The Dolman Pragmatist Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 Apologies if anyone has already noted this, but interesting to compare our records at the same stage last season and this: 2016 W12 D12 L19 F47 A67 GD -20 Pts48 2017 W13 D9 L21 F56 A63 GD -7 Pts48 Last year with the same number of points we were in 21st position, with a 9-point cushion between us and MK Dons in 22nd. One significant difference from last year is that in 2015/16 while we had a clear top goalscorer, we had two players (Wilbraham and Tomlin) contributing seven goals each. Though we've scored more goals this season, I'm shocked to note that the only player other than Tammy to score more than three goals is Tomlin with six. Given that at one point in the season I believe we had had more shots on target than any other team in the division, it does suggest that our finishing has been the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 Both Flint & Wilbs have scored four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 12 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said: 2016 W12 D12 L19 F47 A67 GD -20 Pts48 2017 W13 D9 L21 F56 A63 GD -7 Pts48 12 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said: it does suggest that our finishing has been the problem. Does it? According to your stats we've scored 11 more goals than last season, a 23.4% increase. Our GD is +13 on last season as we've also conceded 4 fewer goals. We've undoubtedly benefited greatly from Tammy's goals, but I don't think you can use those quoted stats to show that as a team the finishing has been poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lrrr Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said: Does it? According to your stats we've scored 11 more goals than last season, a 23.4% increase. Our GD is +13 on last season as we've also conceded 4 fewer goals. We've undoubtedly benefited greatly from Tammy's goals, but I don't think you can use those quoted stats to show that as a team the finishing has been poor. Think I saw somewhere, haven't we got one of the highest amounts of shots on target in the division? High shots on target to low goals scored is potential for a poor conversion rate and could back up The Dolman Pragmatist's point about finishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelts Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 1 hour ago, ExiledAjax said: We've undoubtedly benefited greatly from Tammy's goals, but I don't think you can use those quoted stats to show that as a team the finishing has been poor. You mean Kevin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 55 minutes ago, hodge said: Think I saw somewhere, haven't we got one of the highest amounts of shots on target in the division? High shots on target to low goals scored is potential for a poor conversion rate and could back up The Dolman Pragmatist's point about finishing. Worth a look at both sides too. Our shots 'conceded' vs shots converted per game...midtable numbers. All that being equal we are midtableish imo this season. I do recall during our bad disastrous 11 out of 12 loss run, we were remarkably fragile- was not unknown for us to concede from basically every shot on target from the opposition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 51 minutes ago, hodge said: Think I saw somewhere, haven't we got one of the highest amounts of shots on target in the division? High shots on target to low goals scored is potential for a poor conversion rate and could back up The Dolman Pragmatist's point about finishing. But you'd have to compare it against the other teams in the division. If we have consistently hit the target - ie hit a shot so that but for a save/block it would have been a goal - but have not scored, then it's either because whilst we hit the target we are doing so in a way that makes it easy to save/block our goals or that the defenders/goalies in the Championship are excellent. If the former is true then yes we are poor at finishing. if the latter then you'd expect all teams to have similar shots on target/goals scored ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 http://www.footcharts.co.uk/index.cfm?task=basics_shotsontarget Play around with this and we will be somewhere roughly- if not bang in the middle of the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoxton casual Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 It shows that replacing Tammy's goals is crucial. I think our defending was the area that killed us. How many times did we score first and then lose in that bad patch? why were we so fragile. Is Bailey Wright the big reason? Was it bringing Fielding back? Was it the left and particularly right back problems? Was it the midfield inability to keep the ball? Was it Pembertons coaching. I would be be very interested to hear what LJ's reasons are? Has he given any that are believable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledAjax Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: http://www.footcharts.co.uk/index.cfm?task=basics_shotsontarget Play around with this and we will be somewhere roughly- if not bang in the middle of the table. So our 192 shots on target have given us 56 goals. A 29.1% conversion rate. Brighton have 193 and 73 - a 37.8% conversion rate. Newcastle have 76 goals from 213 SOT - 32.9% conversion The teams next to us: QPR - 171 SOT, 49 goals - 28% Burton - 150 SOT, 44 goals 29.3% Other teams that have scored 56 goals. Sheff Wed - 189 SOT so almost exactly the same as us. (29.6%) Leeds - 143 SOT (lowest number in the league) so 39.1%. Wood is deadly. Forest - 175 SOT so 32% conversion. Yes we have the lowest conversion out of those teams that I've bothered to calculate for - but it's hardly criminally dire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted April 20, 2017 Report Share Posted April 20, 2017 2 hours ago, ExiledAjax said: So our 192 shots on target have given us 56 goals. A 29.1% conversion rate. Brighton have 193 and 73 - a 37.8% conversion rate. Newcastle have 76 goals from 213 SOT - 32.9% conversion The teams next to us: QPR - 171 SOT, 49 goals - 28% Burton - 150 SOT, 44 goals 29.3% Other teams that have scored 56 goals. Sheff Wed - 189 SOT so almost exactly the same as us. (29.6%) Leeds - 143 SOT (lowest number in the league) so 39.1%. Wood is deadly. Forest - 175 SOT so 32% conversion. Yes we have the lowest conversion out of those teams that I've bothered to calculate for - but it's hardly criminally dire. I don't think our scoring conversion rate is too bad, shots on target to goals conceded may look interesting. Will do that for all the teams you listed too! US- 186 SOT Conc Goals against 63- 33.87% Brighton- 142 SOT Conc Goals against 36- 25.35% Newcastle- 132 SOT Conc- Goals against 39- 29.54% The teams next to us: QPR- 185 SOT Conc, Goals Against 59- 31.89% Burton- 184 SOT Conc, Goals Against 57- 30.97% In terms of sides who have also conceded exactly 63 goals Birmingham City- 191 SOT Conc, Goals Against 63- 32.98%. Other interesting outliers are: Barnsley- 218 SOT Conc, Goals Against 60- 27.52% Reading- 215 SOT Conc. Goals Against 59- 27.44% Huddersfield- 134 SOT Conc. Goals Against 49- 36.56% So there is definitely room for improvement. Brighton clearly have an outstanding record, we though seem a bit higher than the norm tbh. Also is unclear but don't think own goals and penalties conceded don't usually count in the goals against with these measurements. Barnsley and Reading being almost identitcal though is pretty crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.b926d087209b7660223e86ee704db74c.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.