| Most winning goals scored 13:42 - Jan 4 with 3891 views | Wacko |
A lot of people have been saying “but we’re the top scorers in the league” in discussing whether we need a striker, but the more important stat is what percentage of our goals have been winning goals. We have the worst percentage in the top six - with 29%. Everyone else is over 30% (with Plymouth nearly 37%). I guess this just confirms what most of us knew already, that we’re not ruthless enough |  |
| |  |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:44 - Jan 4 with 1044 views | homer_123 |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:11 - Jan 4 by SaleAway |
it basically means we either win easily, lose, or draw.... we don't sneak a lot of wins by a single goal... i.e we're scoring a lot of goals which aren't gaining us points.... just improving goal difference
I think this is why people think that Plymouth might drop off, they've won 9 games by 1 goal... we've won 5.
a couple of " winnning" goals in that context would make a difference.
however.... we have also drawn 5 matches and lost 1 from when we were in front, so you could easily argue that our propensity for throwing away a winning position is more a defensive problem, than a lack of goals.
As most people have already said. We don't do a lot wrong, hence we're at the right end of the table, however, we have the potential to be a lot better by making small improvements at both ends. Cut out the cheap goals conceded, and score a couple more goals at crucial times, and we'll fly. |
"Cut out the cheap goals conceded, and score a couple more goals at crucial times, and we'll fly."
As I've said a while back, this is def the case but - the risk KM runs by making us a little more defensively solid is that we'll loose a little of our attacking threat as a result, it's a very difficult tweak to make.
Ergo, we might be better served by leaving the approach as it is but working on helping our players become better at converting the chances we create, as we create more than enough to put teams to the sword, even those that sit and try and play on the break, like Lincoln did. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 14:57]
|  |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:45 - Jan 4 with 1035 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Most winning goals scored on 13:45 - Jan 4 by itfcjoe |
What does this stat even mean |
The more goals you score the fewer will be ‘winning’ goals. A pointless statistic. |  |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:50 - Jan 4 with 1030 views | Wacko |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:39 - Jan 4 by homer_123 |
I'd just like to point out that a new 'striker' doesn't mean that we'll improve that stat.
Take Lincoln, the three guilt edge chances fell to Evans, Leigh and Woolf. Evans from the corner with a free hit he put wide. Leigh with a near post header he put over and Woolf hit bar.
The one thing I really like about our play is the fact that we create and score from many positions, so signing a 20 goal a season striker might mean that KM has to tweak or change the teams way of playing to get the best out of that striker, which could actually be at the overall detriment of the team.
I absolutely would not tweak or mess about with how we play or approach games, we get a lot right but we could absolutely do with being more ruthless in taking the chances we create but the fact that we don't rely on a single play for goals is a really good thing. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 14:39]
|
Yeah I think you're probably right - except for the fact that, at least imo, the most guilt-edged chance at Lincoln was Ladapo's header that he put straight at the keeper. That would've made the difference, and all these kinds of chances are much more likely to fall to a striker.
I'd like a better striker yes, but I'm not really bothered about a 20 goal one. Just the ruthless type that more often than not takes their chances, especially in games where they're / the team are struggling to make an impact | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:50 - Jan 4 with 1029 views | Garv |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:39 - Jan 4 by homer_123 |
I'd just like to point out that a new 'striker' doesn't mean that we'll improve that stat.
Take Lincoln, the three guilt edge chances fell to Evans, Leigh and Woolf. Evans from the corner with a free hit he put wide. Leigh with a near post header he put over and Woolf hit bar.
The one thing I really like about our play is the fact that we create and score from many positions, so signing a 20 goal a season striker might mean that KM has to tweak or change the teams way of playing to get the best out of that striker, which could actually be at the overall detriment of the team.
I absolutely would not tweak or mess about with how we play or approach games, we get a lot right but we could absolutely do with being more ruthless in taking the chances we create but the fact that we don't rely on a single play for goals is a really good thing. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 14:39]
|
Ladapo's header was up there in terms of chances, to be fair.
Edit; although I think that was at 1-0, so wouldn't have been a 'winning goal'. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 14:52]
|  |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:52 - Jan 4 with 1023 views | Wacko |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:31 - Jan 4 by gringoblue |
Little to show for it... we have 9 more points! |
If we had the same goals to wins ratio as Derby then we'd be over 12 points clear of them - not huge but makes a difference. But like I said in other posts, the point of this stat is to show that goals scored alone is pretty meaningless | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:55 - Jan 4 with 1014 views | homer_123 |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:50 - Jan 4 by Garv |
Ladapo's header was up there in terms of chances, to be fair.
Edit; although I think that was at 1-0, so wouldn't have been a 'winning goal'. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 14:52]
|
He def had chances, yes, the header was indeed poor, straight at the keeper.
My point was more that we 'share' out chances our across the team, it's a really good thing as you not reliant on one or two people. | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:57 - Jan 4 with 989 views | DavoIPB |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:44 - Jan 4 by homer_123 |
"Cut out the cheap goals conceded, and score a couple more goals at crucial times, and we'll fly."
As I've said a while back, this is def the case but - the risk KM runs by making us a little more defensively solid is that we'll loose a little of our attacking threat as a result, it's a very difficult tweak to make.
Ergo, we might be better served by leaving the approach as it is but working on helping our players become better at converting the chances we create, as we create more than enough to put teams to the sword, even those that sit and try and play on the break, like Lincoln did. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 14:57]
|
Not clear cut chances though. Most of our plays are ending with Morsey having a speculative shot from outside the box | | | |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:57 - Jan 4 with 1013 views | homer_123 |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:50 - Jan 4 by Wacko |
Yeah I think you're probably right - except for the fact that, at least imo, the most guilt-edged chance at Lincoln was Ladapo's header that he put straight at the keeper. That would've made the difference, and all these kinds of chances are much more likely to fall to a striker.
I'd like a better striker yes, but I'm not really bothered about a 20 goal one. Just the ruthless type that more often than not takes their chances, especially in games where they're / the team are struggling to make an impact |
I think if we look over the course of the season though, the Lincoln game a good barometer.
With goals and chances created for all positions. A more ruthless striker will help but only to a degree. If we can up our chances taken from all the players, the improvement will be significantly more than just a new striker. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Most winning goals scored on 14:57 - Jan 4 with 1017 views | Wacko |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:50 - Jan 4 by Garv |
Ladapo's header was up there in terms of chances, to be fair.
Edit; although I think that was at 1-0, so wouldn't have been a 'winning goal'. [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 14:52]
|
Yeah but I think this is where people are getting confused. Don't think of a 'winning goal' as being a specific goal at a specific time of the match, it's just a statistical marker that denotes the conversion of one point into three.
If Ladapo had scored then, then obviously the chances of getting a second would've been greater than what happened in reality | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:58 - Jan 4 with 994 views | homer_123 |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:57 - Jan 4 by DavoIPB |
Not clear cut chances though. Most of our plays are ending with Morsey having a speculative shot from outside the box |
That simply isn't the case.
Lincoln saw Evans having a fee hit from inside the box, that he put wide. Leigh's free header at the near post he put over. Woolf hitting the bar and, Ladapo's header as well. | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 15:00 - Jan 4 with 979 views | Guthrum |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:50 - Jan 4 by Wacko |
Yeah I think you're probably right - except for the fact that, at least imo, the most guilt-edged chance at Lincoln was Ladapo's header that he put straight at the keeper. That would've made the difference, and all these kinds of chances are much more likely to fall to a striker.
I'd like a better striker yes, but I'm not really bothered about a 20 goal one. Just the ruthless type that more often than not takes their chances, especially in games where they're / the team are struggling to make an impact |
I think, to an extent, we already have that in Chaplin - a player who will shoot well, but also follow up to score from rebounds. Harness showed similar ability earlier in the season.
Not to say we won't or shouldn't sign another forward. McKenna operates by having options at the front, including off the bench, so the more the better. Especially as John-Jules will be out for some time yet. Ladapo is decent (with other beneficial attributes), but he's not a crack marksman in front of goal. Similarly Jackson.
After Monday, perhaps Humphreys has a future up top. Tho the fact he ended up in that role probably demonstrates that other alternatives are needed. |  |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 15:01 - Jan 4 with 974 views | jayessess |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:14 - Jan 4 by Wacko |
No
1 win = 1 winning goal |
Not sure how meaningful rendering that as a percentage is. I can see from the league table how many goals and "winning goals" (wins) each team has!
Chuck in "drawing goals", which are presumably no harder to score than winning ones and the entire top 3 have the same amount (22). You could also add a bunch of goals we've scored which affected the match state at the time, but didn't at the end of the match (ie. we scored lead-taking goals at Charlton twice).
What you actually need here is a percentage of "unnecessary" goals, which didn't affect the match state.
Quick count on that: Ipswich, 11, Plymouth, 10, Sheff Wed, 17.
(This stat of course ignores how useful it is to add to your lead, avoiding fluke equalisers like the one Fleetwood got) [Post edited 4 Jan 2023 15:10]
|  |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 15:02 - Jan 4 with 978 views | itfcjoe |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:57 - Jan 4 by Wacko |
Yeah but I think this is where people are getting confused. Don't think of a 'winning goal' as being a specific goal at a specific time of the match, it's just a statistical marker that denotes the conversion of one point into three.
If Ladapo had scored then, then obviously the chances of getting a second would've been greater than what happened in reality |
But it's a stat that means nothing - and the title of the thread 'Most Winning goals scored' doesn't mean what it apparently represents either |  |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 15:17 - Jan 4 with 938 views | GeoffSentence |
| Most winning goals scored on 13:45 - Jan 4 by itfcjoe |
What does this stat even mean |
As there is one winning goal per win it will be worked out as wins/goals
so what it means is that we have won fewer games and scored more goals than our rivals.
That's it.
You can also tell that by looking at a league table. |  |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 15:35 - Jan 4 with 910 views | jayessess |
Here's another way of looking at things:
Us and Plymouth have the same number of comfy wins (ie. by 2 or more), same number of defeats (3), difference is that they've 10 narrow wins (by a single goal) to our 7.
They were also a comfy loser a couple of times. So they've won 62.5% of their "tight" games (ie. games where one goal might have changed the result).
Sheffield Wednesday have had 9 comfy wins, plus 2 comfy defeats. Their 14 "tight games" have given 6 further wins (43% win rate).
Our 7 narrow wins have come from 18 tight games (39%).
Is that high rate because Plymouth's forwards are brilliant? Or just a bit of random variation? (Or their goalkeeper!) | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:07 - Jan 4 with 851 views | Wacko |
| Most winning goals scored on 15:02 - Jan 4 by itfcjoe |
But it's a stat that means nothing - and the title of the thread 'Most Winning goals scored' doesn't mean what it apparently represents either |
Well that's your opinion. But it's opened up a nice healthy debate at the very least | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:09 - Jan 4 with 842 views | PhilTWTD |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:15 - Jan 4 by PhilTWTD |
I've funnily enough just been writing something similar for my Gazette column without citing your stat. We're the top scorers in the division but that is skewed a bit by often winning fairly big when we win, such as the Oxford, MK Dons, Cambridge and Shrewsbury games. We've won 1-0 twice in the league all season. I'd imagine it's rare to win 3-0 more regularly than 1-0 in a season unless you're Manchester City or similar.
This post has been edited by an administrator |
Realise I didn't actually mention the point I was making, which is that it seems churlish to moan about a lack of goals when your team is the division's top scorers but that the total when taken on its own without the wider context doesn't tell the whole story. |  | | |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:11 - Jan 4 with 827 views | Wacko |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:45 - Jan 4 by Pinewoodblue |
The more goals you score the fewer will be ‘winning’ goals. A pointless statistic. |
It's not if you understand percentages and ratios. Sheff Weds have the same ratio as Derby but have scored a lot more than then | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:12 - Jan 4 with 815 views | Wacko |
| Most winning goals scored on 15:17 - Jan 4 by GeoffSentence |
As there is one winning goal per win it will be worked out as wins/goals
so what it means is that we have won fewer games and scored more goals than our rivals.
That's it.
You can also tell that by looking at a league table. |
Well then you don't need Rishi's extra maths lessons - congrats! | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:17 - Jan 4 with 797 views | Wacko |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:09 - Jan 4 by PhilTWTD |
Realise I didn't actually mention the point I was making, which is that it seems churlish to moan about a lack of goals when your team is the division's top scorers but that the total when taken on its own without the wider context doesn't tell the whole story. |
Yes exactly. It's the lack of meaningful goals that we should be moaning about. And obviously my calculations are crude and could of course do with more in depth analysis | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:30 - Jan 4 with 763 views | itfcjoe |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:17 - Jan 4 by Wacko |
Yes exactly. It's the lack of meaningful goals that we should be moaning about. And obviously my calculations are crude and could of course do with more in depth analysis |
But I don't see what it is adding - the 3 teams in the lead with best goal differences are the 3 teams who are clear at the top.
Inside that it is just a case of trying to pick stats out to fit an agenda for me - 2 weeks back we were probably top of the 'most winning goals scored' table but we've been on a bad run so have slipped down | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:44 - Jan 4 with 737 views | jayessess |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:17 - Jan 4 by Wacko |
Yes exactly. It's the lack of meaningful goals that we should be moaning about. And obviously my calculations are crude and could of course do with more in depth analysis |
Your "calculations" depend on the peculiar assertion that teams score one meaningful goal per win.
But goals scored to take the lead in games we ultimately don't win are meaningful, as are equalising goals.
Goals scored to extend our lead in games we end up winning comfortably are also meaningful in their own way, but even if they weren't, we've only scored one more of those than Plymouth and 6 fewer than Sheffield Wednesday. | |
| |
| Most winning goals scored on 16:46 - Jan 4 with 726 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Most winning goals scored on 14:45 - Jan 4 by Pinewoodblue |
The more goals you score the fewer will be ‘winning’ goals. A pointless statistic. |
I wouldn't say it's pointless. It's a statistic that does what it says, no more. It's no more meaningless than 'goals for', which I think was the OP's point. Both can misrepresent how 'good' a team are, but can provide insights into different aspects of the play. In our case when we're in the grove we can score well, but sometimes struggle to get a winner.
Neither is a 100% reliable proxy for the only stat which counts at the end of the season, points. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
