mucky__fingers Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 For most of the season now many topics have been posted about how poor we are going foward, we know we have the worst shots to goal ratio in the league but looking at some other stats (statistics taken from the press association) http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/ClubShooting/0,,10794~20117,00.html it shows city 5th total shots at goal in the division and 3rd shots on target in the division so are we really that bad at creating chances as most fans make out or have we just been really unlucky in front of goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 a combanation of both i think, We've hit the post and there has been more then their far share or worldy saves from keepers and clearances off the line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 For most of the season now many topics have been posted about how poor we are going foward, we know we have the worst shots to goal ratio in the league but looking at some other stats (statistics taken from the press association) http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/ClubShooting/0,,10794~20117,00.html it shows city 5th total shots at goal in the division and 3rd shots on target in the division so are we really that bad at creating chances as most fans make out or have we just been really unlucky in front of goal? doesn't tell you who was shooting, from what angle, what distance or the difficulty of the chance. Many attempts at goal have been half blocked shots that trickle back to the goalie, half assed headers, shots where there was no chance of scoring. This is generally where our eyesight outweighs the stats. On the face of it, it looks like we do create a lot, unfortunately my eyes tell me we quite often get to the 70th minute, hardly created anything, are 1 or 2 down and go chasing a game, then shots and attempted shots start to rise, but this is through panic rather than creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mucky__fingers Posted February 15, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 what gats me is alot of fans seem so obsessed with getting a "creative midfielder" in to the club but wont this just mean we miss the goal alot more than we already do. so unless someone tells the players how to put the ball into the back of the net whats the point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Last night was certainly a bit of bad luck (how did Pearson's shot bounce back from the underside of the post??!) and having to deal with probably the best keeper outside the PL. Two outstanding saves by Sperroni that most Championship keepers wouldn't make. Overall, I'm a bit sceptical of this "fifth best" statistic because how many shots have been speculative punts from extreme range? Loads. Playing one-up we rarely get enough men in the box to do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjb1977 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 I admit the stats far from show the hole story it just surprised me that we had that amount of shots on target. Hopefully soon we will start putting alot more of these chances away and move up the table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spud55 Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 We may have lots of shots but we do create very few chances. Take last night for example. First half Pearson hits a thunderbolt that is unluky not to go in, but from where he was you'd hardly class that as a chance, Elliot managed a shot on target which was from long range and was catching practice for Speroni, apart from that we made 0 chances in the first 45. Second half we had some more catching practice for Speroni, a horribly tame header from elliot that was "cleared off the line" we only had 3 what i'd consider chances in the second half that we created, Pitmans second Goal, the worldy from Speroni and the one hacked off the line from Fonts, Albert also had a chance which he should have scored from which Palarse created, thats 4 good chances and we scored from one of them, which isn't a terrible return. Our stats are boosted massively by the fact that we hit tame shots from long range and tame headers from inside the box, which makes it look as if we are creating lots of chances when we arent. Last night we were far more productive than we usually are and managed 4 chances where we should have scored, were it not for alberts crap shot and some very good goalkeeping/defending we should have scored 3 more goals. In most games we do not make the opposition keeper work, he may have to make a couple of saves from long range that are really routine, but apart from that we do nothing. I would not be worried if we were missing sitters left right and center as thats the sort of thing that will just come in time, but honestly bar last night how many chances have we made in the last 5 games where your reaction was overwhelmingly "we should have scored there" i would hesitate to say i could probably count them on one hand. We've had too many games this season (under both Millen and Del) where we have managed a couple of shots from range on target for the whole 90 minutes. That to me suggests that the tactics and midfield are the weak links. If Maynard was missing sitter after sitter when he was here (he missed a few) and Pitman and Wood were doing the same then i would say otherwise, but it's not that. Our midfield has been weak offensively ever since we got in this division, the only player who has contributed a decent number of goals and assists in our team was McIndoe, the rest have either been about exceptable (albert, Hartley) or just piss poor with a goal return and assist return that is laughable for championship midfielders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 It's very simple; the quality of chances we create isn't very good. I think we have now hit the woodwork 5 times in our last 6 games though, so maybe you could say we've had a little bad luck of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 As others have said, the problem with these stats is they're purely quantitative, not qualitative. I recall a City game from the dark ages when Pulis insisted that we'd have 40+ crosses in another 0-0 thriller, but failed to note that most of those "crosses" were launched from our own half. It's interesting to look at what's happening at Liverpool where the American owners are trying to adopt the "Moneyball" approach from baseball. But the statistics they used in baseball are much more quantitative - a runner getting on base is a runner getting on base, no matter what. By contrast, Liverpool signed Downing and Adam based on the number of assists they had last season, but that doesn't consider the quality and type of chances created, not to mention the fact that different forwards require different types of chance creating for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperRed Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 For me the reason we don't score many goals is that we don't get many people in the box. Simples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted February 15, 2012 Admin Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 Part of the problem is the personnel we have fielded at the business end of the pitch. For the majority of those matches and chances, we haven't had a natural finisher up front. Maynard will score the odd screamer but has never been the sort to get one chance all match and tuck it away, Wood looks like a decent foil for a poacher but not a particularly prolific scorer if up top on his own. Pitman is probably our most natural goalscorer but so far this season various managers have chosen not to field him. If we can find a way of fielding Brett alongside Wood whilst creating the same ratio of chances without shipping too many goals (the signing of McManus could be key here) then I'd expect us to start putting more of those chances away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted February 15, 2012 Report Share Posted February 15, 2012 As others have said, the problem with these stats is they're purely quantitative, not qualitative. Beg to differ Dan: our shots to goal ratio is a measure of the quality of our attacking effectiveness that enables a like-for-like comparison with that of other clubs derived from the same data. This post from a few days ago shows our attack to be the least clinical in the Football League and that tallies with the impression I've formed from the games I've seen. As ever, what the stats provide is a basis for discussion, suggesting lines of enquiry for how things might be improved; and we will know if they improve because the stats will measure it! NB - I make no distinction between "On Target" and "Off Target" shots in these stats because for me the only "On Target" shot is a goal anyway ... and that is where the most effective attacks place the shots they do have (check out Charlton in that link!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Beg to differ Dan: our shots to goal ratio is a measure of the quality of our attacking effectiveness that enables a like-for-like comparison with that of other clubs derived from the same data. This post from a few days ago shows our attack to be the least clinical in the Football League and that tallies with the impression I've formed from the games I've seen. As ever, what the stats provide is a basis for discussion, suggesting lines of enquiry for how things might be improved; and we will know if they improve because the stats will measure it! NB - I make no distinction between "On Target" and "Off Target" shots in these stats because for me the only "On Target" shot is a goal anyway ... and that is where the most effective attacks place the shots they do have (check out Charlton in that link!) Yes, that's a fair point. Shots to goal is a good measure, but can it be used in isolation, particularly to judge players? For example, Pitman may have a fantastic shots to goal ratio (he may not but I'm guessing he does) but he won't score many goals unless he (a) gets in the right positions to shoot and (b) gets the right passes. A simple analysis would say you stick Pitman in the box and give the ball to him, but unless the ball is passed in the right way at the right time he won't score. The chart you reference highlights a problem, certainly, but I'm not sure it lends itself readily to a solution. So far nobody has found a way to make football stats lead to an improvement in performance, and when you consider the "work" of Reep / Hughes, it's actually had quite the opposite effect on the English game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lew-T Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 We never shoot enough though. Everytime we have the ball on the edge of the oppositions box, we try to get it wide and not actually have a go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 The chart you reference highlights a problem, certainly, but I'm not sure it lends itself readily to a solution. So far nobody has found a way to make football stats lead to an improvement in performance, and when you consider the "work" of Reep / Hughes, it's actually had quite the opposite effect on the English game. I'm not aware of anybody suggesting that stats are the solution. I say again: they evidence the problem and will provide a measure for whatever solution it is that the team comes up with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcnick Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 It shouldn't surprise anyone. Based on our players goal scoring stats over a number of season they simply are not goal scorers so I am not sure why anyone should think their shots should suddenly go in this season! That doesn't mean they are not half-decent players but aside from Brett their isn't a natural goal scorer in the side. Before we had defenders like Orr and McCoombe who might chip in 8 to ten a season between them. Perhaps Foster and Mcmanus will chip in but haven't seen their records. Kilkenny makes the team tick nicely but will not add goals and goals are not part of our other midfielders game. Yannick and Albert are decent wingers but they both have a lot of shots and, bearing in mind the limited conversion rate, they would be better off giving it to a clinical finisher like Pitman. I'd also like to see them both take the ball into the box as we don't get enough penalties. They can both go past players and I'm sure that would be productive. Foster also has a lot of long range shots but I'd be interested to see if his past record suggest any are likely to go in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 I'm not aware of anybody suggesting that stats are the solution. I say again: they evidence the problem and will provide a measure for whatever solution it is that the team comes up with. The powers that be at Liverpool seem to be. That's why they think Stuart Downing is worth £20m. I don't disagree with you at all. When it comes to City, the statistics bear up what we all know. What I'm interested in is whether or not the statistics can be used to improve matters, rather than simply to evaluate the effectiveness of changes (i.e. as mentioned earlier, Pitman is a good finisher but what best complements him? Can the stats help there?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grifty Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 How many penalties have we had compared to other teams? Not just against us but over the league so far. I know MAynard missed one, but I swear everyone seems to get one (against us at the moment) yet we get one a season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Well I can remember us missing 2 pens (both Maynard?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickB01 Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 I think we have been unlucky in front of goal on many occasions. I think also a lot of times we are unlucky when the ball just doesn't drop for us as well, and we don't get our fair share of the officials decisions going our way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickB01 Posted February 16, 2012 Report Share Posted February 16, 2012 Sorry double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted February 17, 2012 Report Share Posted February 17, 2012 Shots per goal compared to other teams might tell you how good your shooting is if all shots were taken under the same conditions. They aren't though, so we can't tell if we're shooting more often and from further out, or later in a phase of play when more defenders are back, or whether our players couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo. Statistics don't support any conclusion here. Statistical trends by their nature don't provide evidence, because they are just aggregations that exist only to provide a very simplified view of data. They are best thought of as warning lights. When you see one, you go investigate by analysing the actual data which in this case would be video footage. Then you determine if any solution's needed and what it might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.