Possession is a funny one. Against Hibs, we had 53% vs their 47%, but what we managed to do with the ball was far superior to their efforts. Apart from the first half hour, it was clear that we were happy to concede possession to Hibs for spells in the knowledge that it would drag their players out of their defensive position, allowing us to break quickly and efficiently. However, our superior quality of players meant that we could also dominate possession and territory when required as well. No team has the fitness, concentration or intelligence to efficiently attack for 90 minutes, so there's always going to be ebbs and flows. Knowing when to strike and when to hold back separates the average teams from the good ones. As Crystal Palace so often do, for example, you can sit back for most of the game, before hitting on a fast, effective counter when the opposition look out of position. Therefore, I don't think possession is necessarily a good indicator of dominance in a game. As a rule of thumb, if you want that, then you look at which team got more shots away in the central channel of the box. This area is where most teams score most goals, and is therefore usually the most difficult area of the pitch to get a shot away. If you want to see who controlled the match, look at that.