After months on the sidelines, a series of injuries have brought Javier Garrido back into the first team. There is a general consensus that with Michael Ball in his place at left back, we've been more solid, and have benefited from the change. Alan Hansen's destruction of Garrido on Match of the Day after the 6-0 loss at Stamford Bridge is seared in people's minds. But Javi played well against Spurs - and his persecutor in December, Aaron Lennon, was withdrawn at half time by Juande Ramos. So should he keep his place when Ball is fit? Or do we re-solidify the back four, going for the more experienced option, putting safety ahead of the chance to blood a promising youngster?
The statistics suggest that it is not that clear.
I have divided all of our Premier League games this year in those which Garrido and Ball have started at left back (ignoring the cup matches where both of them often played, often in different positions). This is the fairest way, but even then suffers from the fact that Ball played centre half in the 2-0 loss at Reading, a game which is here designated to Garrido, and so does not appear on Ball's record.
GARRIDO
P 18 W 10 D 3 L 5 F 22 A 20 Pts 33 GD +2
BALL
P 12 W 3 D 6 L 3 F 14 A 14 Pts 15 GD 0
As illuminating as that is - they do not tell the whole story.
Points per game: Garrido (33/18) : 1.83. Ball (15/12) : 1.25.
Win percentage: Garrido (10/18) : 56%. Ball (3/12) : 25%
Goals/game: Garrido (22/18) : 1.22 . Ball (14/12) : 1.17
Conceded/game: Garrido (20/18) : 1.11 Ball (14/12) : 1.17
So on every relevant index, Garrido comes out stronger. The fact that he overlaps more than Ball does would probably cause most people to presume that we'd score more with him (which we do), but these stats blow away they myth of solidity under Ball. It's only a difference of 0.06 goals/game in Garrido's favour, but given how people talked of the change at the time you could have thought we'd swapped Bramble for Baresi.
There is obviously a correlation/causation issue here. Garrido's games happened to coincide with the fitness of Johnson and the good form of Elano - neither of which Ball was lucky enough to have. In a game like football, it's difficult to know exactly what impact any one player, particularly a full back, has on a team. But these stats should hopefully give pause to the 'Garrido can't defend' brigade, and make the issue of Ball's return to the team from injury (still, in my opinion, a very tight call) a closely contested one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For me Garrido is obviosly better than Ball! any discution of that for me doesn't have any sense.
Garrido looked good on Sunday because of the players around him - they were all good quick passers of the ball, albeit somewhat lightweight. He fits in with this system of moving the ball quickly and accurately, whereas Ball is more of a plodder and, therefore, better suited to most Prem games. Ball solidity at the cost of pace and passing ability. Not that I'm slagging him off. I've been surprised at how useful Ball has been this year.
All in all, I think Ball should play more often than Garrido since the decision should depend on the opposition we face. I was amazed at the lightweight nature of the team on Sunday and can only think it was selected against Spurs (hardly a team of bruisers themselves) because of their midweek exertions. I, for one, loved the way we passed it. Very Italian. We don't really have all the players we need to play in this style week in, week out, but maybe some wise Summer acquisitions can change that.
And congrats to you, LDRC, for your interesting blog.
Post a Comment