| Shots on target 11:56 - Jan 8 with 8403 views | Guthrum |
Very trendy, but really is quite a meaningless stat, when taken entirely on its own.
A soft lob directly at the goalie is, an unstoppable fizzer hitting the bar isn't. But which is actually the better shot? Neither actually results in a goal.
If you want to prove "attacking intent", then you may as well include all shots (on, off, blocked, hit the woodwork), plus corners, long throws into the box and crosses which nobody got on the end of. All of those are indicative of being up the opposition end of the field and seriously trying to score.
Alternatively, if you're looking at striking ability, then only count the goals themselves, not the ones which weren't good enough to get past the 'keeper. |  |
| |  |
| Shots on target on 11:59 - Jan 8 with 5784 views | ITFC_Forever |
I don't think it matters in the case of us..... looking at all / any of those metrics, we'd be pretty poor. |  |
| |
| A better measure of (lack of) attacking intent..... on 11:59 - Jan 8 with 5785 views | Bloots |
....would be the number of times that a teams central midfielders pass the ball to their own centre backs.
We'd be Champions League material. |  |
| Elite Level Poster: Elite Level Supporter: Elite Level Human |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:02 - Jan 8 with 5770 views | Dyland |
| Shots on target on 11:59 - Jan 8 by ITFC_Forever |
I don't think it matters in the case of us..... looking at all / any of those metrics, we'd be pretty poor. |
Metrics shmetrics.
You just need to watch us over a game innit. Sometimes we look quite good. More often than not these days we look awful. |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:04 - Jan 8 with 5755 views | Guthrum |
| Shots on target on 11:59 - Jan 8 by ITFC_Forever |
I don't think it matters in the case of us..... looking at all / any of those metrics, we'd be pretty poor. |
Indeed (tho we are still joint 5th on the goals scored list), it's the general meaninglessness of the stat and how often it's trotted out which gets me. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:04 - Jan 8 with 5756 views | CaptainObvious |
Every stat is only a guide rather than an exact science, but suddenly they become meaningless when we're not having any, what a co-incidence. |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:09 - Jan 8 with 5729 views | Guthrum |
| Shots on target on 12:04 - Jan 8 by CaptainObvious |
Every stat is only a guide rather than an exact science, but suddenly they become meaningless when we're not having any, what a co-incidence. |
People are not using it as a guide, but as a thing in itself. Indeed its sudden increased significance seems to be because we are not doing well in that area, as a stick by those who wish to bash the club.
See also ITFCForever's response. We're not doing particularly well if you take the other approaches, either. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:10 - Jan 8 with 5724 views | Johnny_Boy |
What's the chances of us winning our next 3 games - whilst only producing 2 shots on target for the whole 270mins?
I'm guessing collecting the 9pts would be a real struggle.
So surely, 'shots on target' is actually quite important. [Post edited 8 Jan 2018 12:12]
|  | | |
| Shots on target on 12:15 - Jan 8 with 5688 views | Guthrum |
| Shots on target on 12:10 - Jan 8 by Johnny_Boy |
What's the chances of us winning our next 3 games - whilst only producing 2 shots on target for the whole 270mins?
I'm guessing collecting the 9pts would be a real struggle.
So surely, 'shots on target' is actually quite important. [Post edited 8 Jan 2018 12:12]
|
What's the difference between a shot going two inches outside the post instead of inside, if the goalie couldn't have stopped it either way? That's no bigger adjustment than hitting or missing the 'keeper within the goalmouth.
I'm not suggesting we're doing well by other metrics, that wouldn't be true. But as an assessment of the quality of chances or attacking intent, "shots on target" is too arbitrary. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Shots on target on 12:17 - Jan 8 with 5666 views | Benters2 |
You do understand that the idea is to get that round looking thingy inbetween the posts right?
I always thought that was the idea anyway? |  | | |
| Shots on target on 12:21 - Jan 8 with 5651 views | Darth_Koont |
| Shots on target on 12:17 - Jan 8 by Benters2 |
You do understand that the idea is to get that round looking thingy inbetween the posts right?
I always thought that was the idea anyway? |
Well, the idea on here is to have a point.
So many speculative, scuffed shots from you and so few on target — or even towards the opposition's goal. |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:24 - Jan 8 with 5629 views | Johnny_Boy |
| Shots on target on 12:15 - Jan 8 by Guthrum |
What's the difference between a shot going two inches outside the post instead of inside, if the goalie couldn't have stopped it either way? That's no bigger adjustment than hitting or missing the 'keeper within the goalmouth.
I'm not suggesting we're doing well by other metrics, that wouldn't be true. But as an assessment of the quality of chances or attacking intent, "shots on target" is too arbitrary. |
I do think it's somewhat convenient for a familiar select few to dismiss 'shots on target' & claim it has no significant bearings on our play. (Just look at my expected down votes for merely clarifying this)
Maybe I'm just part or the old school where the more shots you have, the more likelihood you have if scoring. Of course that depends on how good your strikers are & how many chances they need to find the net.
I just find it strange - even though we've regularly had 4 strikers on the pitch - our shots have been quite low from the last 5 games. Maybe they are all tired. Maybe we are now feeling the pinch of not having a CM pairing to help with helping-out with the goals....something we didn't really notice at the Excellent start of the season. [Post edited 8 Jan 2018 13:04]
| | | |
| Shots on target on 12:29 - Jan 8 with 5595 views | ITFC_Forever |
| Shots on target on 12:24 - Jan 8 by Johnny_Boy |
I do think it's somewhat convenient for a familiar select few to dismiss 'shots on target' & claim it has no significant bearings on our play. (Just look at my expected down votes for merely clarifying this)
Maybe I'm just part or the old school where the more shots you have, the more likelihood you have if scoring. Of course that depends on how good your strikers are & how many chances they need to find the net.
I just find it strange - even though we've regularly had 4 strikers on the pitch - our shots have been quite low from the last 5 games. Maybe they are all tired. Maybe we are now feeling the pinch of not having a CM pairing to help with helping-out with the goals....something we didn't really notice at the Excellent start of the season. [Post edited 8 Jan 2018 13:04]
|
My point being if you add in all the metrics, such as possession, shots (on / off target), passes, corners etc, we don't figure too well.
You can make allowances for style of play etc, but the one thing that has saved us this season has been our extraordinarily high conversion rate.... we take a higher proportion of the chances we create than other sides do. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:37 - Jan 8 with 5565 views | Guthrum |
| Shots on target on 12:24 - Jan 8 by Johnny_Boy |
I do think it's somewhat convenient for a familiar select few to dismiss 'shots on target' & claim it has no significant bearings on our play. (Just look at my expected down votes for merely clarifying this)
Maybe I'm just part or the old school where the more shots you have, the more likelihood you have if scoring. Of course that depends on how good your strikers are & how many chances they need to find the net.
I just find it strange - even though we've regularly had 4 strikers on the pitch - our shots have been quite low from the last 5 games. Maybe they are all tired. Maybe we are now feeling the pinch of not having a CM pairing to help with helping-out with the goals....something we didn't really notice at the Excellent start of the season. [Post edited 8 Jan 2018 13:04]
|
If you take the overall shots stat, we're actually slightly worse ranked (22nd, 10.2 per game) than shots on target (21st, 3.3.per game).
Even the goals scored figure, which makes us look quite good until you see that 41% of them were scored in just four of our 26 League matches. Apart from that, registering only 1.04 goals per game.
I'm not manipulating the numbers to make us look better than we are. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:40 - Jan 8 with 5549 views | rosseden |
it did make me chuckle once that one of the teams on the football league show hit the post / bar 4 times in a match, didnt score and didnt register a shot on target...... |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:44 - Jan 8 with 5532 views | olimar |
I think this is where "Expected Goals" comes in, because its intention is to gauge how good the chance was and therefore whether a goal could be reasonable expected or not. A lot of shots from outside the box will have low xG and those in the 6 yard box will have high xG.
Im a little undecided on the degree of accuracy it is providing, since my infrequent viewing of these stats seem to suggest that, more often than not, a team has a lower xG rating than the number of goals it actually scores (I mean, they cant ALL be under it).
But it does have some interest, as it does appear to be qualifying how good a chance is or not.
The below table shows that, at the end of 2017, only Burton and Bolton were expected to concede more goals than us per match (at around 1.5 expected goals/game). That suggests we are giving up really good chances to the opposition.
By contrast, only Burton, Birmingham, Sunderland and Bolton are creating fewer good chances than us (just under 1.1 expected goals per game).
When you also consider that we concede more shots on goal than anyone else, whilst only two teams create less-
1.) We concede a lot of chances in games and, a large amount of good chances. That we dont therefore concede a large amount of goals is presumably down to having one of the best goalkeepers in the division, something that we an all see.
2.) We dont create a lot of chances at all, particularly good chances, but have managed to score goals despite this. That says a lot about the finishing of our forwards and Id suggest our set pieces in particular, given that Garner has 5 of his goals from set pieces.
To be honest, based on the stats alone, a team that concedes more good chances in games and doesnt create many chances seems odds on to be losing many. The reason we seem to be bucking that trend is probably down to a goalkeeper who may/may not be leaving shortly, whilst our forward line has already shown signs that it is drying up over the last month or so.
I do think the stats bear out what we see in a lot of our away games in particular, where McCarthy wants us to defend deep, hopefully keep the opposition at bay and then hope to nick a goal in one of our rare attacks (or set pieces)
https://experimental361.com/2017/12/31/scatter-graphics-championship-31-dec-2017 | | | |
| Shots on target on 12:45 - Jan 8 with 5518 views | No9 |
Don't you look at all the stat's to get an overall picture of any given team?
as an example if a team has 30% possession, 1 corner, 3 shots in total & none on target that gives an impression the team didn't do too well, doesn't it? Particular if their opponets had considerably better % numbers
If you couple that with poor passing etc. you would form an overall picture so why I would agree none should be taken in isolation a good assessment of what a team does can be formed.
After all isn't that what MM & other managers do to assess opponents & which player to buy? | | | |
| Shots on target on 12:46 - Jan 8 with 5509 views | Guthrum |
| Shots on target on 12:45 - Jan 8 by No9 |
Don't you look at all the stat's to get an overall picture of any given team?
as an example if a team has 30% possession, 1 corner, 3 shots in total & none on target that gives an impression the team didn't do too well, doesn't it? Particular if their opponets had considerably better % numbers
If you couple that with poor passing etc. you would form an overall picture so why I would agree none should be taken in isolation a good assessment of what a team does can be formed.
After all isn't that what MM & other managers do to assess opponents & which player to buy? |
Yes. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:52 - Jan 8 with 5455 views | eireblue |
| Shots on target on 12:17 - Jan 8 by Benters2 |
You do understand that the idea is to get that round looking thingy inbetween the posts right?
I always thought that was the idea anyway? |
No, it isn't.
You have to do that more times than the other team on the pitch. |  | | |
| Shots on target on 12:53 - Jan 8 with 5455 views | JakeITFC |
There's an undeniably strong correlation between teams that have shots on target, and those who score goals. Those who score goals generally win more games.
The same is true for allowing shots on target.
We are poor in both of those metrics - whilst it is possible to buck the trend through exceptional finishing/goalkeeping (i.e. luck), it is a worrying long term trend that you'd expect to balance out over the course of a season. |  | | |
| Shots on target on 12:55 - Jan 8 with 5438 views | Johnny_Boy |
| Shots on target on 12:37 - Jan 8 by Guthrum |
If you take the overall shots stat, we're actually slightly worse ranked (22nd, 10.2 per game) than shots on target (21st, 3.3.per game).
Even the goals scored figure, which makes us look quite good until you see that 41% of them were scored in just four of our 26 League matches. Apart from that, registering only 1.04 goals per game.
I'm not manipulating the numbers to make us look better than we are. |
Of course you aren't. In not suggesting that for a moment.
Isn't our goals scored stat slightly scewed because of the number of 'lesser' teams we played at the beginning of the campaign? | | | |
| Shots on target on 12:55 - Jan 8 with 5441 views | CaptainObvious |
| Shots on target on 12:09 - Jan 8 by Guthrum |
People are not using it as a guide, but as a thing in itself. Indeed its sudden increased significance seems to be because we are not doing well in that area, as a stick by those who wish to bash the club.
See also ITFCForever's response. We're not doing particularly well if you take the other approaches, either. |
It's more accurate over a long period of time. Teams don't tend to deliberately specialise in harmless daisy-cutters or striking the woodwork. Do our shots on goal this season look any better than our recent few games? Not really. | |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:55 - Jan 8 with 5437 views | JakeITFC |
| Shots on target on 12:55 - Jan 8 by Johnny_Boy |
Of course you aren't. In not suggesting that for a moment.
Isn't our goals scored stat slightly scewed because of the number of 'lesser' teams we played at the beginning of the campaign? |
It's slightly screwed because we went on a once in a lifetime heater of scoring with almost every shot we had. | | | |
| Shots on target on 12:56 - Jan 8 with 5435 views | itfcjoe |
| Shots on target on 12:44 - Jan 8 by olimar |
I think this is where "Expected Goals" comes in, because its intention is to gauge how good the chance was and therefore whether a goal could be reasonable expected or not. A lot of shots from outside the box will have low xG and those in the 6 yard box will have high xG.
Im a little undecided on the degree of accuracy it is providing, since my infrequent viewing of these stats seem to suggest that, more often than not, a team has a lower xG rating than the number of goals it actually scores (I mean, they cant ALL be under it).
But it does have some interest, as it does appear to be qualifying how good a chance is or not.
The below table shows that, at the end of 2017, only Burton and Bolton were expected to concede more goals than us per match (at around 1.5 expected goals/game). That suggests we are giving up really good chances to the opposition.
By contrast, only Burton, Birmingham, Sunderland and Bolton are creating fewer good chances than us (just under 1.1 expected goals per game).
When you also consider that we concede more shots on goal than anyone else, whilst only two teams create less-
1.) We concede a lot of chances in games and, a large amount of good chances. That we dont therefore concede a large amount of goals is presumably down to having one of the best goalkeepers in the division, something that we an all see.
2.) We dont create a lot of chances at all, particularly good chances, but have managed to score goals despite this. That says a lot about the finishing of our forwards and Id suggest our set pieces in particular, given that Garner has 5 of his goals from set pieces.
To be honest, based on the stats alone, a team that concedes more good chances in games and doesnt create many chances seems odds on to be losing many. The reason we seem to be bucking that trend is probably down to a goalkeeper who may/may not be leaving shortly, whilst our forward line has already shown signs that it is drying up over the last month or so.
I do think the stats bear out what we see in a lot of our away games in particular, where McCarthy wants us to defend deep, hopefully keep the opposition at bay and then hope to nick a goal in one of our rare attacks (or set pieces)
https://experimental361.com/2017/12/31/scatter-graphics-championship-31-dec-2017 |
My biggest issue with xG, is that it doesn't take into account the situation of the game.
if you look at the Derby game away, we score quite early with a goal which probably had a low xG value. At this point we are 1-0 up and not really attacking. So we don't register any more shots probably.
Derby then continue to not score, whilst racking up xGs down to a variety of reasons - but ultimately we win 1-0.
xG would have this down as should be a heavy defeat, but had we not scored early, or Derby equalised earlier the game completely changes and the xG values completely change.
Last year we had most shots in the game where we lost 3-0 at home to Derby, because they were happy to let us have the ball because were well ahead and we weren't scoring. Doesn't mean we deserved to win....
Somebody much smarter than me needs to work out how best to se xG compared to the game situation before it becomes just as meaningless as the stats (Shots/Shots on target) hat it is trying to replace. |  |
| |
| Shots on target on 12:59 - Jan 8 with 5427 views | LankHenners |
| Shots on target on 12:44 - Jan 8 by olimar |
I think this is where "Expected Goals" comes in, because its intention is to gauge how good the chance was and therefore whether a goal could be reasonable expected or not. A lot of shots from outside the box will have low xG and those in the 6 yard box will have high xG.
Im a little undecided on the degree of accuracy it is providing, since my infrequent viewing of these stats seem to suggest that, more often than not, a team has a lower xG rating than the number of goals it actually scores (I mean, they cant ALL be under it).
But it does have some interest, as it does appear to be qualifying how good a chance is or not.
The below table shows that, at the end of 2017, only Burton and Bolton were expected to concede more goals than us per match (at around 1.5 expected goals/game). That suggests we are giving up really good chances to the opposition.
By contrast, only Burton, Birmingham, Sunderland and Bolton are creating fewer good chances than us (just under 1.1 expected goals per game).
When you also consider that we concede more shots on goal than anyone else, whilst only two teams create less-
1.) We concede a lot of chances in games and, a large amount of good chances. That we dont therefore concede a large amount of goals is presumably down to having one of the best goalkeepers in the division, something that we an all see.
2.) We dont create a lot of chances at all, particularly good chances, but have managed to score goals despite this. That says a lot about the finishing of our forwards and Id suggest our set pieces in particular, given that Garner has 5 of his goals from set pieces.
To be honest, based on the stats alone, a team that concedes more good chances in games and doesnt create many chances seems odds on to be losing many. The reason we seem to be bucking that trend is probably down to a goalkeeper who may/may not be leaving shortly, whilst our forward line has already shown signs that it is drying up over the last month or so.
I do think the stats bear out what we see in a lot of our away games in particular, where McCarthy wants us to defend deep, hopefully keep the opposition at bay and then hope to nick a goal in one of our rare attacks (or set pieces)
https://experimental361.com/2017/12/31/scatter-graphics-championship-31-dec-2017 |
Expected Goals tries to offer a solution to a problem that isn't really there and shows up how stats can bog down a fairly simple game where by watching football you can determine which teams are better at xyz and aren't as good at abc.
The amount of games needing to be played for Expected Goals to give any real accuracy means that by such given time, the team in question will have under gone personnel and tactics changes which make the findings all a bit moot. One game a team may have lots of shots and be thwarted by a great goalkeeping performance, and other they may have a couple and score off a dodgy deflection. Trying to draw conclusions from such will give you very little. Likewise, a further out/dodgy angle effort but with an open goal will more likely end up in a goal than a 6 yard scramble where there are bodies on the line and the attacker can only stretch and poke out a toe to put the ball in the general direction of the goal. Expected Goals would flag that up as the other way round. [Post edited 8 Jan 2018 13:01]
|  |
| |
| Shots on target on 13:06 - Jan 8 with 5395 views | Rocky |
Agree that stats shouldn't be looked at individually as a guide, but a picture clearly emerges when you put them together.
For instance, last but one to Burton Albion on shots attempted [265]
But top of the league on shots against [412]
Also top of the league on fouls comitted [358]
This last stat no doubt triggered by our awful possession stats. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
