|
Season Review 2019/20 |
|
Welcome to Stats Perform’s French Ligue 1 season review for the curtailed 2019/20 league season.
Interactive and showcasing a host of detailed performance metrics, this report provides insight into the league’s standout performers, applying innovative frameworks produced by our team of AI scientists.
Within this review, we share a comprehensive breakdown of performance at the key ends of the pitch, as well as sharing detailed insight on team style, both in and out of possession. Detailed player analysis also features, with key metrics ranked across different positions.
Notable additions to our reviews this summer include details on the teams most effective at generating opportunities from high turnovers, together with insights into how each team approached the changes to the goal kick rule. We also apply metrics to highlight the ball carrying players who were effective at generating goalscoring opportunities through running with the ball.
These new features reflect Stats Perform’s ongoing commitment to further explore how performance data can inform a club’s decision-making across performance analysis, recruitment and long-term strategic planning.
We hope you find some interesting insights from this review.
Key Points:
Ranked by league position, this table outlines teams’ performances in front of goal, from both open play and set piece situations.
PSG’s ability to generate high quality chances from open play was demonstrated by them amassing an xG output of 59.5 from 346 shots. They exceeded the xG output of the next highest team, Monaco, by over 23, reinforcing their dominance over the competition.
88% of PSG’s xG came from open play, the highest ratio in the league. Montpellier and Nimes sat at the other end of the spectrum, having generated 30% of their xG output from set pieces. Montpellier also generated the highest overall xG from set piece situations in Ligue 1.
Despite creating a substantially higher volume of high quality shots than their rivals, PSG underperformed on open play xG, scoring over three fewer goals than they would have perhaps expected. In contrast, seventh placed Lyon exceeded their xG by more than seven.
Bordeaux scored the most set piece goals, exceeding their xG by three. They were the only Ligue 1 side to over perform on their set piece xG by two clear goals.
Team | xG Ratio | Shots | xG | Goals | SP Shots | SP xG | SP Goals | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Paris Saint-Germain | 0.12 | 346 | 59.5 | 55 | 95 | 9.3 | 10 | |
Marseille | 0.21 | 254 | 23.8 | 26 | 115 | 7.7 | 8 | |
Rennes | 0.23 | 248 | 24.8 | 28 | 88 | 8.8 | 6 | |
Lille | 0.20 | 249 | 26.3 | 24 | 93 | 7.9 | 6 | |
Nice | 0.26 | 229 | 23.3 | 26 | 105 | 9.6 | 10 | |
Reims | 0.25 | 245 | 19.3 | 15 | 88 | 7.7 | 6 | |
Lyon | 0.17 | 279 | 26.7 | 34 | 75 | 6.5 | 3 | |
Montpellier | 0.30 | 242 | 21.1 | 22 | 106 | 10.6 | 9 | |
Monaco | 0.20 | 275 | 36.1 | 32 | 101 | 10.0 | 8 | |
Strasbourg | 0.21 | 237 | 24.2 | 23 | 85 | 7.3 | 6 | |
Angers | 0.26 | 261 | 21.3 | 21 | 102 | 7.6 | 5 | |
Bordeaux | 0.29 | 215 | 20.0 | 26 | 93 | 9.0 | 12 | |
Nantes | 0.21 | 233 | 22.7 | 19 | 99 | 6.5 | 2 | |
Brest | 0.15 | 256 | 22.4 | 29 | 64 | 4.7 | 2 | |
Metz | 0.25 | 226 | 17.3 | 19 | 80 | 6.9 | 6 | |
Dijon | 0.28 | 232 | 21.3 | 17 | 104 | 8.7 | 8 | |
St Etienne | 0.23 | 215 | 20.5 | 18 | 88 | 7.4 | 5 | |
Nîmes | 0.30 | 250 | 20.1 | 19 | 105 | 9.3 | 8 | |
Amiens | 0.20 | 170 | 18.0 | 21 | 59 | 5.6 | 6 | |
Toulouse | 0.23 | 224 | 20.2 | 12 | 86 | 7.3 | 5 |
Metric | Definition |
---|---|
Set Play | Chances occuring as a result of a corner, direct free kick, indirect free kick or throw-in. |
Set Play : Total xG Ratio | The proportion of a team’s total xG that resulted from set plays. |
Expected Goals (xG) | Expected Goals (xG) measures the quality of a shot based on several variables such as assist type, shot angle and distance from goal, whether it was a headed shot and whether it was defined as a big chance. Adding up a player or team’s expected goals can give us an indication of how many goals a player or team should have scored on average, given the shots they have taken. |
Key Points:
Reims’ sixth place league finish was underpinned by a resolute defence. While they ranked in Ligue 1’s bottom three for attacking xG, David Guion’s side conceded the fewest open play goals, the lowest number of shots and recorded the lowest xG conceded in the league, helping them secure a European spot for 2020/21.
Brest’s xG conceded from set pieces was the highest in the league. They conceded almost double the number of shots as Angers, who recorded Ligue 1’s lowest output.
Relegated Amiens were one of six teams to concede 100 shots from set pieces and their 17 goals conceded was by far the highest in the league – no other team conceded more than 10 set piece goals. Based on the quality of the chances their opponents created, we would have expected them to have conceded nearly 50% fewer goals from set play situations.
Team | xG Ratio | Shots | xG | Goals | SP Shots | SP xG | SP Goals | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Paris Saint-Germain | 0.29 | 195 | 16.6 | 20 | 71 | 6.7 | 3 | |
Marseille | 0.20 | 192 | 21.7 | 21 | 81 | 6.5 | 2 | |
Rennes | 0.24 | 258 | 19.3 | 14 | 96 | 7.5 | 6 | |
Lille | 0.21 | 182 | 20.6 | 15 | 89 | 6.5 | 5 | |
Nice | 0.22 | 272 | 28.8 | 23 | 112 | 10.0 | 8 | |
Reims | 0.34 | 177 | 14.4 | 13 | 100 | 9.6 | 6 | |
Lyon | 0.22 | 234 | 18.9 | 19 | 73 | 6.0 | 3 | |
Montpellier | 0.24 | 271 | 22.7 | 23 | 96 | 8.6 | 6 | |
Monaco | 0.20 | 265 | 29.7 | 27 | 97 | 8.8 | 10 | |
Strasbourg | 0.20 | 196 | 20.5 | 22 | 72 | 6.4 | 4 | |
Angers | 0.18 | 202 | 21.0 | 26 | 63 | 5.2 | 4 | |
Bordeaux | 0.19 | 263 | 27.7 | 25 | 94 | 7.0 | 6 | |
Nantes | 0.23 | 206 | 19.9 | 21 | 90 | 7.4 | 6 | |
Brest | 0.25 | 281 | 30.0 | 27 | 125 | 11.4 | 6 | |
Metz | 0.27 | 274 | 25.0 | 23 | 110 | 10.5 | 8 | |
Dijon | 0.20 | 308 | 30.4 | 24 | 88 | 7.9 | 10 | |
St Etienne | 0.16 | 248 | 28.4 | 35 | 72 | 6.3 | 5 | |
Nîmes | 0.21 | 249 | 29.5 | 32 | 99 | 8.6 | 7 | |
Amiens | 0.24 | 308 | 29.5 | 31 | 100 | 9.3 | 17 | |
Toulouse | 0.18 | 305 | 34.3 | 45 | 103 | 8.3 | 9 |