Shots on target

[wendyredredrobin]

According to Sky, we had 3 shots on target v Preston, 1 shot on target v Millwall and 0 shots on target v Birmingham.  Thats 4 shots on target in 270 minutes which equates to less than one shot on target per hour of league football played this season.

Even worse, we've had only one shot on target in the last 2 games (i.e. 180 minutes).

Either we have a bloody awful team or we are tactically inept ( or even possibly both).

Whilst I know we have sold a couple of players, the manager has been here for long enough to be producing a far better output than this.

Based on this data, it seems unlikely that we will survive the drop unless something changes drastically.

[Supersonic Robin]

5 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Based on this data, it seems unlikely that we will survive the drop unless something changes drastically.

Why are our fans always so easily convinced that we're getting relegated? 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

According to Sky, we had 3 shots on target v Preston, 1 shot on target v Millwall and 0 shots on target v Birmingham.  Thats 4 shots on target in 270 minutes which equates to less than one shot on target per hour of league football played this season.

Even worse, we've had only one shot on target in the last 2 games (i.e. 180 minutes).

Either we have a bloody awful team or we are tactically inept ( or even possibly both).

Whilst I know we have sold a couple of players, the manager has been here for long enough to be producing a far better output than this.

Based on this data, it seems unlikely that we will survive the drop unless something changes drastically.

The data you use doesn’t tell the whole story.  Doesn’t include blocks for example.  Doesn’t include the best chance we had that Nahki put wide, etc.

I’m not suggesting we are firing on all cylinders in attack, far from it, but Brum’s players 20 yard dribbler that barely reached Max counts as 1 shot on target, 2 shots in the same move can only be scored once, but still goes down as 2, etc.

I’m not defending our attacking play at all….but I wouldn’t use shots on target, certainly not alone, to justify it.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Our overall shots data isn't fantastic either but some sides are more clinical than others too. Even if it doesn't always last.

We have 2 goals from 28 in 3 games. No own goals, no penalties.

Stoke have 5 goals and 6 points so are flying. From a princely 37 shots. Reasonable but add in that they played v 10 men last 20 odd plus stoppage time v Rotherham whereas we were a man light last 15 plus stoppage Saturday.

Indeed 5 from 10 shots on target for them including one of those goals vs 10 in last 20.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Mr Popodopolous

[Bris Red]

9 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

 

Based on this data, it seems unlikely that we will survive the drop unless something changes drastically.

It’s not even September yet, FFS.

[lenred]

12 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

According to Sky, we had 3 shots on target v Preston, 1 shot on target v Millwall and 0 shots on target v Birmingham.  Thats 4 shots on target in 270 minutes which equates to less than one shot on target per hour of league football played this season.

Even worse, we've had only one shot on target in the last 2 games (i.e. 180 minutes).

Either we have a bloody awful team or we are tactically inept ( or even possibly both).

Whilst I know we have sold a couple of players, the manager has been here for long enough to be producing a far better output than this.

Based on this data, it seems unlikely that we will survive the drop unless something changes drastically.

You think a record of one win, one draw and one loss equals relegation form? Jesus wept.  

[Out of his pie crust]

Three games in, very early days. We all know the champ is very up and down if you’re in the middle block of teams which we are. 

[Slack Bladder]

I don't think we will either go up or down, but it would be nice to create 'fortress Ashton Gate' for far too long now teams have not been afraid of coming here.

At the moment I do not see that changing any time soon

Not working the opposition goal keeper is a sin in my book

 

[pongo88]

4 hours ago, Supersonic Robin said:

Why are our fans always so easily convinced that we're getting relegated? 

Probably because they keep watching City play 

[And Its Smith]

Judge us after ten games. 

[Big C]

Shots on target is such a misleading stat and totally irrelevant 

[wendyredredrobin]

A lot of you defending what is a disgrace here.  I find it hard to understand why so many of us find this acceptable and whilst I agree that shots on target don't tell the story, you need to have a few of them to score goals and if you don't score goals you don't win games.

I'm not sure what is going on and whilst our strike force looks seriously deficient, I'm sure it has more to do with our tactics (or lack of them) and a lack of any meaningful creativity in midfield.

[ExiledAjax]

5 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

A lot of you defending what is a disgrace here.  I find it hard to understand why so many of us find this acceptable and whilst I agree that shots on target don't tell the story, you need to have a few of them to score goals and if you don't score goals you don't win games.

I'm not sure what is going on and whilst our strike force looks seriously deficient, I'm sure it has more to do with our tactics (or lack of them) and a lack of any meaningful creativity in midfield.

How many shots on target would you like us to have per game?

[mozo]

7 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

A lot of you defending what is a disgrace here.  I find it hard to understand why so many of us find this acceptable and whilst I agree that shots on target don't tell the story, you need to have a few of them to score goals and if you don't score goals you don't win games.

I'm not sure what is going on and whilst our strike force looks seriously deficient, I'm sure it has more to do with our tactics (or lack of them) and a lack of any meaningful creativity in midfield.

Let's see if some tactical tweaks lead to increased shots on target on Friday. There's no point jumping up and down about it now if the coaching staff are current working on the problem. If we get a few more games down the line then it gets more urgent.

[Davefevs]

17 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

I find it hard to understand why so many of us find this acceptable and whilst I agree that shots on target don't tell the story

You’ve answered it here

Nobody is saying it’s acceptable, they are all / mostly saying that SoT is not the whole story.

[wendyredredrobin]

20 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

How many shots on target would you like us to have per game?

Isn't that like saying "how long is a piece of string"?

The key metric is the ratio of goals to shots on target, so the higher the better for both.

Of course we are all aware that it is no good having 50 shots per game and only putting away one or indeed letting in 3 but tactically some things need to change.  

A few ideas might include taking throw ins and free kicks quickly before the opposition get their markers in place or stop faffing around with short corners which never seem to achieve anything.

Edited August 21, 2023 by wendyredredrobin

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

17 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You’ve answered it here

Nobody is saying it’s acceptable, they are all / mostly saying that SoT is not the whole story.

Dave, we had a discussion about NP a season or so back regarding his (roughly) 32% win ratio. You were at pains to explain to me that a win ratio does not tell the whole story.

@wendyredredrobin has understandably, imo, raised the issue of lack of shots on target: 4 in 270 mins. Again you say that this doesn't tell the whole story.

I dont think I'm entirely alone in having a much more simplistic view of football compared to you. I pays me money to be entertained, to get excited- even briefly. I obviously want to see goal attempts even if they don't go in!

I love fine food and know what tastes good without always knowing the ingredients, the process or the chef. BCFC ,in footballing terms, are serving up a pretty poor meal more often than not and for many of us - it is the story.

[Big C]

37 minutes ago, Marina's Rolls Royce said:

Dave, we had a discussion about NP a season or so back regarding his (roughly) 32% win ratio. You were at pains to explain to me that a win ratio does not tell the whole story.

@wendyredredrobin has understandably, imo, raised the issue of lack of shots on target: 4 in 270 mins. Again you say that this doesn't tell the whole story.

I dont think I'm entirely alone in having a much more simplistic view of football compared to you. I pays me money to be entertained, to get excited- even briefly. I obviously want to see goal attempts even if they don't go in!

I love fine food and know what tastes good without always knowing the ingredients, the process or the chef. BCFC ,in footballing terms, are serving up a pretty poor meal more often than not and for many of us - it is the story.

A shot that dribbles towards the keeper is counted as a shot on target. A volley that is heading for the top corner and blocked by a defender is not. A soft header a keeper could throw his cap over is counted as a shot on target. A diving header thudding against the inside of the post and bouncing clear is not.  

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

15 minutes ago, Big C said:

A shot that dribbles towards the keeper is counted as a shot on target. A volley that is heading for the top corner and blocked by a defender is not. A soft header a keeper could throw his cap over is counted as a shot on target. A diving header thudding against the inside of the post and bouncing clear is not.  

Yes-we can all be blinded by stats but if you watch a game- stats mean nothing compared to the entertainment and, usually, the result(s) which you witness with your own eyes and your wallet.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Isn't that like saying "how long is a piece of string"?

5.

5 is an achievable but high target for the number of shots on targets a good football team can expect to have in a high level professional match.

Most teams that achieve 5 shots on targets do so from about 15 overall shots.

Those 15 shots, 5 of which are on target, should deliver xG of around 1.5 at our level of football. At higher levels the xG tends to be higher because the quality of attacking play is better.

Thus we would generally be expected to score 1 or 2 goals per game, meaning the opposition need to score a minimum of 1 in order to stop us taking 3 points.

That is the theory.

1 hour ago, wendyredredrobin said:

The key metric is the ratio of goals to shots on target, so the higher the better for both.

This season our goal/SoT ratio is 0.67. We rank 1st for that ratio as it stands. Last season our goals/SoT ratio was the third best in the division. The season before that it was the best in the division. We have no issue there, so if that's the key metric then carry on.

1 hour ago, wendyredredrobin said:

A few ideas might include taking throw ins and free kicks quickly before the opposition get their markers in place or stop faffing around with short corners which never seem to achieve anything.

Throw ins very rarely lead to goals, as with long corners only about 3% lead to a goal, so no I don't think they are the answer.

Free kicks maybe better, but will, for most teams be a low % method of scoring. We're not a big, strong, set piece specialist team sonid rather we look to improving the links between midfield and attack, on the deck, and up our frequency of shot without diminishing the quality of each one ... if that is possible!

[Kingswood Robin]

I don't think the OP is "convinced" we'll be relegated, but I can't argue with the assessment that shots on target need to improve.

An SoT/goal ratio of 0.67 seems good, but if we can only manage 1 shot target that's less than a goal a game (the defence will need to be amazing). Manage 3 shots on target and we're on for 2 goals a game (this would feel like dreamland).

Something that's concerned me for some time is that so much of our attacking play is via crosses. Scoring from crosses is not easy and I believe the stats back that up. 

 

[ExiledAjax]

8 minutes ago, Kingswood Robin said:

I don't think the OP is "convinced" we'll be relegated, but I can't argue with the assessment that shots on target need to improve.

An SoT/goal ratio of 0.67 seems good, but if we can only manage 1 shot target that's less than a goal a game (the defence will need to be amazing). Manage 3 shots on target and we're on for 2 goals a game (this would feel like dreamland).

Something that's concerned me for some time is that so much of our attacking play is via crosses. Scoring from crosses is not easy and I believe the stats back that up. 

The 0.67 number is meaningless when you're talking about numbers as small as 3 and 2. It's a classic example of what statisticians call "small number bias". Goals/SoT ratio is a nice number to look at, but it has almost no correlation to table position at the end of the season. It's a curiosity that shows if you're taking high quality shots on target, and that's about it.

Just to add, you can arrive at a conclusion of targeting 5 shots on target per game from another direction. Most first choice keepers at our level have a save % of something in the 70% region. The best get up towards 80%.

Put another way, most keepers save about 3 out of every 4 shots on target. So if you take 5, you're giving yourself a very good chance that, on average, at least one, maybe even 2, won't be saved.

[2015]

Our xG so far is the 3rd lowest this season. That tells you all you need to know about our current problems and it is very concerning.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Our xG so far is the 3rd lowest this season. That tells you all you need to know about our current problems and it is very concerning.

But our xGA is the 6th best in the league...

[2015]

Just now, ExiledAjax said:

But our xGA is the 6th best in the league...

Expect a lot of goalless draws.

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Expect a lot of goalless draws.

1-1 is the statistical likelihood atm.

[Kingswood Robin]

5 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

The 0.67 number is meaningless when you're talking about numbers as small as 3 and 2. It's a classic example of what statisticians call "small number bias". Goals/SoT ratio is a nice number to look at, but it has almost no correlation to table position at the end of the season. It's a curiosity that shows if you're taking high quality shots on target, and that's about it.

Just to add, you can arrive at a conclusion of targeting 5 shots on target per game from another direction. Most first choice keepers at our level have a save % of something in the 70% region. The best get up towards 80%.

Put another way, most keepers save about 3 out of every 4 shots on target. So if you take 5, you're giving yourself a very good chance that, on average, at least one, maybe even 2, won't be saved.

I understand what your saying about small number bias. My job has an element of that to it.

Looking at it from another perspective, we're probably not going to win the league. If we can't have that, what would we rather watch? Personally I'd take more shots on target and go away feeling more entertained.

[Kingswood Robin]

6 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

1-1 is the statistical likelihood atm.

I'm sure that will change, but I don't much fancy ending the season on 46 points!

[ExiledAjax]

4 minutes ago, Kingswood Robin said:

I understand what your saying about small number bias. My job has an element of that to it.

Looking at it from another perspective, we're probably not going to win the league. If we can't have that, what would we rather watch? Personally I'd take more shots on target and go away feeling more entertained.

Oh absolutely. 15 shots, 5 on target, you'd be entertained by that I promise!

[beaverface]

Quite simply, how often did we get out of our seats and get excited by the potential of a goal? In short, very little over the two home games so far this season.

Let me counter that by saying, how many times did I brick myself each time Preston attacked us after scored? In short a LOT !

Forget stats, it's all about the excitement levels. If I was a Preston fan, I would have been the more confident to have gone on to win that first match of the season as they were attacking with purpose.