How do you win with no shot on goal ???

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:55 pm

The Burnley way

ElectroClaret · Post by **ElectroClaret** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:57 pm

Really not arsed today, all about the points.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:59 pm

Watch MOD and find out.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:00 pm

BennyD wrote:Watch MOD and find out.

it was bad enough watching the game, don't want to see the "highlights" !

HUGE win though and that is all that matters

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 5:12 pm

We had to win the last 3 league games and we have done. Winning the next 3 will really settle the nerves! Whether you like the idea or not, in SD we trust.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:02 pm

Cracking header for the second by Ohdear.

Hibsclaret · Post by **Hibsclaret** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:04 pm

Played well first half, very well in fact in the conditions.

The weather may explain some of why we were on top first half and them the second.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:22 pm

Fulham beat themselves.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:24 pm

Whoops, that post sounded a bit negative but I also couldn't be more happy. Three brilliant wins from the last three games.

TheOriginalLongsider · Post by **TheOriginalLongsider** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:45 pm

No shot on goal? Do you mean none on target?

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:03 pm

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:Whoops, that post sounded a bit negative but I also couldn't be more happy. Three brilliant wins from the last three games.

not negative hence all the smiley laughing emoji things

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:04 pm

TheOriginalLongsider wrote:No shot on goal? Do you mean none on target?

no, that would be no shot AT goal

jurek · Post by **jurek** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:14 pm

Not sure this has happened before. Well not with two own goals although
it might transpire that the first would have gone in anyway.

I suppose for most Burnley fans it matters not. We won and we needed to.

We're back on track but a long way from safety. I can see Southampton, Newcastle
and possibly Cardiff putting up one hell of a fight to stay up.
I suspect Fulham will too and will probably buy in a couple as well to help them.
They have a few talented players who can score goals and win matches.

We all know matters could go wrong and a few losses would leave us close
to the drop. Hopefully we'll carry on battling as well remain injury free.

It might just be that 4 more wins and two or three draws from our remaining
16 games will suffice and put us on 36 points.
But we need to get them. We're still only 3 points above Newcastle.

A few more nervous Saturdays to come. me thinks.

bobinho · Post by **bobinho** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:47 pm

Game of two halves really.

We got the goals because we were attacking their goal. We took the game to them and got our rewards in the first half.

We also got what we deserved from the second half.

Fulham didn’t.

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:22 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:no, that would be no shot AT goal

BBC say different...
Possession Home 42% Away 58%
Shots Home 11 Away 12

biggles · Post by **biggles** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:46 pm

not true - hendricks shot was on target

tim_noone · Post by **tim_noone** » Sat Jan 12, 2019 11:51 pm

We won...3points

turfytopper · Post by **turfytopper** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:50 am

biggles wrote:not true - hendricks shot was on target

Absolutely.
If Harry Kane had it that shot, there wouldn't even be a debate.
It was Hendrick's goal for me

Corky · Post by **Corky** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:03 am

Perhaps we should do more to encourage the opposition to score for us.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:40 am

It's an odd, misleading statistic any way - Woody had one just over the top and hit a post. Both of those were close attempts, one as close as you can get without scoring.

Ric_C · Post by **Ric_C** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:03 am

You could have 5 shots on target all straight into the keepers hands. Or 5 shots off target all hitting the post

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:31 am

Vegas Claret wrote:no, that would be no shot AT goal

hmmm Not according to MOTD:

Does this not count as a shot on target?

: Dwv7OZ1WoAMoVWB.jpg (74.59 KiB) Viewed 2598 times

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 10:54 am

Does not do our reputation much good as lazy journalists or people who did not watch the game will think it’s typical Burnley.
At least Jenas called it fairly on MOTD saying it did not tell the story of the game and that we dominated first half and played very well. Hendrick’s shot was on target, we hit the post with keeper beaten and we carved them open several times in the first half.
If we would have had a shot from 40 yards which trickled into the keepers hands then that’s a shot on target - hardly makes it nearer to a goal than hitting the bar with the keeper beaten from 6 yards.
Fulham player well second half but don’t think they created that much....the conditions were awful and we tired and because of injuries did not have the type of bench to refresh the energy on the pitch like they could with their subs.
2-2 would have not be an unfair result....but hey ho it was 2-1 !!

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:35 pm

burnleymik wrote:hmmm Not according to MOTD:

Does this not count as a shot on target?

Dwv7OZ1WoAMoVWB.jpg

some people need to learn how to spot a tongue in cheek post, I thought all the

might have given it away but clearly not

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 2:45 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:some people need to learn how to spot a tongue in cheek post, I thought all the might have given it away but clearly not

Some people need to learn not to take response posts personally!

I was just using your post to show the image from match of the day, showing a shot on target.

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:00 pm

It has been pointed out, that to have a shot designated on target, it has to be the keeper who makes a save.
Apparently if a defender gets in the way its "not on target" bizarre but true according to Soccer Saturday.

So the amazing Tarka clearance off the line yesterday wasn't "On Target" according to Jeff Stelling and his compadres...

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:04 pm

Bosscat wrote:It has been pointed out, that to have a shot designated on target, it has to be the keeper who makes a save.
Apparently if a defender gets in the way its "not on target" bizarre but true according to Soccer Saturday.

So the amazing Tarka clearance off the line yesterday wasn't "On Target" according to Jeff Stelling and his compadres...

Surely Jeff is wrong.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:07 pm

Not sure Jeff is correct there - he might be but the bbc stats say 4 shots on target for them. Can’t think of another 3 without the Tarks stop off the line.

If Jeff is correct just shows even more how irrelevant / misleading these stats can be.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:10 pm

Bosscat wrote:It has been pointed out, that to have a shot designated on target, it has to be the keeper who makes a save.
Apparently if a defender gets in the way its "not on target" bizarre but true according to Soccer Saturday.

So the amazing Tarka clearance off the line yesterday wasn't "On Target" according to Jeff Stelling and his compadres...

That may well be the case, as daft as it is, but that doesn’t mean that an on-target shot which is deflected into the goal doesn’t count as a shot on target. Even in the case you point out Hendrick’s shot should have registered as a shot on target and the goal should have been credited to Hendrick (it may still be in the coming days).

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:20 pm

If only there was a better stat than shots on target that could be used. Maybe one that shows how often shots are expected to result in goals

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:24 pm

Wouldn't a shot on target be any shot that the last opposing player prevents from going in? So most of the time that's the keeper but a defender being on the line like Tarky was means it's a shot on target?

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:27 pm

We really dug deep in the second half when Fulham were pressing for a 4th goal.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:28 pm

The expected goal stat has us just in front of Fulhams

But anyway, are you going to turn down a chance to use a headline like "team wins without a shot on target"?

Are you chuff like!

From what I've read, most commnetators reckon we absolutely bossed the first half and looked very dangerous while Fulham though had lots of possession they really didn't do enough with it.

The save Heaton had to do from Vecino coming off a wicked deflection from Hendrick attempted clearance for example.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 3:34 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:The expected goal stat has us just in front of Fulhams

But anyway, are you going to turn down a chance to use a headline like "team wins without a shot on target"?

Are you chuff like!

From what I've read, most commnetators reckon we absolutely bossed the first half and looked very dangerous while Fulham though had lots of possession they really didn't do enough with it.

The save Heaton had to do from Vecino coming off a wicked deflection from Hendrick attempted clearance for example.

To be fair they hit the woodwork with an excellent header, had shot cleared off the line and bossed.the second half. Thankfully we won which is obviously the important thing but if they'd have got a draw it would haven't been undeserved.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Sun Jan 13, 2019 7:53 pm

Itsy bitsy Burnley, climbing up the league... I told you but you wouldn't listen. Stealth, sir. That's why you didn't hear.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:59 am

biggles wrote:not true - hendricks shot was on target

Absolutely this. All this mythical nonsense about us winning with no shots on target is just one for the statos with nothing else to talk about. I watched the game later on MotD and Hendricks shot was CLEARLY going in. They even said that it should be awarded to Hendrick. A graphic of the flight of the ball shows that if the defender hadn't turned it in it would have definitely have cleared the post and hit the INSIDE of the side netting. If Kane or Salah had had that shot it would have been a 'brilliant shot from an acute angle that was turned in by a defender'.

Okay one shot on goal isn't great but it is one more than none. It just goes to show what I have always said, the obsession with stats has now become such that 'facts' are being ignored to try to justify stats. One for the headline makers this, nothing more.

RalphCoatesComb · Post by **RalphCoatesComb** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:23 am

The only stat that really matters is what is recorded in the history books

Burnley 2 Fulham 1

yorkyclaret · Post by **yorkyclaret** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:39 am

Great, board don't have to pay goal bonus's :0

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:57 am

RalphCoatesComb wrote:The only stat that really matters is what is recorded in the history books

Burnley 2 Fulham 1

Totally right.

bfcmik · Post by **bfcmik** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:38 pm

houseboy wrote:Absolutely this. All this mythical nonsense about us winning with no shots on target is just one for the statos with nothing else to talk about. I watched the game later on MotD and Hendricks shot was CLEARLY going in. They even said that it should be awarded to Hendrick. A graphic of the flight of the ball shows that if the defender hadn't turned it in it would have definitely have cleared the post and hit the INSIDE of the side netting. If Kane or Salah had had that shot it would have been a 'brilliant shot from an acute angle that was turned in by a defender'.

Okay one shot on goal isn't great but it is one more than none. It just goes to show what I have always said, the obsession with stats has now become such that 'facts' are being ignored to try to justify stats. One for the headline makers this, nothing more.

Looking at it on Clarets Player goal cam and it is clearly not going in - though Tarks would probably have poked it in if it hadn't been deflected.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:13 pm

bfcmik wrote:Looking at it on Clarets Player goal cam and it is clearly not going in - though Tarks would probably have poked it in if it hadn't been deflected.

The one I have seen shows a graphic of the flight of the ball and it clearly looks like it is going to hit the inside of the side net just inside the base of the post, it looks as though it could even have been slightly to the left and it would still have gone in off the post. As you say though, Tarks looks like he would almost certainly have pounced anyway. I haven't seen the Clarets player one but even on the dreaded MotD they said it definitely looked goalbound.

Anyway all we need now is an undeserved penalty five minutes into injury time to win 1-0 at Watford after being outplayed for the game. That would place us nicely. After that we need to sign a good striker and a battling competitive midfielder and things will be looking up. What will PROBABLY happen is we'll lose to a dabatable goal at Watford and then sign another goalkeeper and a central defender. Just what we need.

Woodleyclaret · Post by **Woodleyclaret** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 4:59 pm

Easy, you get the opposition to score for you

FactualFrank · Post by **FactualFrank** » Mon Jan 14, 2019 5:02 pm

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... =2&t=35970" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;