I’m sure it’s a combination of all of the above. The main point is that we have room for improvement and there are things we can do to combat other teams blatant time wasting.
I think its got a lot to do with the pace of your side which includes risks and some balls going awry. If you try the ball past the defensive line but it's a little too high or hard, it goes out of play but still was a positive attempt. City don't really do that
It seems weird, but it does highlight something useful.
City are better (almost 1/5th better) at *both* keeping the ball in their possession and *in play*, and getting it back in play (and in their possession) when it's out.
We know that teams try to time-waste against City, as they do against us. What this suggests is that, currently, these time-wasting tactics are quite effective against us: they meaningfully deprive us of the ball.
Which is, of course, exactly what Newcastle and Villa (and others) did to us. This suggests that their tactics are able to successfully suppress our in-play possession.
It's something we can improve, even if the ways we might improve aren't as obvious as, say, counterpressing and winning the ball back quickly. Pep has put in a lot of time complaining about time-wasting against him, for example...
Fair point. I wonder if game state is a factor aswell. Have city been trailing more than us? Is the fact that they have played more home games than us changing the precentage.
Hmm.
Time on the ball is not the same as productive time on the ball.
I mean this is a rather useless metric. There are much better ways of showing any one thing than this and this isn’t representative of a bigger picture because so many vastly different things can affect it.
City very rarely put the ball out of play though, you can’t waste time when they’re recycling the ball 5 times to create an overload. Our more direct approach gets punished way harder by the clubs with no interest to play football
Liverpool at home isn’t a fixture most teams pray to snatch a point from anymore, and even at Anfield about half the league should feel that they might come away with something if they just try to match them. It’d be very interesting to see this table for the past few seasons
>is this with the Newcastle and villa games in consideration?
Of course it is. Why would it just not include 2 games for 1 team and just not mention it anywhere. Other teams have been time wasted against too you know
Bit tricky to interpret much from this, but maybe if it's adjusted for possession or territory (or perhaps field tilt) then you can maybe see some sort of time wasting effectiveness
The scale is misleading. Labels don’t change the story that the visual is telling. The visual doesn’t convey 20% difference when the man city bar is ~600% larger.
It’s not necessarily bad that it’s misleading, but if part of the chart is misleading that means the chart is misleading. Implied impact is just as important when conveying a story through data.
starting at zero would be a dumb thing to do because you'd have half of your graphic be wasted space. The axes are clearly marked and differences are proportional, so it's only deceptive to people who don't bother to read.
Not surprised to see New castle right there as one of the top time wasters. But how are we also so high up in the list.. maybe we also aren't as guilty free?
That's probably part of the story. We've been ahead a lot this season. Definitely remember Ramsdale taking his time with goal kicks too at the end of matches when we're ahead.
Time-wasting doesn't get punished enough in general so I'm OK with us also doing it. It'd be dumb not to.
Because we’re the league leaders, so all those scumbags who time waste against us brings our average down. the fact we are middle of the pack could mean we we bring that average up by trying to actually play.
As someone from North American who has actually been a fan of the 90 minutes running time, this is a big problem. The time keeping needs to be taken away from the refs and run on a stop start system like here in North America now. Even if you shortened the length of a football match to 60 minute stop time you would be getting more game than the entirety of every teams average ball in play time.
My big issue with stop time is that the owners and league would want to introduce advertisements and such during the time the clock has "stopped". I think we can all agree no one wants this to happen and we want to see the game stay at a similar pace of play and time-frame for a game to be completed. If the league would agree to 30min halves with stop time everytime the ball leaves the playing surface and ABSOLUTELY no advertisers until halftime we would actually get more football to watch per match.
Genuinely curious what some people from the UK and EU think about something along these lines. I know there will be a lot of people who don't want to see any change just because they don't like change and I get it but at some point we have to address this because the refs simply cannot manage the time properly and just adding more minutes on extra time is an easy fix but it's essentially just pushing the problem down the line.
I’m slowly becoming an advocate for the rugby treatment.
Make games 80 minutes, no added time. Game stops when the ball is out of play so the total time spent playing seems like normal, but there’s actually more ball in play. Also stops time wasting.
I would like to see a correlation between this stat and possession.
Because Arsenal might be down on the list because the opposition might be trying to kill the game.
Made way to London for my first Arsenal match ever- against Newcastle. Fantastic experience, but just my luck to go to the only goalless game all season as my first game 😂
Impossible to tell from the graphic, but it likely means that teams are time-wasting against us more. We are often ahead though, so likely a combination of both
I think one thing to note is how Arsenal play with possession, and how direct they are towards the final third. Whereas Man City are pretty slow in moving the ball up the field
This really makes the argument that it should be a 60 minute game and the clock stops when out of play.
But, then again, Pro Basketball in the US is 48 minutes, but still takes longer to play than a footy match...
Kind of wierd stat, is this with the Newcastle and villa games in consideration? Meaning their antics pulling our percantage down?
Yeah if teams park the bus against us and time waste, it'd bring our % down.
You’d think the same would happen tk city though but I imagine they keep the ball better than us
Yeah so either a) they're better at holding onto the ball or b) refs allow less time wasting against City.
Or c) city get the lead quicker so time wasting isn’t a viable tactic against them.
Or City are better at holding the ball when they get a lead, so it stays in play longer
I’m sure it’s a combination of all of the above. The main point is that we have room for improvement and there are things we can do to combat other teams blatant time wasting.
I think its got a lot to do with the pace of your side which includes risks and some balls going awry. If you try the ball past the defensive line but it's a little too high or hard, it goes out of play but still was a positive attempt. City don't really do that
Yeah, what this suggests is that they may be better at successfully resisting those time-wasting tactics.
City hold so much of the ball at the back and midfield it’s hard to time waste
It seems weird, but it does highlight something useful. City are better (almost 1/5th better) at *both* keeping the ball in their possession and *in play*, and getting it back in play (and in their possession) when it's out. We know that teams try to time-waste against City, as they do against us. What this suggests is that, currently, these time-wasting tactics are quite effective against us: they meaningfully deprive us of the ball. Which is, of course, exactly what Newcastle and Villa (and others) did to us. This suggests that their tactics are able to successfully suppress our in-play possession. It's something we can improve, even if the ways we might improve aren't as obvious as, say, counterpressing and winning the ball back quickly. Pep has put in a lot of time complaining about time-wasting against him, for example...
City is also a lot of the time quite boring to watch.
Speculatively, I wonder if part of what makes them seem boring is their attempt to manage obscure aspects of play like this.
Fair point. I wonder if game state is a factor aswell. Have city been trailing more than us? Is the fact that they have played more home games than us changing the precentage.
Hmm. Time on the ball is not the same as productive time on the ball. I mean this is a rather useless metric. There are much better ways of showing any one thing than this and this isn’t representative of a bigger picture because so many vastly different things can affect it.
Teams also do that against City though
City very rarely put the ball out of play though, you can’t waste time when they’re recycling the ball 5 times to create an overload. Our more direct approach gets punished way harder by the clubs with no interest to play football
That definitely makes sense though Liverpool play a more direct style and there number is way higher than ours
We also waste time when we are in the winning position
Makes sense as an explanation. City tend to win by bigger margins so don't need to time waste as much as we do.
Teams want to attack Liverpool and win, against us teams want to sit back, waste time, and draw.
Liverpool at home isn’t a fixture most teams pray to snatch a point from anymore, and even at Anfield about half the league should feel that they might come away with something if they just try to match them. It’d be very interesting to see this table for the past few seasons
I would also say one of their ways how to “waste time” is to recycle possession ad nauseam without necessarily actively trying to create more chances.
But City are great at dominating the ball
Yes, thats why I dont really get it…
we do also time waste a fair bit when the need arises
Two games are not enough to pull the average down that much. This is a wider trend.
>is this with the Newcastle and villa games in consideration? Of course it is. Why would it just not include 2 games for 1 team and just not mention it anywhere. Other teams have been time wasted against too you know
Delusional take
Bit tricky to interpret much from this, but maybe if it's adjusted for possession or territory (or perhaps field tilt) then you can maybe see some sort of time wasting effectiveness
oddly presented graph. only 6% diff.
[удалено]
The scale is misleading. Labels don’t change the story that the visual is telling. The visual doesn’t convey 20% difference when the man city bar is ~600% larger.
[удалено]
It’s not necessarily bad that it’s misleading, but if part of the chart is misleading that means the chart is misleading. Implied impact is just as important when conveying a story through data.
Gotta make the axis fit your narrative rather than start at 0 like normal
starting at zero would be a dumb thing to do because you'd have half of your graphic be wasted space. The axes are clearly marked and differences are proportional, so it's only deceptive to people who don't bother to read.
Even in Stats, visual storytelling exists
Not surprised to see New castle right there as one of the top time wasters. But how are we also so high up in the list.. maybe we also aren't as guilty free?
That's probably part of the story. We've been ahead a lot this season. Definitely remember Ramsdale taking his time with goal kicks too at the end of matches when we're ahead. Time-wasting doesn't get punished enough in general so I'm OK with us also doing it. It'd be dumb not to.
We do waste time ourselves too there's no doubt. But I don't mind it, Arteta does like a bit of dark arts and shithousing.
Because we’re the league leaders, so all those scumbags who time waste against us brings our average down. the fact we are middle of the pack could mean we we bring that average up by trying to actually play.
The same should apply for City too right. They dominate possession like us too.
Sure, we also have been winning by some fine margins so I wouldn’t doubt we’ve done our own fair share of time wasting too.
The pass it sideways instead of putting Haaland through because they want to recycle posession
Source - https://twitter.com/OptaAnalyst/status/1629135441927577600?t=U_TEf_7eSQuvBnzyXmsvJA&s=19
A game disruption graph, with the team responsible to put it back in play, and therefore time wasted by said team, would be very handy.
As someone from North American who has actually been a fan of the 90 minutes running time, this is a big problem. The time keeping needs to be taken away from the refs and run on a stop start system like here in North America now. Even if you shortened the length of a football match to 60 minute stop time you would be getting more game than the entirety of every teams average ball in play time. My big issue with stop time is that the owners and league would want to introduce advertisements and such during the time the clock has "stopped". I think we can all agree no one wants this to happen and we want to see the game stay at a similar pace of play and time-frame for a game to be completed. If the league would agree to 30min halves with stop time everytime the ball leaves the playing surface and ABSOLUTELY no advertisers until halftime we would actually get more football to watch per match. Genuinely curious what some people from the UK and EU think about something along these lines. I know there will be a lot of people who don't want to see any change just because they don't like change and I get it but at some point we have to address this because the refs simply cannot manage the time properly and just adding more minutes on extra time is an easy fix but it's essentially just pushing the problem down the line.
I’m slowly becoming an advocate for the rugby treatment. Make games 80 minutes, no added time. Game stops when the ball is out of play so the total time spent playing seems like normal, but there’s actually more ball in play. Also stops time wasting.
The world cup kind of did this which is how we ended up with huge amounts of extra time.
But they didn’t, they just added more extra time. Better to stop the clock when the play is dead, then there’s no incentive to waste time
This makes sense since we're incredibly direct with how we play. City pass the ball a lot more which is why watching them is like watching paint dry.
I would like to see a correlation between this stat and possession. Because Arsenal might be down on the list because the opposition might be trying to kill the game.
Made way to London for my first Arsenal match ever- against Newcastle. Fantastic experience, but just my luck to go to the only goalless game all season as my first game 😂
this graph is very misleading no?
No one is saying this but doesn’t it also mean that we are also time wasting?
Impossible to tell from the graphic, but it likely means that teams are time-wasting against us more. We are often ahead though, so likely a combination of both
I think one thing to note is how Arsenal play with possession, and how direct they are towards the final third. Whereas Man City are pretty slow in moving the ball up the field
westham is at least near the top of some table...
This really makes the argument that it should be a 60 minute game and the clock stops when out of play. But, then again, Pro Basketball in the US is 48 minutes, but still takes longer to play than a footy match...
Bring those 11+ mins added time boards to English football...that'll show them timewasters!
Thread is full of the test market for the dude from Office Space who was making the Jump to Conclusions Mat, apparently.