Lincoln City welcome Burnley to Sincil Bank on Saturday with a four-point advantage over the Clarets, but the figures behind their respective starts offer a more interesting comparison than the league table alone.
Both sides have lost five of their opening 11 matches. The difference is that we have won three of the other six, while Burnley have managed just one victory, drawing five times. We have found ways to turn a few more of our competitive performances into wins, and that has put a little distance between us.
However, Burnley have scored seven more goals than us, while conceding only two more. On those figures, you might reasonably assume they have been the more threatening side and that we have scraped together our points through defensive resilience.
Look at the chances created and conceded, though, and that becomes harder to argue.
The finishing gap
The most striking comparison is between goals scored and expected goals. Burnley have scored 16 from chances worth 13.25 xG, while we have scored nine from 13.95. We have generated slightly more expected goals, yet have seven fewer actual goals to show for it.
Our shortfall of 4.95 goals against xG is the largest in the Championship. There is room for debate about individual chances, the limitations of the model and the relatively small sample, but that is a substantial gap. It supports the feeling that our attacking intent has been better than our goal tally suggests.
Burnley have gone the other way, scoring 2.75 goals above their expected return. That does not mean their finishing will suddenly desert them on Saturday, any more than we can assume our next handful of chances will all fly in. It does mean their superior scoring record has come without a superior total of expected goals.
There is also a problem we cannot explain away by pointing at xG. Only 30 of our 127 shots have been on target, the second-lowest total in the division, ahead of Preston. Burnley have put 45 on target from 156 attempts.
We are getting roughly 24% of our shots on target, compared with their 29%. Our overall conversion rate is 7.09%, against Burnley’s 10.26%, so there is a clear difference in what happens after the chance has been created. Producing opportunities is encouraging, but we need to make goalkeepers work more often and take more of those opportunities.
Our defensive numbers are better
At the other end, we have conceded 19 goals from 15.32 xG against. Burnley have conceded 21 from 17.99, meaning both teams have allowed more goals than the quality of chances faced would ordinarily suggest.
That gap cannot simply be pinned on goalkeeping. Opposition finishing, deflections and the particular circumstances of individual chances can all influence the outcome. What we can say is that our expected goals against total is lower, despite us facing more shots. We have allowed 180 attempts to Burnley’s 156, but the average attempt against us carries 0.09 xG, compared with 0.12 against them. We are allowing greater volume, while their opponents are getting better chances on average.
There is an interesting detail in the figures for shots inside the box. Both teams have faced approximately 105 attempts from inside the penalty area. Much of the difference in overall shot volume therefore comes from efforts outside it, such as the wonder goal we conceded against Southampton.
That gives some context to the amount of defending we do. Allowing an opponent to shoot from distance can be preferable to letting them work a clear opening closer to goal, although sustained pressure still carries risks. Our defensive record needs improving, but the numbers do not suggest Burnley have been protecting their goal more effectively.
Our actual goal difference is minus ten, while our expected goal difference is approximately minus 1.37. Burnley’s actual figure of minus five is very close to their expected figure of minus 4.74. The gap between chances and outcomes has been much more damaging to us across the two ends of the pitch.
Two different approaches
Nobody watching us this season will be surprised by the possession figures. We average 34.3%, comfortably the lowest in the division, while Burnley sit at 49%. They have completed 4,007 passes to our 1,889, more than twice as many. Their passing accuracy is 81.8%, compared with our 67.1%, and they have completed 898 final-third passes against our 504.
Their greater involvement on the ball has not translated into a greater total of expected goals, which is a useful reminder when possession becomes the main measure of how well a team has played. We send 44.6% of our passes forward, the highest proportion in the division, compared with Burnley’s 32.7%. That describes our approach, although it does not mean we make more forward passes overall, given how much more often they pass the ball.
Our crossing figures are also stronger. We have completed 40 of 138 crosses, a success rate of 29%, while Burnley have completed 23 of 119 at 19.3%. A completed cross is not automatically a clear chance, but it is an area in which our delivery has produced a better return. Both sides have scored three goals from set pieces, while we have converted two penalties to Burnley’s one. The biggest difference is in open play, where their ten goals to our four account for six of the seven goals separating our overall tallies, highlighting where we need to improve our end product.
There are different routes into dangerous positions, and these figures suggest two sides going about their attacking work in quite different ways.
Burnley’s errors offer an opportunity
There are some other interesting numbers to consider. Burnley have recorded 14 errors leading to shots and six leading to goals, both the highest totals in the division. Our corresponding figures are five and two. Six goals conceded following errors is a considerable contribution to Burnley’s problems, accounting for more than a quarter of the goals they have allowed.
The figures do not tell us where those errors occurred or what caused them, so we cannot assume they all came from trying to pass out under pressure. Nevertheless, there is a clear reason to make their players uncomfortable and force decisions. For us, the balance is important. There is an opportunity to apply pressure, but Burnley’s scoring record shows the danger of leaving ourselves exposed. They have been more successful at putting their opportunities away, even if their overall chance creation has been less impressive.
Discipline is another concern. The supplied table records 141 fouls and 27 yellow cards for City, compared with 110 fouls and 21 bookings for Burnley, alongside three red-card incidents against their one (with one of ours rescinded). We cannot afford to keep making matches harder for ourselves. Those dismissals also complicate any comparison across an 11-game sample, because the totals include periods played in very different circumstances.
A game we can win
Expected points put us 12th on 15.7, with Burnley joint 18th on 11.5. Both teams are below those totals by a similar amount, but the model still places us 4.2 points ahead, almost exactly matching the actual four-point gap. That is encouraging because it suggests our advantage has some basis in the chances created and conceded. It does not mean we are owed points, or that Burnley are bound to remain below us, before the ‘eye test’ brigade get heated under the collar.
The conclusion I take is that we have been more competitive than nine goals scored and 19 conceded might suggest. Burnley have been more productive in front of goal, but they have allowed better chances and made more costly errors. There is enough here to approach Saturday with confidence. We need to turn promising attacking situations into shots that trouble the goalkeeper, make Burnley work for their possession and keep eleven players on the pitch. The opportunities look likely to be there, but we have to start making more of them.
Comments Welcome!