Attempts on target

[Burnley Ace]

The stats say none but The Barnes volley that was blocked was on target!!

[dsr]

The stats say none but The Barnes volley that was blocked was on target!!

According to official stats, a shot can't be on target until it has reached or passed the goalkeeper. So if it is headed for goal and a defender steps in front of the keeper and heads it clear, it's not on target; if the keeper steps in front of the defender and punches it clear, it was on target.

[piston broke]

Stats are bo!!ox

[Andingle]

Yes 80% of fans think stats are bo!!ox

[TsarBomba]

It’s the third game this season we’ve failed to have a shot on target. No other team has done it more than once.

Really need to start creating more in the last half of the season if we hope to stay up.

[Quicknick]

It’s the third game this season we’ve failed to have a shot on target. No other team has done it more than once.

Really need to start creating more in the last half of the season if we hope to stay up.

If we'd hung on for the draw we deserved, you'd have been praising the team.

[Vegas Claret]

If we'd hung on for the draw we deserved, you'd have been praising the team.

deserved ?

[BurnleyFC]

We were fortunate to come away with nil.

[jrgbfc]

If we'd hung on for the draw we deserved, you'd have been praising the team.

29% possession and zero attempts on target deserves zero points, however you try and dress it up. To defend like that for 90 minutes against the top teams is incredibly difficult. Eventually something is going to drop for them, be it a wonder goal, a mistake or a bad refereeing decision.

[taio]

29% possession and zero attempts on target deserves zero points, however you try and dress it up. To defend like that for 90 minutes against the top teams is incredibly difficult. Eventually something is going to drop for them, be it a wonder goal, a mistake or a bad refereeing decision.

If is incredibly difficult against one of the best teams in the country which is why they deserve credit for a very good defensive performance which almost resulted in a good point.

[Woodleyclaret]

5 players marking Harry Kane and he still laid the ball off for unmarked Eriksen to score.Where was Bardsley as the ball was played into a player he should have marked

[taio]

5 players marking Harry Kane and he still laid the ball off for unmarked Eriksen to score.Where was Bardsley as the ball was played into a player he should have marked

FFS, 5 players marking - a wild exaggeration. I'm not sure what you expect at least four of those players to do when the ball landed at Kane and he immediately played the ball with his back to goal.

[Blackrod]

I expect we are still bottom of the shots on target league quite comfortably.

[MrTopTier]

Not wrong there Blackrod,attached link shows the full league table. http://www.footcharts.co.uk/index.cfm?t ... tsontarget
Although we are bottom, it’s not by a margin. Although Brighton is a surprise considering their league position, but like us last season, clinical with the few chances we got.

[claretspice]

We created two very good chances indeed yesterday - both falling to Barnes. Neither resulted in a shot in target, true, but that doesn't mean they weren't good chances. I don't think that is a bad outcome for Burnley at somewhere like Spurs - chances are always going to be few and far between. Spurs really only had 5 decent chances in the game.

Sure, we were defensive. But in part that just reflects the reality that 70/30 possession stats are increasingly common in top 6 vs lower end teams, and in those games we invariably end up spending long spells pinned back in our own area, with one isolated striker. So we almost just accepted that reality yesterday and got on with it. At times, we looked short of one forward runner to give us an outball, but if they'd not actually have been in a position to provide that outball because they're defending anyway, I don't think it would have made much difference.

You can argue that Burnley might have had a bit more of a go later in the game to try and sucker Spurs - perhaps we might have pushed Tarks in front of Mee and Long, and brought Hendrick on for Westwood with a brief to get closer to Barnes/Wood. But in fairness, this was a new system, and that's a further tweak that we probably haven't worked on yet. Perhaps that's something we need to work on before Arsenal, because the basics of the system worked fine.

[Heathclaret]

We created two very good chances indeed yesterday - both falling to Barnes. Neither resulted in a shot in target, true, but that doesn't mean they weren't good chances. I don't think that is a bad outcome for Burnley at somewhere like Spurs - chances are always going to be few and far between. Spurs really only had 5 decent chances in the game.

Sure, we were defensive. But in part that just reflects the reality that 70/30 possession stats are increasingly common in top 6 vs lower end teams, and in those games we invariably end up spending long spells pinned back in our own area, with one isolated striker. So we almost just accepted that reality yesterday and got on with it. At times, we looked short of one forward runner to give us an outball, but if they'd not actually have been in a position to provide that outball because they're defending anyway, I don't think it would have made much difference.

You can argue that Burnley might have had a bit more of a go later in the game to try and sucker Spurs - perhaps we might have pushed Tarks in front of Mee and Long, and brought Hendrick on for Westwood with a brief to get closer to Barnes/Wood. But in fairness, this was a new system, and that's a further tweak that we probably haven't worked on yet. Perhaps that's something we need to work on before Arsenal, because the basics of the system worked fine.

Spot on.

[Richardsbfc]

Stats are bo!!ox

Stats are for tw@ts

[MDWat]

Impossible to defend the fact that we've had 3 games this season where we haven't had a shot on target. That's pretty disgraceful.