Following on the heels of my League 2 analysis last week, and spurred on by a recent guest post I authored over at the excellent Seat Pitch Nottingham Forest blog, I have now completed the attacking and defensive performance analysis for the Championship. For those of you who aren’t familiar with these graphs, they’re basically combinations of the average number of shots a team has or faces per match and the average number of shots it takes a team to score or concede a goal. This data can be cut and filtered in various ways to compare teams’ performance, which is precisely what I’m going to attempt here.

What I’ll do is present the four graphs I’ll be using, making some cursory observations to illustrate them, then wade in to the detail in team-specific summaries afterwards.

1) Attack

The first chart shows the average number of shots taken (horizontally, so left is bad and right is good) and the average number of shots taken to score a goal (vertically, so lower is good, higher is bad). You can click any of these graphs to bring up a larger version in a new tab:

I’ll summarise this briefly here. As you’d expect, most of the teams in the bottom right quadrant had successful seasons. Hull, Middlesbrough and Burnley all took a relatively scatter gun approach to finishing, while Reading and Brighton were significantly more patient. All 3 relegated sides reside in the worst quadrant, reserved for teams who create relatively few chances and are wasteful in front of goal, while the final top 5 had the 5 most clinical attacks.

2) Defence

Now let’s look at the equivalent chart for defence, so instead of shots taken we’re looking at shots faced. This flips our scale so that now top left is the place to be: teams that allow few chances and who can soak up a lot of punishment before conceding.

I was surprised by how diffuse the distribution is here – there’s no clear pattern, although again there are some interesting outliers. Peterborough’s defence was significantly busier than that of any other side, while it took almost half as many shots to score past Forest or Ipswich than champions Reading.

3) Activity

We can also ignore efficiency altogether and compare the shots taken and shots faced per game, to see what that would look like:

Bottom right is once again the place to be, where teams are creating plenty of chances but inviting little in return, although now that we’re not considering efficiency it won’t tell the whole story if a side is especially good or bad at converting or repelling chances. Peterborough once again stand out – there’s never a dull moment when they’re playing, with shots raining in at both ends.

4) Efficiency

Finally we can ignore how much attacking and defending went on and focus solely on efficiency:

While efficiency isn’t always sexy, it certainly gets results. All three promoted sides were in the top left quadrant, with champions Reading leading the way. Having said that, both Forest and Bristol City survived the drop despite being among the least efficient sides in the division. City sit in a cluster of profligate outliers, along with Hull, Middlesbrough and Coventry, whose attacks were particularly wasteful. Brighton, Blackpool and Cardiff can all take encouragement from the quality of their execution at both ends, while others will have something to work on over the summer.

Team by team summary:

Barnsley – The focus for next season has to be on both creating more chances and tightening things up at the back. Despite finishing in 21st, they were as many points away from17th as 22nd, so even a modest improvement would stave off any relegation worries next term.

Birmingham – The Blues’ main strength was going forward this season – they were the most clinical side not to be promoted – so Chris Hughton’s successor would do well to focus more on the rearguard. While superb at restricting the number of shots they faced (only Forest’s defence faced fewer), their defence took fewer shots to breach than most.

Blackpool – Superb up front and stubborn at the back, on paper Blackpool were worthy of promotion. The only criticism you could level at them from this data is that their expansive attacking play left their defence with plenty to do as their opponents exploited the gaps thus created: only 4 sides allowed more shots at their goal over the season.

Brighton – Although they boast one of the division’s sharper attacks, the Seagulls struggled to supply their front line with sufficient ammunition: only relegated Doncaster mustered fewer shots at goal. At the back they were encouragingly solid.

Bristol City – A wasteful attack saw the least amount of goals scored by any side that survived relegation – this needs addressing as a priority to ensure a less frustrating season next time around. Things weren’t particularly rosy at the back either, although the improvement required is much less drastic.

Burnley – Nobody in the division had more shots per game, but not enough of them found the back of the net for a play-off challenge to be maintained. A touch more composure will have them challenging for a top 6 place, as the defence is already looking reasonably solid.

Cardiff – There was much to be admired in the execution at both ends of the pitch despite more play-off heartache. Up front things seem to be working well, so finding a way to take some pressure off the slightly overworked defence might be all that’s required to turn a few of those draws into wins and mount a serious challenge for automatic promotion.

Coventry – The division’s most wasteful side up front – they needed almost twice as many shots to score each goal as Southampton – this will most definitely need fixing if Coventry are to bounce straight back from League 1. Defensively they weren’t particularly inefficient, but allowed far too many attempts at their goal.

Crystal Palace – A quiet attack and a busy defence aren’t usually the recipe for success, but the latter was also one of the division’s tightest and kept the goal difference respectable. As for Brighton, the main focus has to be on creating more chances: if they can manage this, then a solid mid-table finish doesn’t look unreasonable.

Derby – The extra shot on average that it took the Rams to find the net, and the extra two on average that they faced in every match kept them in mid-table. From graph (2) it looks like they based their play on soaking up a lot of pressure, as they were pretty good at it. Unfortunately, as graph (1) shows, they didn’t have the attack to match.

Doncaster – While they weren’t particularly wasteful in front of goal, no side created fewer chances. It was at the other end where things unravelled though: only 7 shots were required on average to breach their defence, but they were facing 12 per match. Next season offers the chance to rebuild.

Hull – The Tigers’ defensive performance was worthy of promotion: only Reading were harder to score against and only 4 teams allowed their opponents fewer shots. It was at the other end where their ambitions were thwarted, as one of a quartet of sides who needed more than 11 shots on average to find the target. If they can keep their solid back line intact while bringing in a proven goalscorer next season, don’t bet against them for promotion.

Ipswich – There were certainly no worries up front: only Burnley had more shots last season and the Tractor Boys were noticeably superior in their finishing. While less clinical as the top 5, their haul of goals was worthy of play-off contention. It was at the back where this attacking energy was undermined, with only Forest’s defence requiring fewer shots to breach – this will need addressing if they’re to climb the table.

Leeds – While boasting one of the Championship’s more clinical attacks, Leeds often made their opposition look equally adept in front of goal: like Ipswich their porous defence kept them in mid-table.

Leicester – While they ultimately missed out on a play-off place, there’s plenty to be optimistic about. Their attack is in the most dangerous quadrant, and while the defence is slightly leaky it would only take a relatively minor bit of tightening to push for promotion next season.

Middlesbrough – There was never a dull moment up front, but an inability to convert enough of the myriad chances they created frustrated Boro’s play-off ambitions. A better than average back line in both respects is a solid foundation, so if Tony Mowbray instigates double training sessions on shooting practice then they could be a smart bet for promotion.

Millwall – It seems that in every one of these posts there’s one team that defiantly hovers near the average for everything and defying analysis. This season it’s Millwall who are almost bang-on the average for all of the graphs, which underlines their solid mid-table credentials. Don’t worry I’ll have more metrics to measure them against next season so this shouldn’t happen again!

Nottm Forest – I’ve already written about Forest at length (see link at the top of this post). In summary, while there were shortcomings at both ends it was the defence which caught the eye: no side allowed fewer shots, but also nobody took fewer shots to score against. If they can restrict the quality of chances as well as they have the quantity, they can look forward to an improved campaign next season.

Peterborough – The entertainers of the division, unfortunately at both ends of the pitch! While they created plenty of chances, it was at the back where the Posh really stood out, facing 3 more shots per game than the average and 1.5 more than next busiest defence. Whether they can close down their opponents without compromising their expansive attacking style I’m not qualified to answer, but they definitely need to tip the balance somewhat.

Portsmouth – Pompey would have stayed up if they hadn’t been docked 10 points – the graphs bear out that while sub-par, they weren’t particularly terrible on either front. Efficiency was their main shortcoming, but may take time to address if rebuilding in League 1 necessitates significant player turnover.

Reading – The Royals won their title through rigorous efficiency rather than domination. Only 4 sides averaged fewer shots on goal and only fellow promotees Southampton were marginally better at converting them. It was in defence where they excelled: it was comfortably the division’s least pregnable and needed almost 12 shots on average to breach, nearly double that of Forest or Ipswich!

Southampton – As I’ve just mentioned, the Championship’s most efficient attack by a nose also generated 2 more shots per game than champions Reading’s did, which could give them the edge in the Premier League next season. While the Royals were far superior in keeping chances out at the other end, they could learn from the Saints’ tenacity in closing down their opponents: only 2 sides were better at restricting the number of shots at their goal.

Watford – Things were quieter than average at both ends in a solid season for the Hornets. Despite their respectable league position, it should be a concern that only 4 defences required fewer goals on average to penetrate, as well as the fact that only 5 teams generated fewer chances of their own. However, some better than average finishing and defensive organisation both compensate and offer encouragement.

West Ham – While undoubtedly a polarising team this season, their promotion seems to be merited here. The Hammers boasted arguably the most dangerous attack in the division when you combine both chance creation and conversion, and only Reading’s defence was more resilient.

Next steps

I’ll be producing the League 1 version of this analysis in the near future to complete the trilogy, and will be looking at each team’s performance individually in more detail as the new season draws nearer. The aim is to produce new content on a weekly basis for each division next season, including regular updates of charts like this and the other stuff I’ve churned out erratically over the past year or so. As always, feedback on both style and content is welcome.