Interestingly, after two home games last season we had only scored 4 goals, yet had 6 points. After two home games this season we've scored 5, yet only have 4 points. I guess it's not so simple as "score more goals = more points".
I've seen some very entertaining chess matches:
Antonius v death
Jed Bartlett v Toby Zeigler and v Sam Seaborn (simultaneous matches)
Bart v 3 random chess players in the local park
Thoas Crown v Vicki Anderson
Ron v the MAgical Chess set.
Then why argue against a point you know he wasn't making?
It's too abstract an argument to have much meaning. Goals scored isn't enough on it's own. If we concede significantly fewer away then we might not need to score more than last season.
Last season we only won ten games at home. If our...
I believe his original point was that failing to score goals isn't as big an issue as long as you don't concede any. Don't concede and worst case scenario is you draw, and away from home that is an acceptable return.
But that doesn't factor in number of shots. When an attack is reliant on supply, if you judge the attack you have to put goals score into perspective of shots taken.
On a goals per shot basis, brighton were 7th best last season.
In a similar vain, for goals conceded per shot, brighton were...
Aren't those stats? I thought you didn't do stats? :wink:
Seriously, I disagree with your conclusion from the stats. Getting 18 shots shows a massive improvement on last season when we averaged fractionally over 8 shots per game. In fact, 18 equals the most shots we had in any league game last...
What are we doing?
Ignoring pre-season games, and linking last season to this and putting so much focus on it, it creates a bigger issue than it needs to be. IMO, like.