| Shots and Goals - For and Against 10:07 - Feb 9 with 1320 views | SheffordBlue |
Quite a lot of debate on here recently about does Plan A work, etc. I put this together to show how many shots it's taken us to score in each of our fixtures to date and how many shots against it's taken for us to concede.
Some of our high shot volumes in games I think are when we've been struggling to break teams down (Lincoln at home anyone?) and have kept going trying to make something work. It's clear from this that slightly improving our conversion rate while cutting out the sloppy goals at the back will make a big difference to our overall points haul.
|  |
| |  |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 10:24 - Feb 9 with 1243 views | Linners |
10% better and 10% luckier and we win the league. Might have to happen next year if we can't do it this time round but we're close. |  | | |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 11:17 - Feb 9 with 1193 views | BOBD |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 10:24 - Feb 9 by Linners |
10% better and 10% luckier and we win the league. Might have to happen next year if we can't do it this time round but we're close. |
The luck argument can be used in a one off match.
But to use it over the course of a 46 match season makes it delusion.
If it takes more shots to score than other teams it’s because the finishing isn’t as good as others.
If it takes other teams less shots to score then the goalkeeping or concentration isn’t as good.
Wednesday have kept 17 clean sheets in 28 league matches. That’s not because they’ve had more luck! It’s because they’ve consistently done the right things! | | | |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 11:28 - Feb 9 with 1171 views | SheffordBlue |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 11:17 - Feb 9 by BOBD |
The luck argument can be used in a one off match.
But to use it over the course of a 46 match season makes it delusion.
If it takes more shots to score than other teams it’s because the finishing isn’t as good as others.
If it takes other teams less shots to score then the goalkeeping or concentration isn’t as good.
Wednesday have kept 17 clean sheets in 28 league matches. That’s not because they’ve had more luck! It’s because they’ve consistently done the right things! |
Some truth in both your points. Our shot conversion rate is actaully pretty good compared with others in the League - https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/league-one/chancenverwertung/wettbewerb/GB3
Think it has been converting 'good chances' that has hurt us rather than an overall issue. I.e We've missed some relative sitters and have needed to score from some lower quality chances. Overall I just think the players are under instruction to get a lot of shots off - which goes a bit against the narrative that we try to walk the ball into the net.
I don't think all of the issues with conceding goals lie with the keeper or backline (although both at fault for some of them) - the midfield have also allowed the opposition to get into dangerous spaces and given away daft free kicks in dangerous places as well. | |
| |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 14:17 - Feb 9 with 1058 views | Guthrum |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 11:17 - Feb 9 by BOBD |
The luck argument can be used in a one off match.
But to use it over the course of a 46 match season makes it delusion.
If it takes more shots to score than other teams it’s because the finishing isn’t as good as others.
If it takes other teams less shots to score then the goalkeeping or concentration isn’t as good.
Wednesday have kept 17 clean sheets in 28 league matches. That’s not because they’ve had more luck! It’s because they’ve consistently done the right things! |
That data only looks in the context of Town matches. What it actually says is we create large numbers of chances and score lots of goals. We also concede relatively few chances, but are vulnerable when we do.
Overall, that speaks of a team set up to keep hold of the ball and attack, not so much to defend. It's simply the price we're paying to get that high Goals For total (best on the division). Even the number of goals conceded is not that worrying (6th lowest in the division).
Shff Wed's stock-in-trade is clean sheets. That didn't work so well for us last season, as it took too much out of the ability to score. So we've gone the other way - and it's proving more successful, so far. |  |
| |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 14:22 - Feb 9 with 1050 views | SheffordBlue |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 14:17 - Feb 9 by Guthrum |
That data only looks in the context of Town matches. What it actually says is we create large numbers of chances and score lots of goals. We also concede relatively few chances, but are vulnerable when we do.
Overall, that speaks of a team set up to keep hold of the ball and attack, not so much to defend. It's simply the price we're paying to get that high Goals For total (best on the division). Even the number of goals conceded is not that worrying (6th lowest in the division).
Shff Wed's stock-in-trade is clean sheets. That didn't work so well for us last season, as it took too much out of the ability to score. So we've gone the other way - and it's proving more successful, so far. |
Agree that context is king and that's missing from my visualisation (only so much you can get in).
Agree with your analysis but would add that I think the biggest upside for us would be cutting out the soft goals. Wycombe and Cambridge particularly spring to mind where we just let a player waltz into a good position. | |
| |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 22:20 - Feb 9 with 909 views | Guthrum |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 14:22 - Feb 9 by SheffordBlue |
Agree that context is king and that's missing from my visualisation (only so much you can get in).
Agree with your analysis but would add that I think the biggest upside for us would be cutting out the soft goals. Wycombe and Cambridge particularly spring to mind where we just let a player waltz into a good position. |
Indeed, that's a whole different chart.
And yes, we concede so few goals that cutting out just a few of them is likely to make a significant difference to results. | |
| |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 22:33 - Feb 9 with 885 views | bournemouthblue |
| Shots and Goals - For and Against on 14:22 - Feb 9 by SheffordBlue |
Agree that context is king and that's missing from my visualisation (only so much you can get in).
Agree with your analysis but would add that I think the biggest upside for us would be cutting out the soft goals. Wycombe and Cambridge particularly spring to mind where we just let a player waltz into a good position. |
Oxford scored a similar goal to the Wycombe one, where the striker just waltzed through, having no right to get there |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
