| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument 09:39 - Dec 18 with 2087 views | Chrisd |
I wanted to find out what our conversion rate was this season. Top teams generally have a 14% conversion rate or higher, ours so far is 10%. Teams that struggle normally have 6% or lower which pitches us as average statistically. It’s certainly an area we can look to improve in going forwards.
https://footystats.org/clubs/ipswich-town-fc-220 |  |
| |  |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 09:58 - Dec 18 with 2038 views | Pinewoodblue |
Only third game this season we have been behind at half time in a league game. We have only won one of them. |  |
| |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 11:47 - Dec 18 with 1960 views | LeoMuff |
Must be tricky at our level though, as those that convert tend to playing higher up the pyramid |  |
| |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 11:57 - Dec 18 with 1948 views | StokieBlue |
Certainly an area we should look to improve on but also worth noting that we are the joint second highest scorers in the country.
SB |  | | |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 13:48 - Dec 18 with 1879 views | SheffordBlue |
On the FB Ref site you can sort the league against various critiria here:
https://fbref.com/en/comps/15/shooting/League-One-Stats
Shot on Target % : 8th 34.9 (Plymouth - 6th 35.6. Sheff Weds - 11th 34.1)
Shots per 90: 1st 16.95 (Plymouth - 15.05. Sheff Weds - 5th 14.27)
Shot on Target per 90: 1st 5.91 (Plymouth 2nd 5.36. Sheff Weds - 4th 4.86)
Goals Per Shot: Joint 3rd 0.10 (Plymouth Joint 2nd 0.11. Sheff Weds - Joint 3rd 0.10)
Goals Per Shot on Target: Joint 4th 0.30 (Plymouth 3rd 0.31. Sheff Weds Joint 4th 0.30)
We're either marginally beating or marginally behind the other top 3 sides. There's always room for improvement but we're not falling behind here. The main difference is that we are shooting far more than the other two (and any team in the division)
Total Shots: 1st 373 (Plymouth 2nd 331. Sheff Weds 3rd 314)
Total Shots on Target: 1st 130 (Plymouth 2nd 118. Sheff Weds 3rd 107) | |
| |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 13:18 - Dec 24 with 1691 views | NorrisHatter |
The particular stat I find interesting is our XG score at home. According to FootyStats its 2.38xG versus an actual of 1.73. So we are "underscoring" by two goals in every three games. The xG calculation is based on the average rate of scoring from all possible shooting positions across thousands of matches, so tells you what the "avergae team" can be expected to achieve.
So that means that at home we are not just an average team in that respect, but actually a pretty poor one (away from home the xG and the actual are much closer). Of course, the xG only tells you the what, not the why.
So why are we so poor at converting against the average expectation at home but less so away? Is it because different players end up in shooting positions at home versus away - and those players are particularly poor "shootists"? Or is it because at home we are too slow getting to the shooting positions and so the opposition is more set to block? Or is it that at home we have lots of shots from poor positions and away we are having shots from better positions for scoring, so there is less variability in the outcome?
I now live 220 miles away from my childhood Woodbridge home so don't see home matches any more and would be interested in the views of those who do. | | | |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 14:27 - Dec 24 with 1576 views | SheffordBlue |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 13:18 - Dec 24 by NorrisHatter |
The particular stat I find interesting is our XG score at home. According to FootyStats its 2.38xG versus an actual of 1.73. So we are "underscoring" by two goals in every three games. The xG calculation is based on the average rate of scoring from all possible shooting positions across thousands of matches, so tells you what the "avergae team" can be expected to achieve.
So that means that at home we are not just an average team in that respect, but actually a pretty poor one (away from home the xG and the actual are much closer). Of course, the xG only tells you the what, not the why.
So why are we so poor at converting against the average expectation at home but less so away? Is it because different players end up in shooting positions at home versus away - and those players are particularly poor "shootists"? Or is it because at home we are too slow getting to the shooting positions and so the opposition is more set to block? Or is it that at home we have lots of shots from poor positions and away we are having shots from better positions for scoring, so there is less variability in the outcome?
I now live 220 miles away from my childhood Woodbridge home so don't see home matches any more and would be interested in the views of those who do. |
I think that has as much to do with how Away teams set up against us. The xG doesn't take into account how many opposition players are in the way of the chance so against teams who have set up in low block and are packing the 18 yard box with players even high xG chances might need to get past a number of blocking players to hit the net. | |
| |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 14:47 - Dec 24 with 1549 views | Wallingford_Boy |
Most surprising stat there is Ahadme is our 5th top scorer with 3! |  |
| |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 15:00 - Dec 24 with 1518 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 14:47 - Dec 24 by Wallingford_Boy |
Most surprising stat there is Ahadme is our 5th top scorer with 3! |
Joint 5th with 3 for another team (so none in the league for us this season) and 1 in the FA Cup for us.
Lies, damn lies and statistics!
I do wonder if there is a lot more to be seen from him should he get sufficient pitch time over the rest of the season. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 10:14 - Dec 25 with 1283 views | ArnieM |
| I appreciate stats can be both good and bad depending on your argument on 13:48 - Dec 18 by SheffordBlue |
On the FB Ref site you can sort the league against various critiria here:
https://fbref.com/en/comps/15/shooting/League-One-Stats
Shot on Target % : 8th 34.9 (Plymouth - 6th 35.6. Sheff Weds - 11th 34.1)
Shots per 90: 1st 16.95 (Plymouth - 15.05. Sheff Weds - 5th 14.27)
Shot on Target per 90: 1st 5.91 (Plymouth 2nd 5.36. Sheff Weds - 4th 4.86)
Goals Per Shot: Joint 3rd 0.10 (Plymouth Joint 2nd 0.11. Sheff Weds - Joint 3rd 0.10)
Goals Per Shot on Target: Joint 4th 0.30 (Plymouth 3rd 0.31. Sheff Weds Joint 4th 0.30)
We're either marginally beating or marginally behind the other top 3 sides. There's always room for improvement but we're not falling behind here. The main difference is that we are shooting far more than the other two (and any team in the division)
Total Shots: 1st 373 (Plymouth 2nd 331. Sheff Weds 3rd 314)
Total Shots on Target: 1st 130 (Plymouth 2nd 118. Sheff Weds 3rd 107) |
These stats show that we need a good striker. We all know that , and that’s the statistics to support that view held by so many of us. It’s very margins at the top. We could miss our opportunity purely because we don’t have a striker that can take those half chances. All our lovely approach play, shots snd possession stats mean sod all if we don’t stick it in the net.
Pivotal Jan window! |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
