The scoreline said Lincoln City were well beaten by Portsmouth. Most of the underlying numbers tell a rather more complicated story.
That does not mean the statistics prove we deserved to win, nor should they be used to brush aside the mistakes that shaped the afternoon. Portsmouth were sharper in both penalty areas and brutally effective when City gave them opportunities. However, a 3-1 defeat in which we recorded 2.32 expected goals against 1.21 is worth examining more closely. Warning – if you’re an ‘only one stat counts’ person, then this article isn’t for you. More along if you don’t want guitar lessons.
This was not a game in which the Imps were comprehensively outplayed. It was one decided by the quality of Portsmouth’s finishing, some loose defending and our inability to turn promising situations into goals.
The headline numbers
The most striking statistic is expected goals. City finished with an xG of 2.32, almost double Portsmouth’s total of 1.21. We had 15 shots to their 13, recorded 24 touches in the opposition penalty area to their 23 and created three big chances while Portsmouth created only one. This could be explained by game state: at 2-0, maybe the visitors sat back?
Not so. In fact, we created better xG before Portsmouth scored than they managed in the whole half. Sadly, they were still 2-1. I know xG is misleading and needs to be examined in context, but our first-half non-penalty xG was still 1.12, with Pompey’s just over 0.51. Our non-penalty xG over the whole game was marginally better as well.
Those figures do not sit comfortably alongside a 3-1 defeat. On another afternoon, the same collection of opportunities might have produced a result. However, expected goals measure the quality of chances before the shot is taken. They do not account for the quality of the finish, which is where the difference between the teams became apparent.
Portsmouth hit the target with seven of their 13 attempts. City managed four from 15. We put seven efforts wide, saw another four blocked and hit the woodwork once. The visitors only sent two shots off target.
That is the match in its simplest statistical form. City generated the better collection of chances, but Portsmouth executed far better when the opportunities arrived.
The penalty barely changes the picture
There is an important qualification when looking at our 2.32 xG. Reeco Hackett’s penalty accounted for around 0.79 of that total, leaving City with a non-penalty xG of 1.53. That was still higher than Portsmouth’s 1.21, but the difference becomes less dramatic once the spot kick is removed.
Our open-play xG was only 0.78, compared with Portsmouth’s 0.89. That supports what we saw during the game. We had moments, particularly in the first half, but we did not consistently open Portsmouth up through flowing attacking football.
City’s set-play xG of 0.75 was more encouraging. Conor McGrandles delivered a number of dangerous balls, while Ben House had an effort blocked on the line and Deji Elerewe was presented with a good opportunity. We also won eight corners to Portsmouth’s three.
The chances were there, but too many came from dead balls, second phases or moments of pressure rather than sustained control. That is not necessarily a problem because set pieces are an important part of our attacking identity. However, it explains why the overall xG figure perhaps feels higher than the game itself felt.
Possession without dominance
Portsmouth had 61% possession and completed 272 passes to City’s 144. On the surface, that suggests they controlled the game, but possession alone does not necessarily measure territorial dominance or attacking threat.
Despite having substantially less of the ball, City matched Portsmouth for touches in the opposition box and took two more shots. We also completed more accurate long passes, 28 to their 26, despite attempting 150 fewer passes overall.
That reflects the different approaches. Portsmouth were happier moving the ball through their defensive and midfield units, while City looked to play forward more quickly. Chris Cohen and Tom Shaw selected Freddie Draper, House, Hackett and Dom Jefferies in the attacking positions. The intention was clearly to threaten space rather than dominate through possession.
The drawback was accuracy. Only 65% of City’s passes found a teammate, compared with Portsmouth’s 74%. In the opposition half, the Imps completed 72 passes. Portsmouth completed exactly twice as many.
That meant our attacks were often shorter and less controlled. We could get the ball into threatening areas, but we struggled to keep it there long enough to build sustained pressure. Portsmouth were not overwhelmingly dominant, but they were generally more secure in possession.
Nine offsides tell their own story
City were caught offside nine times. Portsmouth were flagged only twice. Nine is an unusually high total and points to more than one issue. I’d like to suggest one issue was the referee not fully understanding that a ball being played backwards is not offside, but maybe that’s me being bitter. It shows that we were repeatedly trying to attack the space behind Portsmouth’s back line, but it also highlights poor timing and a lack of precision in the pass.
There is a positive buried within the number. The runs were being made, and we were finding situations in which Portsmouth could be stretched. However, an attack ending with an offside flag is still an attack wasted. At Championship level, those margins matter.
The quality of Portsmouth’s defensive line deserves some credit. Conor Shaughnessy and Benjamin Arthur managed the space well, while City’s forwards were too eager on several occasions. With Portsmouth protecting a lead for most of the afternoon, those missed opportunities to break beyond them became increasingly costly.
Portsmouth carried the greater individual threat
The duelling numbers were relatively balanced. Portsmouth won 67 duels to City’s 58, while the aerial contests were split exactly evenly at 27 apiece. The visitors had a clearer advantage on the ground, winning 56% of those battles.
The biggest difference came through dribbling. Portsmouth completed eight successful dribbles, while City managed only one. Abu Kamara was a constant threat and completed three himself, as well as providing the assist for Ryan Kavuma-McQueen’s opening goal.
That ability to carry the ball past an opponent caused City problems. Portsmouth did not simply pass through us. They had players capable of beating the first challenge and forcing another defender to step out, which helped create disorder in our defensive shape.
Hackett was our only player to register more than one attempted dribble, completing one of his six. City’s attacking threat was therefore built more around movement, long passes and set pieces than individual ball carrying.
That may also explain why the introduction of Tom Bayliss offered some encouragement. He was only on the pitch for 24 minutes, but registered two shots and 0.13 xG. His ability to receive the ball and move into attacking areas gave us something slightly different, although the third goal arrived almost immediately after his introduction and left the game in a very different state.
That’s at odd with some of the feedback I have seen on Bayliss, who was on the end of a lot of online criticism, which perhaps wasn’t entirely fair. He suffered by being the old hand brought into a game which had already run away from us.
The defensive errors cannot be hidden
Although Portsmouth only recorded 1.21 xG, City still conceded three times. Some of that was excellent finishing, but it would be wrong to blame everything on variance.
The opening goal came after Abu Kamara was allowed to create from the left, with Ryan Kavuma-McQueen arriving to finish after a hefty deflection. The second was avoidable, with Adrian Segecic capitalising after we committed an obvious foul on the edge of the area. The third followed Andrei Coubis losing possession before Adams produced an outstanding strike.
Coubis had been introduced after Tendayi Darikwa suffered an injury, meaning the young Romanian came into the defence for his home debut. That was already an awkward situation for City, but it does not alter the fact that the mistake presented Portsmouth with the opportunity to settle the game.
The visitors did not carve us apart repeatedly. They were given moments and punished them, which is something we are going to encounter more frequently in the Championship.
Reasons for frustration and encouragement
There are two ways to interpret these numbers, and both contain some truth.
The optimistic reading is that City generated 2.32 xG, created three big chances, had more shots, won eight corners and matched Portsmouth for penalty-area touches. Those are not the statistics of a side completely out of its depth. If House’s effort crosses the line or another of the set-piece opportunities is converted, we may be discussing a very different match.
The more critical reading is that Portsmouth were ahead after seven minutes and two goals clear after 16. From that position, they could concede territory, protect their advantage and choose their moments. City’s figures should have improved while chasing the game, but Portsmouth retained the greater quality when it mattered. They didn’t, not in the second half.
Both things can be true. We did enough to make the game competitive, but not enough to excuse the mistakes or the finishing. The scoreline was harsh when measured against the overall chance balance, yet Portsmouth fully deserved the points because they operated far more efficiently in both boxes.
That is probably the clearest lesson from our first home game back in the Championship. City can create chances at this level and can trouble established second-tier opponents, but the margins are smaller, and mistakes are punished more severely. The numbers offer encouragement, but the result shows exactly where improvement is required.
Comments Welcome!