Jump to content
IGNORED

Why we aren't scoring...


spudski

Recommended Posts

...imo...because we have become a team trying to score goals from crosses.

We are playing wider and wider when attacking...with Kelly and Elliason down the left, and either Pisano, Hunt and Weimann combining down the right, all trying to get a cross into the box.

More often than not Famara is in the box on his own...with Pato and Brownhill lurking on the edge.

Here's the rub...Stats prove 'Crossing' is the least effective strategy when trying to score.

Recent studies showed you score 1 goal from 64 crosses. With teams averaging approx. 19 crosses per game. So on average 1 goal scored from a cross per 3 games.

Crossing is difficult. There are many physical and technical abilities required to consistently cross accurate balls in the box. Speed, stamina, dribbling, precision, tempo, to name a few. The crosser and the receiver also need a lot of coordination between the two of them. Not easy.

In the five top European leagues (so it will be a lot less in the Championship), the average cross accuracy is 23.5% (the percentage of crosses actually delivered to a teammate). This means that more than 3 out of 4 crosses get lost (the ball is intercepted by an opponent, or goes out of the pitch).

Even when the ball is accurately crossed and directly goes to a teammate, the chances of scoring remain poor.

First of all, not every time a ball directly goes to a teammate, he is able to shoot. That happens slightly more than half of the times, 56% on average.

Secondly, as aforementioned, scoring from a cross is tough and entails outperforming the defence. The percentage of key passes from crossing becoming assists (i.e. a goal) is 11.9% on average. This is well below the total percentage of goals from key passes (14.1%).


Cross accuracy [23.5%]

x

Crosses translating into shots [56%]

x

Key passes from crosses becoming a goal [11.9%]

=

PROBABILITY OF SCORING A GOAL FROM A CROSS [1.6%].


This means that, on average, it takes 64 crosses to score a goal.

Obviously, from these stats you cannot take into account the number of times a goal is indirectly scored after a cross, like after a failed clearance by the opponents. However, does this really matter? The point is: should we really base our attacking strategy on exploiting the opponents’ defensive mistakes?

Is it no wonder our shots on target are so low using this ineffective strategy?

 

As much as it's nice to see interplay and crosses by Kelly and Elliason...and decent crosses from Pisano and Hunt...exciting to see them beat their opposite numbers....what's the point, when it's the lowest scoring strategy in football?

Easy to defend against...and even worse when you have an ineffective forward.

We've gone from being creative, and playing fast passing moves into and around the front of the box, making openings, leading to shots to a team reliant on crosses that wouldn't look out of place in the 80's.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having players strong enough and skillful enough to keep the ball in and around the opposition area, would help increase the strike rate. Currently it's far too easy for the opposition to defend our powder puff attacks. If we're intent on playing a big mobile bloke that can't hold the ball, and supposedly to his strengths but, with nobody playing off of him, when the rest of the squad are fast more skillful players more used to inter passing, then there's little hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have always thought that scoring becomes a more difficult excercise if the team takes to the field with the mindset that the main priority is worry ,more about what the opposition is going to do, focussing on keeping things tight and not conceding, and think this is where we are at the moment.

That's not to say that defensive issues are unimportant, but with their minds full of negative or defensive messages, attacking players will feel inhibited and midfield players will be more concerned about their defensive responsibilities, so attacking inclinations tend to be suppressed. End result is midfield stops creating chances.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

I've been asking myself that question for the last 40 odd years ?

Yeah, we did OK with crosses and goals a few years prior to that, when we had Skirton, Sharpe on the wings & J G 'The King Of The West Country' alongside Garland in and around the box.  (or have I got my rose tinted polaroid's of youth on again?)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, WestMidsRed said:

 This stuff always hurts my brain. Up here in Stoke, we just know "hoof, smash! Ugh goal! Headbutt ref!" None of this technical percentage stuff.  

No offence.... It sounds like you're suffering from 'Tiny Penis Syndrome' ;)

 

(don't panic, that's just a bad case of lingering Pulis Hangover, you'll get over it ...... eventually!) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WhistleHappy said:

No offence.... It sounds like you're suffering from 'Tiny Penis Syndrome' ;)

 

(don't panic, that's just a bad case of lingering Pulis Hangover, you'll get over it ...... eventually!) 

My missus said the same thing. Probably time I saw a doc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, spudski said:

...imo...because we have become a team trying to score goals from crosses.

We are playing wider and wider when attacking...with Kelly and Elliason down the left, and either Pisano, Hunt and Weimann combining down the right, all trying to get a cross into the box.

More often than not Famara is in the box on his own...with Pato and Brownhill lurking on the edge.

Here's the rub...Stats prove 'Crossing' is the least effective strategy when trying to score.

Recent studies showed you score 1 goal from 64 crosses. With teams averaging approx. 19 crosses per game. So on average 1 goal scored from a cross per 3 games.

Crossing is difficult. There are many physical and technical abilities required to consistently cross accurate balls in the box. Speed, stamina, dribbling, precision, tempo, to name a few. The crosser and the receiver also need a lot of coordination between the two of them. Not easy.

In the five top European leagues (so it will be a lot less in the Championship), the average cross accuracy is 23.5% (the percentage of crosses actually delivered to a teammate). This means that more than 3 out of 4 crosses get lost (the ball is intercepted by an opponent, or goes out of the pitch).

Even when the ball is accurately crossed and directly goes to a teammate, the chances of scoring remain poor.

First of all, not every time a ball directly goes to a teammate, he is able to shoot. That happens slightly more than half of the times, 56% on average.

Secondly, as aforementioned, scoring from a cross is tough and entails outperforming the defence. The percentage of key passes from crossing becoming assists (i.e. a goal) is 11.9% on average. This is well below the total percentage of goals from key passes (14.1%).


Cross accuracy [23.5%]

x

Crosses translating into shots [56%]

x

Key passes from crosses becoming a goal [11.9%]

=

PROBABILITY OF SCORING A GOAL FROM A CROSS [1.6%].


This means that, on average, it takes 64 crosses to score a goal.

Obviously, from these stats you cannot take into account the number of times a goal is indirectly scored after a cross, like after a failed clearance by the opponents. However, does this really matter? The point is: should we really base our attacking strategy on exploiting the opponents’ defensive mistakes?

Is it no wonder our shots on target are so low using this ineffective strategy?

 

As much as it's nice to see interplay and crosses by Kelly and Elliason...and decent crosses from Pisano and Hunt...exciting to see them beat their opposite numbers....what's the point, when it's the lowest scoring strategy in football?

Easy to defend against...and even worse when you have an ineffective forward.

We've gone from being creative, and playing fast passing moves into and around the front of the box, making openings, leading to shots to a team reliant on crosses that wouldn't look out of place in the 80's.

 

We've just scored 4 goals in 2 games. From 4 crosses.

 

Don't worry about it too much, mate, LJ knows what he's doing.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Snufflelufagus said:

Out of interest What is the highest percentage for goals scored? I'd guess set pieces which generally have a cross or two.

From research stats...

We believe that the coaches and managers may find the following result useful. Share of long passes in total passes and number of crosses played per game adversely affects goal scoring, but accuracy of long passes positively impact it. Technical perfection in long passes and passes in general is required, but strategically it is better to increase the number of shot passes played per long pass. This is what Johan Cruyff and his spiritual disciples in football strategy like Arsene Wenger or Pep Guardiola, have been saying for ages and we have seen great teams like Ajax (1971-74), Netherlands national team (1972-78), Barcelona (1992-94 and 2008 to present), Bayern Munich (2012 to present) and Arsenal (1997–2007) that successfully employed the strategy. In the season 2015-16 we have seen teams like Barcelona, Bayern, Dortmund, Manchester City, Arsenal, Paris Saint Germain etc. apply that strategy.

Number of crosses, per game, increases if a team tends to attack from the wide. While it is a might be a good strategy to employ full backs to go on occasional overlaps, playing from the wide reduces the goal scoring opportunity. When a team attacks from the wide, the centre backs of the opposition gets more time and can anticipate the crosses.

Basically... Share of long passes in total passes and crosses per game have significant negative impact.

So the more crosses you play into the box, you are less likely to score.

Our way of playing at the moment...is the least effective way to score in football. Stats back this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RumRed said:

Prosecco doesn’t cut it these days, you’re expected to cough up for pink champagne.

 

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

It was Babysham when I was a lad .

A top knicker dropper . 

 

1 hour ago, Frenchay Red said:

Not as potent as Babycham ?

 

1 hour ago, WhistleHappy said:

 

hmm, … 

'Cherry (popper) B' ?   cherry-b-cherry-wine-4x-11-3cl-pack-and-bottle.jpg

If you're hung like John Holmes then all the above pale into insignificance against this........................

 

1 hour ago, Major Isewater said:

Johnson Out 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

 

 

 

If you're hung like John Holmes then all the above pale into insignificance against this........................

 

 

the blocker on the net won't let me view porn ,alcohol or politics the grandchildren are safe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...