Distance covered so far in the league
- Thread starter Hansern
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
It's a pretty meaningless stat when taken in isolation, and it's been discussed at length on here before.
To illustrate this, Bayern are currently top of the league in Germany and there was only 3 teams that ran less than them in the first game, and 3 teams that ran less than them in the 2nd game (the data on third third game hasn't been released yet).
http://www.bundesliga.com/en/stats/team-stats/
To illustrate this, Bayern are currently top of the league in Germany and there was only 3 teams that ran less than them in the first game, and 3 teams that ran less than them in the 2nd game (the data on third third game hasn't been released yet).
http://www.bundesliga.com/en/stats/team-stats/
I'd be quite surprised if some measure of work-rate, intensity and miles covered doesn't correlate with a successful team.
It's clearly not the only measure, otherwise George Boyd would be worth £50m, but you have to work hard to win games.
It's clearly not the only measure, otherwise George Boyd would be worth £50m, but you have to work hard to win games.
Lucas and Coutinho.
Other muscle injuries:
Sturridge - Hip/thigh
Moreno - Hip/thigh
Firmino - groin
So 2 hamstring injuries. I doubt we're top of the injury league with that amount.
The difference between us and Manure is 55 km - over 5 games.
So, on average, as a team, we run 11 km more than they do per game. That's 1 km per player per 90 minutes.
Or 11 metres more per player per minute.
Not sure what this means, but it's endlessly fascinating.
So, on average, as a team, we run 11 km more than they do per game. That's 1 km per player per 90 minutes.
Or 11 metres more per player per minute.
Not sure what this means, but it's endlessly fascinating.
A lot of it depends on style of play. A title winning season for a team like A. Madrid would look a lot different to a title winning season for Barcelona for example, one would imagine.
I'm not surprised that us and Spurs are right up there, we've been the hardest working sides in the league for the last year or so anecdotally at least. Man City in second surprises me though, given Guardiola's reputation for pass pass pass.
I'd be interested to see what the km covered looked like for Liverpool in 2013-14, even more so if the data was broken down beyond a full season.
I'm not surprised that us and Spurs are right up there, we've been the hardest working sides in the league for the last year or so anecdotally at least. Man City in second surprises me though, given Guardiola's reputation for pass pass pass.
I'd be interested to see what the km covered looked like for Liverpool in 2013-14, even more so if the data was broken down beyond a full season.
Guardiola expects his team to work hard. Like others, he expects his teams to hunt in packs and win the ball back quickly and also, to play an effective passing game, you always have to be on the move.
Absolutely, I remember all the 7 seconds stuff. I didn't see much of Bayern, but his Barcelona side were so efficient at winning the ball back and then keeping it that they never appeared to get through that much running allowing the ball to do the work and the opposition to do the chasing. I'm sure the numbers would show they covered more distance than it seemed though.
Clearly there's a tactical reason for this - Klopp sets his side up to fucking run more than Mourinho, obv. - but you only have to look at United's 11 most weeks to note that there just aren't a lot of fucking dihard runners in that side, especially when they don't have the ball.
Rooney, Ibrahimovic, Mkhitaryan, Fellaini, Pogba, Martial, etc - Great as they all are, they don't have a history of covering ground for the team.
Mourinho's got a problem as far as I can see. He's got an unbalanced, bloated squad, and they're struggling to establish any form of rhythm. Even in the games they have won - they haven't convinced me. A few moments of individual quality (Rooney setting up the winner away to Hull for example), but no collective view that they look like they know what they're doing.
He's got a lot of work to do there, and it's fucking brilliant to see.
Shame we can't cover that ground and not looked absolutely f*cked after 65 mins
I don't think it's useless at all. It doesn't assume automatic success but there is definitely a correlation of sorts.
As for BM they are so dominant that it comes as no surprise the opposition in their games are doing most of the running !
Last edited:
Source?Interesting to see that Utd have covered the least km.
Footballers have muscle injuries ? Who'd have thunk it !
I know right!?
I'm just having a laugh but it is a bit worrying seeing us collapse in the 2ND half like we did against Spurs and Chelsea. We just seem unable to keep up the tempo that Klopp requires.
We didn't collapse in either of those games, the other teams got better, but we were still the better team, and should have won both games.
The players looked absolutely knackered in both games. We need to finish off teams quickly in order to win it seems.
Arsenal: All 4 goals scored before the 64th minute. Arsenal scores two afterwards.
Burton: Late goals scored by Sturridge who came on in the 64th minute.
Spurs: Penalty in the 43rd minute.
Leicester: 3 goals scored by the 56th minute. Late goal by Firmino as well in the 89th.
Chelsea: 2 goals in the first half.
Yeah, there was plenty saying similar things last season, too. But those concerns were assuaged by the view that after a full pre-season, the players would be more able to perform at those intensity levels for longer.
That's obviously true, but as we have already discussed in several threads - most recently the one I posted about "serenity", it still seems a bit far-fetched that we will have a team of superhumans who can run around like dervishes for 90 minutes, because as you've pointed out, in lots of games there's been periods in the second half were we look like collapsing. And that's not even mentioning the games when we don't even start (let alone finish) well, and simply capitulate.
But Klopp did talk about it after the Chelsea game, with reference to being able to better "manage games", rather than have our foot on the accelerator all the time
I think 'collapse' is going a bit far. Teams of their quality are inevitably going to have good spells and especially so when behind and trying to come back.
To emphasise that in both games we eventually took control again (and that was also true against Arsenal).
A full preseason helps, but to keep it going for an entire season you need to rotate and also use subs wisely.
Now for instance today's game should imo definitely not feature players like Sturridge, Wijnaldum, Lallana, Henderson, Clyne and Milner.
We took control against Arsenal and Chelsea after conceeding. Sure there's positives in that, but that also cost us 2 points at Spurs.
It's stretching the point to say we "eventually took control again" in a game when we went from 4-1 to 4-3.
And I do accept that most teams will have what we call "a good spell" in games, but the issue is, while "collapse" is perhaps overstating it, we certainly do not look like a team that will ever win 1-0. We concede goals in every game. And always look like we will.
Leicester? When the "individual mistake" gave them a goal, we got the collective jitters and they hit the bar and had another excellent chance that Mignolet saved.
But yeah, we look in control and collectively strong defensively, and the only reason we have conceded 8 goals in 5 Premiership games and failed to keep a single clean sheet, is a series of unfortunate individual mistakes and nothing to worry about.
- Status
