Scatter graphics: Eredivisie, 2015/16

With domestic seasons now ending all over Europe, I’ll be using my scatter graphics to take a final look at each of the main European leagues. Here’s how the attacking and defensive performances of each Eredivisie club compared this season.

These graphics are explained here if you haven’t seen them before.

Shot dominance

First of all, here is how the number of shots taken by each club compares with those they face in return. The average number of shots taken per match is on the horizontal and the average number faced is on the vertical, so bottom right (take plenty, allow few in return) is good while top left (take few, allow plenty) is bad. The stripes are like contours: the greener the stripe, the better the performance (and vice versa for red).

N1 2015-16 scatter Att DefPSV were way out in front for the sheer number of shots taken, but allowed more in return than either Feyenoord or Ajax.

Despite spending more time on the back foot than anyone – allowing the most attempts at their goal and taking fewer shots than everyone exceept Willem II – Excelsior avoided the drop this season.

Attacking effectiveness

Now let’s look at attacking alone. The horizontal axis stays the same as in the graphic above, but now the vertical shows the average number of shots needed to score each league goal. Therefore bottom right is good (taking lots of shots and needing fewer efforts to convert) and top left is bad:

N1 2015-16 scatter Att

The top two of PSV and Ajax led the way here, with the latter the more clinical – in fact the sharpest finishers in the division overall – but the less industrious.

The least reliable finishers were bottom side Cambuur; although six clubs created fewer chances they were the most wasteful in front of goal.

Just above them in the league table are newly-promoted De Graafschap, who actually created a respectable number of chances but were also let down by their finishing.

Defensive effectiveness

Finally let’s look at the defensive situation – basically take the above chart and replace the word “taken” for “faced” on both axes. Now top left is good – facing fewer shots and able to soak up more per goal conceded – and bottom right is bad:

N1 2015-16 scatter DefAjax were in a class of their own defensively: while they allowed slightly more shots at their goal than Feyenoord, they soaked up over 16 attempts for each goal they conceded.

Relegated Cambuur again performed better than six other sides – this time in terms of how many shots they allowed – but withstood fewer attempts at their goal for each time they conceded than anyone else.