How Different Are Championship Lincoln City From The 103-Point Title Winners?

I know when it comes to Lincoln City, many fans think numbers are a waste of time.

If that’s you, let’s avoid the obvious debate and just part ways now.

Gone? Are you reading this, and do you like to understand stats? Great, let’s crack on.

I was asked by a Patreon to do a stats comparison between last season and this. I did that last weekend, after the Sheffield United game, but crucially, before West Ham. These numbers do not include the West Ham game, which is probably for the best, given the outcome.

So, has the attack stopped functioning? How different is this Lincoln City from last season? Well, there is a difference between an attack that has stopped functioning and one finding life harder against better opposition. Comparing last season’s figures with this season’s suggests we are much closer to the latter, although there are clear changes at both ends of the pitch.

We are working with a much smaller current-season sample, but these are useful early indicators, rather than a final verdict on how successfully we have adapted.

The attacking drop is real, but relatively modest

Our xG has fallen from 1.72 to 1.56 per game, a reduction of around 9%. Shots are down from 12 to 10.58, a fall of roughly 12%. There is a decline, but neither figure supports the idea that our ability to create chances has disappeared.

Dividing those averages gives us approximately 0.14 xG per shot last season and 0.15 this season. That suggests the average value of our attempts has broadly held up, even as their frequency has fallen. Both totals include penalties, so this does not establish that our open-play chances have improved.

Crossing is another striking similarity. We averaged 13.87 crosses last season and now average 13.17, while accuracy has barely moved, from 39.7% to 38.6%. Whatever has changed in the shape or personnel, that particular route into the opposition’s box remains at a similar level.

Goals have fallen much further than chance creation

The sharper attacking change is in the actual return. Goals scored have dropped from 1.93 per game to 1.08, a reduction of 44%, compared with that 9% fall in xG. That is a substantial difference between the decline in opportunities and the decline in what we are getting from them.

Last season, we scored 0.21 goals per game above our xG average; this season, we are scoring 0.48 below it. Those figures do not identify a single cause or guarantee an automatic improvement. They do, however, give us a reason to distinguish between creating chances and converting them.

There has been a change at the other end as well. We conceded 0.89 goals against 1.16 xG last season, whereas this season’s 1.42 conceded is almost identical to the 1.40 xG against. Last season we scored more and conceded fewer than the xG figures suggested; this season our attacking return is substantially below that expectation.

We are facing considerably more pressure

Opposition shots have risen from 10.46 to 14.25 per game, an increase of 36%. Their xG has also increased, from 1.16 to 1.40, but by a smaller 21%. We are allowing more attempts, although the average expected value of each has fallen from approximately 0.11 to 0.10. Remember, this doesn’t include West Ham, but for all their dominance against nine men, their xG was 3.43, broadly speaking, the same as ours against Doncaster at their place last season (3.23).

That offers some encouragement about the chances we are allowing, but it does not cancel out the additional volume. Fourteen shots can still produce more danger overall than ten, even if the average attempt carries less threat. The figures support both observations: the workload is greater, and average shot quality has been contained.

Clearances have risen from 26.24 to 31 per game, while opposition corners are up from 4.91 to 6.75. Those are further signs of the extra defending being asked of us. Interceptions have also increased slightly, from 43.54 to 45.67.

Our duel figures show a mixed picture. Defensive duel success has fallen from 61.7% to 55%, but aerial success has improved from 46.6% to 52.4%, despite fewer aerial contests overall. It would be wrong to describe every aspect of our defending as having deteriorated.

Similar passing volume, harder forward progress

One of the biggest similarities is how many passes we attempt. Last season’s average was 313.46; this season’s is 310.92, a difference of less than 1%. Overall accuracy has actually improved slightly, from 75.1% to 75.9%.

The difficulty becomes clearer when we examine where those passes go. Forward passes are down from 129.07 to 117.33, passes into the final third from 55.98 to 49.42, and progressive passes from 69.02 to 61. Accuracy has also fallen in all three categories, while backwards passing volumes have increased.

That suggests we are retaining a similar amount of passing activity while finding it harder to move the ball towards goal. It fits with the concern about getting from back to front efficiently, although the figures alone cannot tell us how much comes from tactical choice, opposition pressure or individual execution.

Our opponents, meanwhile, are attempting considerably more passes, up from 444.04 to 513.08, with accuracy rising from 80.5% to 83.9%. Their final-third passing volume is almost unchanged, at 57.70 and 56.92, but accuracy has climbed from 61.7% to 74.5%. They are completing a much higher proportion of those attempts, even without making more of them.

Transitions offer a useful clue

Recorded counterattacks have increased from 0.63 to 0.83 per game, but the proportion ending in a shot has dropped from 38.1% to 20.5%. These are small event counts within an already limited sample, so I would be cautious about drawing firm conclusions. Nevertheless, they suggest the effectiveness of those attacks deserves attention alongside their frequency.

There is a similar change in positional attacks, down from 28.17 to 24.08 per game, with the proportion producing a shot falling from 29.3% to 26.3%. Offensive duel success offers a more positive detail, rising from 35.1% to 46.7%, although we are contesting fewer of them. Again, the picture contains improvements as well as difficulties.

For me, the most telling comparison is our xG advantage over opponents. Last season it stood at 0.56 per match; this season it is still positive, but only 0.16. We retain a competitive chance-creation profile, while the margin that helped sustain last season’s success has narrowed considerably.

We are creating slightly less, defending considerably more and getting a much poorer goals return from our chances. The task is to improve forward progression and the end product of our attacks while reducing that defensive workload. There is plenty to work on, but the numbers give us a more useful starting point than the suggestion that everything which worked last season has vanished.