Swans v Huddersfield - Performance Data & Players Ratings
- Thread starter CroJack
- Start date
Let me explain these charts.
First Half
Cabango, Wood and Grimes contributed most in the first half whilst Manning, Piroe, Paterson, Fulton, Ntcham and Lati were solid. Cullen was quiet and not involved so much, though his work rate and off the ball play was good. (Unfortunatelly, it's extremely difficult to rate off the ball work like pressing, making yourself available for the pass, and making good runs behind opposition defence! In modern football nobody gives points to attackers who make themselves available all the time. This should be corrected, and not only these attackers' hard work should be rated but the 'blind' midfielders should get negative points for not being creative enough.) Fisher had almost nothing to do, but fair to him what he did was assured.
We dominated and created two good chances (one was Cabango's when he hit the post and the other Wood's when he tried to cross instead of shoot from 10 yards out), but as you can see our defenders, and not the strikers, had the best chances. And why was that? We were simply sloppy in possession in the opposition half and third. Especially Ntcham, who made 11 attacking errors, was poor. Add to that Manning's 5, Latibeaudiere's 4, Paterson's 3, Grimes and Cullen's 2 attacking errors, and you get the picture.
You may ask when do Cabango's many errors (negative points) in the first half come from? Well, for the big chance missed he got 3 negative points, and another three for allowing one of the Huddersfield big chances by losing his man at the far post.
Grimes was by far our best player in the first half, he was here, there and everywhere. Wood, Piroe, Fulton and Cabango were solid, Paterson ok, Manning, Lati and Cullen poor, and Ntcham really poor. Imagine, Ntcham got awarded 3 positive points for that big chance he created for Wood, and still managed to record a total of -3 points in the final first half ratings.
First half ratings (positive contributions minus errors):
Anyway, we created two big chances in the first half but we also allowed two big chances, which, of course, is not good. We could've easily been 2 goals down in the first half had the margins been on the Huddersfield side.
We made exactly 100 positive contributions and 46 errors in the first half.
Second Half
Second half performance was better. We made 117 positive contributions (17 more than in the first half) and 31 errors (15 fewer than in the first half).
Wood made most positive contributions in the second half. He was simply excellent. He defended well and carried the ball forward at every opportunity. When it comes to positive contributions Cooper, Manning, Cabango, Grimes, Whittaker and Lati were all very good and Fisher, Piroe and Darling good. Cundle, who replaced Fulton in the second half and played 36 minutes made just a couple positive contributions. He was under average. Cullen was poor in the second half and rightly replaced in 80 minute.
Almost all our errors were made in the opposition half and third, but we allowed one big chance against. We created two big chances, one to Cabango at the far post when he headed wide, and another to Whittaker who was denied by excellent Huddersfield defending.
You can see here the second half ratings (positive contributions minus errors):
Full Time
Wood and Grimes, who were both excellent with 22 points each, share my man of the match award
.
Most of the others were solid.
Cundle and Cullen very quiet.
Ntcham poor.
Ratings corrected for the minutes spent on the pitch
This one is interesting because it shows the impact of the substitutions on one side (whilst Darling, Whittaker and Cooper made an excellent impact, Cundle was disappointing), and what the ratings would look like if the players who played less than 95 minutes managed to maintain the same rate of contributions and errors, on the other.
First Half
Cabango, Wood and Grimes contributed most in the first half whilst Manning, Piroe, Paterson, Fulton, Ntcham and Lati were solid. Cullen was quiet and not involved so much, though his work rate and off the ball play was good. (Unfortunatelly, it's extremely difficult to rate off the ball work like pressing, making yourself available for the pass, and making good runs behind opposition defence! In modern football nobody gives points to attackers who make themselves available all the time. This should be corrected, and not only these attackers' hard work should be rated but the 'blind' midfielders should get negative points for not being creative enough.) Fisher had almost nothing to do, but fair to him what he did was assured.
We dominated and created two good chances (one was Cabango's when he hit the post and the other Wood's when he tried to cross instead of shoot from 10 yards out), but as you can see our defenders, and not the strikers, had the best chances. And why was that? We were simply sloppy in possession in the opposition half and third. Especially Ntcham, who made 11 attacking errors, was poor. Add to that Manning's 5, Latibeaudiere's 4, Paterson's 3, Grimes and Cullen's 2 attacking errors, and you get the picture.
You may ask when do Cabango's many errors (negative points) in the first half come from? Well, for the big chance missed he got 3 negative points, and another three for allowing one of the Huddersfield big chances by losing his man at the far post.
Grimes was by far our best player in the first half, he was here, there and everywhere. Wood, Piroe, Fulton and Cabango were solid, Paterson ok, Manning, Lati and Cullen poor, and Ntcham really poor. Imagine, Ntcham got awarded 3 positive points for that big chance he created for Wood, and still managed to record a total of -3 points in the final first half ratings.
First half ratings (positive contributions minus errors):
Anyway, we created two big chances in the first half but we also allowed two big chances, which, of course, is not good. We could've easily been 2 goals down in the first half had the margins been on the Huddersfield side.
We made exactly 100 positive contributions and 46 errors in the first half.
Second Half
Second half performance was better. We made 117 positive contributions (17 more than in the first half) and 31 errors (15 fewer than in the first half).
Wood made most positive contributions in the second half. He was simply excellent. He defended well and carried the ball forward at every opportunity. When it comes to positive contributions Cooper, Manning, Cabango, Grimes, Whittaker and Lati were all very good and Fisher, Piroe and Darling good. Cundle, who replaced Fulton in the second half and played 36 minutes made just a couple positive contributions. He was under average. Cullen was poor in the second half and rightly replaced in 80 minute.
Almost all our errors were made in the opposition half and third, but we allowed one big chance against. We created two big chances, one to Cabango at the far post when he headed wide, and another to Whittaker who was denied by excellent Huddersfield defending.
You can see here the second half ratings (positive contributions minus errors):
Full Time
Wood and Grimes, who were both excellent with 22 points each, share my man of the match award
.Most of the others were solid.
Cundle and Cullen very quiet.
Ntcham poor.
Ratings corrected for the minutes spent on the pitch
This one is interesting because it shows the impact of the substitutions on one side (whilst Darling, Whittaker and Cooper made an excellent impact, Cundle was disappointing), and what the ratings would look like if the players who played less than 95 minutes managed to maintain the same rate of contributions and errors, on the other.
Last edited:
Excellent analysis as always, CJ. Thank you. 
Yankee_Jack
Key Player
No Fulton or Cullen?
I would persevere with Cullen as his 133 league minutes per goal ratio is still superior to Piroe (216) . I would play Fulton on the right mid and shift Cooper/Whittaker left a slot ... but that's me.
We don't have a replacement for Manning. Is there anybody in U21 that remotely looks capable?
I am expecting Martin to start Walsh somewhere and he's developed a boner for Ntcham lately so I am expecting him to start also.
I would persevere with Cullen as his 133 league minutes per goal ratio is still superior to Piroe (216) . I would play Fulton on the right mid and shift Cooper/Whittaker left a slot ... but that's me.
We don't have a replacement for Manning. Is there anybody in U21 that remotely looks capable?
I am expecting Martin to start Walsh somewhere and he's developed a boner for Ntcham lately so I am expecting him to start also.
The Blobster
Prediction Champ
Tivonga Rushesha has speed and ability and is very versatile, he has returned from a serious injury and trained with the first team squad earlier this week . I have watched him many times with the under 21s and he is definitely someone with a promising future .
As an aside I had a turps procedure undertaken last year , my anaesthetist noticed my Swans tattoo and said can I show you a photo ? He then said who is that in the photo ? I said it's Tivonga Rushesha , he said you really are a supporter , I'm Tivongas dad ! Seconds later I was out for the count and heading for the operating theatre .
As an aside I had a turps procedure undertaken last year , my anaesthetist noticed my Swans tattoo and said can I show you a photo ? He then said who is that in the photo ? I said it's Tivonga Rushesha , he said you really are a supporter , I'm Tivongas dad ! Seconds later I was out for the count and heading for the operating theatre .
I said "Judging by the corrected ratings (from the Huddersfield game)". That doesn't mean I wouldn't play them anyway
Instead of Piroe I wouldn't, and that's because Piroe is not only a goal scorer, he is a creator as well. He is technically much better than Cullen imho. The majority of goals Cullen scored this season are goals where Piroe has been heavily involved. Saying all that, I like Cullen, but at this moment we have better options up front.
By the way, you are aware that Cullen's minutes per goal ratio is statistically inflated? If a player plays 5 minutes and scors 2 goals that doesn't mean he is better than Haaland.
Cooper, Whittaker & Fulton behind Piroe? I have no problem with that. You know I rate Fulton.
Ideally, I would play Walsh, Cooper and Whittaker behind Piroe, and the former three should be the future of this club in the ATM positions behind a striker.
Last edited:
Isn't he a right back?
Yankee_Jack
Key Player
Last time I saw Rushesha play was a few seasons ago, pre-season against Soton. He was shown up and badly behind the pace, but he was barely 18 or so at the time.
Haven't seen a great deal of him but a player can come on in leaps and bounds at that age.
@Yankee_Jack I've made a video with Cullen's goals this season. He scored three of them after Piroe shots hit the post, one after a Piroe assist, one goal was a lucky rebound, one he scored after a set-piece, and one was expertly taken after a Ntcham assist. We need Liam because no other player in our squad attacks the six yards box like he does.
Yankee_Jack
Key Player
Cullen has to score goals like this because nobody is looking to fire in crosses targeting him nor give him through balls that he can make use of. He's like the orphan nobody wants to know. Cullen is feeding and producing on scraps.
Only one of those goals was from a purposeful pass through by Ntcham. On the goal close in from a square ball by Piroe, the ball got played behind him and he had to reach back for it. As Wyndham says, he plays, he scores. He doesn't get enough credit.
Only one of those goals was from a purposeful pass through by Ntcham. On the goal close in from a square ball by Piroe, the ball got played behind him and he had to reach back for it. As Wyndham says, he plays, he scores. He doesn't get enough credit.
KVetch
Key Player
Insane how Wood has so many errors but finishes out with a top figure. I would also think in theory defensive errors are more costly than attacking errors. Not every cross or chance creation is going to be perfect. But a poor pass in front of goal we all know what happens. These are good charts and a lot of work I suspect.
They must be and we are indebted to @CroJack for producing them - always informative and interesting.
I think in his case the vast majority of the errors are attacking ones.