ball more, we are going forward with the ball more, we are making more forward passes and less backward passes and we are moving the ball quicker. We also don't wait to cross when we're in the final third. If we can cut out the defensive errors, we'll be a tough nut to crack for most teams in the league.

I am optimistic. It didn't take Williams 18 months to switch to a four at the back, so there's hope he can sort out our defence.

 

[jackodiamonds]

I'm glad I'm not the only one feeling positive

I had my reservations about Williams largely because of his poor defensive record. I accept that his teams still won't set any clean sheet records but all the stuff @CroJack pointed out more than makes up for it. The tough opposition is now off the schedule, and I'm sure the results will improve significantly in the coming weeks.

We've all wanted to see a back four and Cullen at #9, and Williams has provided both within 7 games. Where others have been stubborn, he's been adaptive, and that shows a willingness to work with his squad, not in spite of them.

Shame Sunderland will have new manager bounce old-manager-got-sacked bounce on Saturday, but I still fancy Swansea's chances, especially since Jack Clarke's out.