[Archived] Hanley and Lowe - how we do with and without them (in stats)

[bluebruce]

So, I got to wondering how we perform with and without these lynchpins of Gaz's team selections, since they are much criticised and Bowyer plays them whenever they are fit. I took the time to put some stats together.

I'll point out a few things first. I know that stats don't prove everything, and there are various other factors at play (form of opposition, quality of opposition, other players, etc). Also, I am a critic of both of these players, but I haven't hidden a single piece of data that I compiled in the interest of fiddling statistics. I set out with the intention to gather wins, losses, goals scored and conceded, clean sheets and points per game, and I've included it all here for the sake of completeness. I haven't manipulated stats to prove a point. There's a few other things worth mentioning, but I will post on those later.

Hanley in the side

Played: 31

Won: 10 (32.25%)

Drawn: 10 (32.25%)

Lost: 11 (35.48%)

Scored: 41 (1 by him) (1.32 per game)

Conceded: 43 (1.38 per game)

Clean Sheets: 4 (12.9% of games)

Points: 40 (1.29 per game)

Without Hanley

P: 21

W: 10 (47.6%)

D: 7 (33.33%)

L: 4 (19.04%)

Scored: 34 (1.61 per game)

Conceded: 21 (1 per game)

Clean Sheets: 7 (33.33% of games)

'Points' (Some are cup games): 37 (1.76 per game)

League games without Hanley

P: 15

W: 7 (46.66%)

D: 6 (40%)

L: 2 (13.33%)

Scored: 25 (1.66 per game)

Conceded: 16 (1.06 per game)

Clean Sheets: 6 (40% of games)

Points: 27 (1.8 per game)

Games where Lowe played

P: 14

W: 6 (42.85%)

D: 2 (14.28%)

L: 6 (42.85%)

Scored: 19 (1.35 per game)

Conceded: 21 (1.5 per game)

Clean Sheets: 1 (Only completed half of this match) (7.14% of games)

Points: 20 (1.42 per game)

Without Lowe

P: 38

W: 14 (36.84%)

D: 15 (39.47%)

L: 9 (23.68%)

Scored: 56 (1.47 per game)

Conceded: 43 (1.13 per game)

Clean Sheets: 10 (26.31% of games)

Points: 57 (1.5 per game)

Games where both played

P: 12

W: 5 (41.66%)

D: 2 (16.66%)

L: 5 (41.66%)

Scored: 16 (1.33 per game)

Conceded: 19 (1.58 per game)

Clean Sheets: 1 (Lowe completed half this game) (8.33% of games)

Points: 17 (1.41 per game)

Games where neither played

P: 19

W: 9 (47.36%)

D: 7 (36.84%)

L: 3 (15.78%)

Scored: 31 (1.63 per game)

Conceded: 19 (1 per game)

Clean Sheets: 7 (36.84% of games)

Points: 34 (1.78 per game)

Hanley playing without Lowe

P: 19

W: 5 (26.31%)

D: 8 (42.1%)

L: 6 (31.57%)

Scored: 25 (1.31 per game)

Conceded: 24 (1.26 per game)

Clean Sheets: 3 (15.78% of games)

Points: 23 (1.21 per game)

As you can see, I covered a lot of angles, and really expected some of them to counter my belief that they have been detrimental in all ways, but time after time I saw that we score more, concede less, win more, lose less, gain more points, without them. I believe the only exception in there is that we did win more with Lowe (although we still gained less points). It does seem the difference in points gained is less pronounced when Lowe plays, than when Hanley plays.

Curious what everyone else makes of these stats, so thought I would share them.

[Al]

Hell Bruce that took some compiling. 10/10 for patience.

[mustard]

I think the stats RE Hanley are alarming (or perhaps not alarming at all). The stats for Lowe aren't quite as cut and dry and it would be intriguing to look at Lowe's partners in the middle. I've said it numerous times that Lowe + Williamson/Evans is a recipe for disaster, but if he played with Cairney in the centre it could work. Tbh, I'm not sure Bowyer has ever really tried it or if he would.

Last season I did a similar comparison of games with Cairney in CM or with Cairney out-wide and two DMs. The figures were alarming and showed we conceded more and scored less with two defensive midfielders.

If I was a football manager, I'd analyse every stat available to me to find the best formula and to fix the weak links. I have a feeling Bowyer just isn't quite screwed on in this respect, hence why we see Hanley stuck in there, with two DMs to the benefit of no one but his bezzie mates on the field.

[K-Hod]

Exactly right about having Cairney and Lowe in the middle together, but I still maintain that those 2 and 1 other in a further advanced role is our best recipe for success.

[davulsukur]

Top marks for effort! The only other factor needed is that Lowe has played some games at RB and some at CM.

[tomphil]

Lowe is debatable in as much as he's moved about, sometimes within the game itself. He does though always start when fit and often in the place of someone better suited it seems. Hanley I think the stats are a bit damning, nothing regular watchers don't know although his defensive partners, the team and manager have to shoulder a bit of blame as well. Garner nailed it in his column this week by saying he loses concentration too often and has been around long enough to know better now. For me he often plays within himself as well and certainly, obviously doesn't like being given instructions by other players.

What is for certain when it comes to these 2 is that Bowyer often ignores the obvious and also they seem exempt to a lot of the rules that he applies to other players. He's tried to build his team around them for 2 seasons now, it hasn't worked so time to move on !

[K-Hod]

Lowe is debatable in as much as he's moved about, sometimes within the game itself. He does though always start when fit and often in the place of someone better suited it seems. Hanley I think the stats are a bit damning, nothing regular watchers don't know although his defensive partners, the team and manager have to shoulder a bit of blame as well. Garner nailed it in his column this week by saying he loses concentration too often and has been around long enough to know better now. For me he often plays within himself as well and certainly, obviously doesn't like being given instructions by other players.

What is for certain when it comes to these 2 is that Bowyer often ignores the obvious and also they seem exempt to a lot of the rules that he applies to other players. He's tried to build his team around them for 2 seasons now, it hasn't worked so time to move on !

I've seen this argument before, and I genuinely don't think there's much in it between our CMs, they're all one-paced sideways passing, non-defensive, defensive midfielders as far as I can see!

There's only Cairney that's got any semblance of flair, and he's often played out of position and takes an eternity to get the ball onto his (very much) favoured left foot!

[tomphil]

I was more thinking when he's been put in at right back instead of Henley or someone more capable of playing there or infact keeping it available for him instead of signing an actual right back. Remember our outcries of sign a bloody right back before Henley actually got a chance on a regular basis.

Agree there isn't much between the mids but a lot of opinion and criticism of Lowe stems from the season before last and Bowyers insistence with him when he wasn't always playing very well. I think the fear is always there that GB would play Lowey in there with whoever and leave Cairney out on the wing 9 times out of 10.

[bluebruce]

I did consider trying to gather when Lowe had played right back or DM in games, but I was just using Rovers' website, which doesn't tell you who played where, just who played. I did also consider, as mentioned, the partners in midfield, but this had a similar issue due to Cairney playing RM so often. Plus I think I spent enough time on it as it was At the end of the day I don't think it's too relevant, as the stats cover all bases. They have the simple aim of showing how good the team is or isn't with these players in. You can be just as culpable (or useful) at RB or DM if the manager deems you a capable starter for either. I do take the point though that the stats might look different if this aspect were analysed, but the match sample for Lowe was already a little on the small side without breaking it apart more. I would guess about five games were RB, for example? Not a statistically relevant sample to use.

So, a few other salient points.

I didn't take the time to calculate the difference based on minutes due to subs. So in the interest of laying it all out.

Lowe came on in the 78th minute of the 3-1 defeat to Brentford away. The score was already 3-1 when he came on, so he can't really be held responsible for it. Swapping this game from the 'games where Lowe played' to the ones where he didn't would probably make the points per game about the same. On the other hand, he only played half of the 2-0 win over Charlton, though this was already 2-0 when he came off. He also came off 20 minutes into the 2-1 win over Rotherham (0-0 when he came off).

Hanley came off 41 minutes into the 1-1 draw with Boro (0-0 at the time, so no different really).

The difference in points per game with Lowe and without Lowe is probably statistically negligible, which did surprise me a little. The difference in goals scored, conceded, and clean sheets, is not however. This implies the goals scored and conceded when Lowe played happened at better times for the team, even though we were leakier and less potent. This might be relevant, and factor in with our tactics or how Lowe changes our play, or it could be that we got lucky with when the goals went in. I would suggest it shows we sit too deep and don't attack enough when Lowe plays, soaking up pressure and conceding whilst failing to score, but with a similar points total it doesn't really matter. And we almost always play two DMs, so unless Lowe's particular style in the position is more stand-offish than the other two (I do sorta think it is personally, but not to a huge extent), it's likely not this.

As others have said, the stats on Lowe are basically not as cut and dried. But the stats all consistently showed we performed better on all fronts without him, even if only slightly at times. It is a little damning that we only kept one clean sheet with him, and that he only played half of that match.

I also felt a few results were notable for various reasons...I might get into that on another post some time.

[JAL]

Excellent stuff blueBruce you can't or they can't argue that the team is better off without them in it.

[joey_big_nose]

Amazing work, top post BlueBruce!

To be honest the stats sort of align with what I feel. Hanley is a total liability, Lowe less so and as others have said no worse than our other mids.

If Bowyer plays Hanley out of the blocks next season I will hugely annoyed.

[Stuart]

To be honest the stats sort of align with what I feel. Hanley is a total liability, Lowe less so and as others have said no worse than our other mids.

Look again. We are weaker defensively with Lowe playing. I won't go into why - we all know why.

Despite the excellent, and as yet unchallenged, analysis from Bruce I full expect Hanley, Lowe and possibly even Brown to be the spine of our team at the start of next season. With Bowyer motivating and organising them.

[all you need is duff]

Exactly right about having Cairney and Lowe in the middle together, but I still maintain that those 2 and 1 other in a further advanced role is our best recipe for success.

This was how we played against Bolton and Barnsley at the beginning of the 2013-14 season with Dunn in the advanced role. Dunn's injury meant a lot of the first half of that season had 2 DMs and Cairney in a 3 man centre midfield which rarely worked.

Would we get a more accurate reading if we looked at Lowe and Hanley's effectiveness throughout the last three seasons (a lot of work o know)? I actually think Hanley was very good 2013-14 but deteriorated a lot last season. The stats may not back me up though

[Stuart]

Dunn is/was a class about everyone else in our squad. The only reason not to keep him involved was fitness.

Two problems: we won't be lucky enough/can't afford to get someone of his class again; and he is not a Bowyer type player.

[joey_big_nose]

Look again. We are weaker defensively with Lowe playing. I won't go into why - we all know why.

I don't think "we all know why". You and about four or five other posters really dislike Lowe as is your right. The majority I would say are pretty neutral on him as am I.

As bruce has said the stats are only slightly worse with Lowe, I don't think you can draw conclusions from them. Well you will but you shouldn't.

Anyway no point going into this. I know you really really think Lowe offers nothing -indeed actively weakens us defensively - and think he should never start a game for Rovers. I think he is our best midfield athlete and despite major flaws offers more than Evans or Williamson.

Its boring for everyone else, and me (and surely you also?), to go round and round on it.

[JBiz]

I know this might sound dismissive but the stats don't show enough about the games, who else was playing, formation, opposition..

Lowe, has played in two positions- which is something for his game in itself. He is a player worth having, and the constant barrage of criticism holds no bounds.

After Dann left, I would argue that GH has declined in performance. Stats don't give both sides of an argument either, we've all seen games lost 1-0 with 20+ more chances to the losing team. It's not black and white.

From what I've seen, Hanley is a good player, strong in the air, a good reader of the ball, combatant, physical and a leader in patches. He is also prone to rash decisions ala the Wigan away example. Since becoming the captain, he looks slower and less reliable. Obviously factors involved with his own professionalism but also the pressure of that role. He certainly has not coped with the mantle.

Is it correct to change him, sell or just leave to rot? I'd argue that is the complete opposite of what he/we need. I honestly think if he can get back on track, he gets better than he was (which footballers, specially centre backs get better with age/experience) he will be a prem level player in future.

Hopefully with us.

[Stuart]

Its boring for everyone else, and me (and surely you also?), to go round and round on it.

Agreed. I was going to leave this thread alone but absence and the vacuum of Rovers news at the moment will soon see people forget and turn Lowe into "the thing we've been missing" in midfield. What we really need is a leader and/or tough tackler in the centre of the park but in the absence of that Lowe being out of the side seems to improve our form. As it has done on two separate runs at the end of 2013/14 and 2014/15.

[LDRover]

Agreed. I was going to leave this thread alone but absence and the vacuum of Rovers news at the moment will soon see people forget and turn Lowe into "the thing we've been missing" in midfield. What we really need is a leader and/or tough tackler in the centre of the park but in the absence of that Lowe being out of the side seems to improve our form. As it has done on two separate runs at the end of 2013/14 and 2014/15.

Indeed. It's probably been noted that I don't rate Lowe at all but I only tend to post my views when other contributors suggest that he's what we're missing and that his return would mean an upturn in form.

[JAL]

I know this might sound dismissive but the stats don't show enough about the games, who else was playing, formation, opposition..

Lowe, has played in two positions- which is something for his game in itself. He is a player worth having, and the constant barrage of criticism holds no bounds.

After Dann left, I would argue that GH has declined in performance. Stats don't give both sides of an argument either, we've all seen games lost 1-0 with 20+ more chances to the losing team. It's not black and white.

From what I've seen, Hanley is a good player, strong in the air, a good reader of the ball, combatant, physical and a leader in patches. He is also prone to rash decisions ala the Wigan away example. Since becoming the captain, he looks slower and less reliable. Obviously factors involved with his own professionalism but also the pressure of that role. He certainly has not coped with the mantle.

Is it correct to change him, sell or just leave to rot? I'd argue that is the complete opposite of what he/we need. I honestly think if he can get back on track, he gets better than he was (which footballers, specially centre backs get better with age/experience) he will be a prem level player in future.

Hopefully with us.

It's the manager and his coaching staff who are paid to improve the situation.

[bluebruce]

Would we get a more accurate reading if we looked at Lowe and Hanley's effectiveness throughout the last three seasons (a lot of work o know)? I actually think Hanley was very good 2013-14 but deteriorated a lot last season. The stats may not back me up though

I was initially going to do one for the season before too, but not only is it a lot of work, but it's fairly pointless in this case. See, from my recollection at least, Hanley and Lowe played pretty much every game the season before last. The story of how they did that season is just the story of how we did that season. And campaigns change wildly from season to season (look how that season we finished above everyone who got promoted this season).

I take the point Jbizzle made on stats not proving everything - I made the point myself. I do think that when stats align with what everybody believes they are seeing on the pitch (Hanley being a detriment by virtue of being a liability), whilst it isn't conclusive proof, it does strongly suggest something.

I don't actually object to us having Hanley or Lowe at the club. At this moment in time, I think both are decent squad players to have. The problem is that they are both automatic starters, and that Hanley - who despite being fairly tough on the pitch, has completely the wrong personality - is captain. Lowe is a steady squad player, with energy but little end product for all that running (I mean tackles, not just flair stuff). He needs to bring at least one of the aspects of his game to life to be a worthy regular starter. Hanley does have some potential, but he needs to fix his head, especially if he drinks as much as rumour says.