Shots to goals stats

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

2 stats from today :
McCourt should have scored
Baldock should have scored

McCourt scores, it's 1-1 and we could go on and win the game.

He misses, (when having done the hard work he probably should score) they go down the other end and score.

Game over.

Fine margins.

 

[Stat Brother]

You must have done because the opposition have taken about as many pointless leg swings from 30 out as we have, making Kevo's stats a valid comparison.

How do you work that out?
We've taken 208 shots, they've taken 117.
We've had more shots off target, I'll happily wager from a distance, than the opposition have in total.
As I said originally it's just a momentarily exciting way to give up possession.

Not one shot from distance has troubled the 'keeper.
The best we could hope for is the ball deflecting off the opposition for a corner.
Sadly though we are yet to play against a team with a couple of 20 foot tall players.

 

[Diego Napier]

How do you work that out?
We've taken 208 shots, they've taken 117.
We've had more shots off target, I'll happily wager from a distance, than the opposition have in total.
As I said originally it's just a momentarily exciting way to give up possession.

Not one shot from distance has troubled the 'keeper.
The best we could hope for is the ball deflecting off the opposition for a corner.
Sadly though we are yet to play against a team with a couple of 20 foot tall players.

Well, the one's I can remember:

Bruno's volleyed goal from wide on the right.
Ince's volleyed goal from outside the box.
Lua Lua's rocket from wide on the left palmed onto the crossbar by the keeper.
Gardener rocket from at least 25 yards saved by the keeper.

Yep, we were watching totally different games.

 

[Luke93]

Well, the one's I can remember:

Bruno's volleyed goal from wide on the right.
Ince's volleyed goal from outside the box.
Lua Lua's rocket from wide on the left palmed onto the crossbar by the keeper.
Gardener rocket from at least 25 yards saved by the keeper.

Yep, we were watching totally different games.

You missed Holla's goal verses Brentford!

 

[Guy Fawkes]

One thing I always liked about Gary Hart playing on the wing was that, though he may not have been a great crosser, he would more often than not win a throw in, corner or free kick when up against a full back. This was useful, especially with the delivery we had from Watson.

One small positive of this year has been a better conversion rate from corners. Perhaps a little bit of Harty's persistence in winning set pieces high up the pitch may be a better approach than the current hopeful punt from a long way out which is giving us a lot of shots on the stats charts, but few real chances.

Teams now come to the Amex with the aim not to get beaten, rather than set out to win. They play deep, disciplined football and are back in numbers and well organised in 2 lines playing close together, denying us space and we find it very hard to break this down and often the only shooting space / opportunities we get are pot shots from distance, they come to play spoiler tactics and try to hit us on the counter attack and sadly this tactic has been working. To counter this, we need to get in front early so that they have to come forward and attack us, giving us more room to attack in ourselves but I can't remember the last time we went 1-0 up.

We push very high up the pitch, especially with the way we use wing backs, and this makes it easier to counter, the problem is that if we were to push the likes of Lua Lua wider instead of using the fullbacks, then we lack bodies in and around the box (as seem in the last few seasons) we throw more and more forward but still struggle to deliver much in the way of quality crosses / through balls or clear cut chances mainly because it's tight that there is little space to achieve this and the more desperate we become the more vulnerable we are to the Counter

Teams playing very defensive and it's a bit surprising, especially as we are so low in the table and even more so when teams like Cardiff do this too as they were in the PL last season so you'd have thought they would be more adventurous but maybe their poor start explains this. It's modern football tactics and explains why we find it difficult to break teams down at home.

When we faced teams like Forest and Watford, teams that could hurt us if we were too attacking then our defensive priority is higher and we commit less going forward because of the risk (at Brentford it appeared we underestimated them and went into it a bit too gung ho) but at home we have to push on because the fans want to see a win and the team and manager want to win for the fans too but this isn't easy because of the opposition's tactics (we previously struggled to break teams down with Gus and Garcia in charge, but weren't as attack minded in our approach and we are getting caught out because we are trying harder to force a win, not helped by our opponents scoring with usually their 1st shot on target which wasn't happening before.

 

[Stat Brother]

Well, the one's I can remember:

Bruno's volleyed goal from wide on the right.
Ince's volleyed goal from outside the box.
Lua Lua's rocket from wide on the left palmed onto the crossbar by the keeper.
Gardener rocket from at least 25 yards saved by the keeper.

Yep, we were watching totally different games.

This is getting silly, now.

To justify the multitude of panic shots from distance you're quoting:-

A poor cross.
A goal that doesn't feature in the graphic (Swindon).
One I don't remember.
A shot straight down the throat of Marshall, albeit sweetly struck.
Then an actual goal, from the one player who tends not to be guilty of wasteful shooting.

On Saturday someone pointlessly swung a leg within 5 minutes of kick off.

Unless 'Boro was a wake up call to Sami.
I predict next Saturday we will have a minimum of 5 (I desperately want to double that) shots to nothing.

Outside the box, panicked, woefully off target, resulting in the end of a promising period of possession, and us back on the defensive.

 

[Diego Napier]

This is getting silly, now.

To justify the multitude of panic shots from distance you're quoting:-

A poor cross.
A goal that doesn't feature in the graphic (Swindon).
One I don't remember.
A shot straight down the throat of Marshall, albeit sweetly struck.
Then an actual goal, from the one player who tends not to be guilty of wasteful shooting.

On Saturday someone pointlessly swung a leg within 5 minutes of kick off.

Unless 'Boro was a wake up call to Sami.
I predict next Saturday we will have a minimum of 5 (I desperately want to double that) shots to nothing.

Outside the box, panicked, woefully off target, resulting in the end of a promising period of possession, and us back on the defensive.

Don't attempt to ridicule and dismiss my opinion as silly because it doesn't fit with your view of the world.

I'm not justifying "a multitude of panic shots from distance"; that is just your misinterpretation of my post. I'm challenging your patently incorrect assertion that "not one shot from distance has troubled the keeper".

A poor cross - on target? yes so that disproves your argument but you dismiss it with your opinion of Bruno's intent.
A goal that doesn't feature in the graphic (Swindon) - fair enough but an illustration nevertheless that not all our shots this year are pointless swings of the leg
One I don't remember - on target? yes so that disproves your argument but let's just conveniently ignore it
A shot straight down the throat of Marshall, albeit sweetly struck - on target? yes so that disproves your argument but let's diminish it by ignoring the keepers positioning and reactions
Then an actual goal, from the one player who tends not to be guilty of wasteful shooting. on target? yes but let's diminish it by introducing some spurious form of qualification that takes account of previous shots on target

Luke93 has also pointed out that I'd forgotten to mention Holla's screamer at Brentford but I'll bet there's a very good reason why we can dismiss that too.

 

[Stat Brother]

Don't attempt to ridicule and dismiss my opinion as silly because it doesn't fit with your view of the world.

I'm not justifying "a multitude of panic shots from distance"; that is just your misinterpretation of my post. I'm challenging your patently incorrect assertion that "not one shot from distance has troubled the keeper".

A poor cross - on target? yes so that disproves your argument but you dismiss it with your opinion of Bruno's intent.
A goal that doesn't feature in the graphic (Swindon) - fair enough but an illustration nevertheless that not all our shots this year are pointless swings of the leg
One I don't remember - on target? yes so that disproves your argument but let's just conveniently ignore it
A shot straight down the throat of Marshall, albeit sweetly struck - on target? yes so that disproves your argument but let's diminish it by ignoring the keepers positioning and reactions
Then an actual goal, from the one player who tends not to be guilty of wasteful shooting. on target? yes but let's diminish it by introducing some spurious form of qualification that takes account of previous shots on target

Luke93 has also pointed out that I'd forgotten to mention Holla's screamer at Brentford but I'll bet there's a very good reason why we can dismiss that too.

Firstly I apologise for the word 'silly' I choose it specifically to not cause offence, c'est la vie.
But you did take one fairly flippant comment about none of them being on target, to justify the 'shoot on sight' policy.
Without at any point saying words to the effect of ' but in fairness overall it is a bit shite'.

So I'll try again.

I fail to see how your 4 highlights plus Holla's goal (the 5 I responded to) justifies 150 shots off target.


Clearly without [MENTION=12595]Acker79[/MENTION] or someone popping up with the seasons shooting stats it's hard to tell how creditable the shoots are, but lets take KLL:-

How any shots, so far this season?
How many outside the box?
How many on target?
How many goals?

I guarantee the first 2 answers will in no way justify the last two.
Esp from a player who's primary job is to set up the strikers, then weigh in with a few himself.


As the season got rolling a massive anti Oscar sway of NSC suddenly appeared.
'Last season was so boring', 'I wouldn't be back if he was still in charge' etc.
'It's so much better now with all this possession and shots as well'.

My point is it's not taken long for plenty of people to say 'hang on a minute, can we please have some quality with our quantity'.
1 poor cross that got lucky, 1 goal that's not included in the stats, 2 on target and 1 goal is not good enough for 150 shots.


Sure on Saturday we could control the game and win 10-0, I will be totally wrong and happy to be so.
We could score from 5 delightful defence splitting passes into the path of whichever nippy striker is playing.
Plus 5 from 10 thunderb*****ds.

Unfortunately going on the season so far, nobody from the midfield is likely to play THE pass.
We'll have 15 thunderb*****ds all high wide and not very handsome.
Win 1-0 with a goal from a corner, 65% possession and 16 shots.

No amount of 'but remember that one shot' can cover over the cracks of a very poor attacking unit.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Two points:

1. 11/53 shots = 21%, not 25% and 14/34 shots = 41%, not 45%. Also, goals/total shots for us vs. opposition is 5% to 12%, not 5% to 13%. Something wrong with the formulae there.

2. I'd say a greater % of the opposition chances are from counter-attacks where typically it's 4 vs 5 or 3 vs 3. More of our shots seems to be when there are a greater number of defenders behind the ball, so you'd therefore expect a lower shots on target %.

However, I buy the overall gist of the stats that the Albion's finishing is poor.

 

[Acker79]

I have different stats for the Brentford game. I took them from the official site.




This is the list of shots per player (according to espnsoccernet)
Casper and Stockdale are shots(/on target) faced, goals conceded, and the assist column is their saves.