Shots again

[cricketfieldclarets]

80 mins in... but its united, i mean everton, i mean....

[WestMidsClaret]

6 shots on target so far in 7 games and 4 of them were against Newcastle!!

[WestMidsClaret]

Shot on target I think.

[cricketfieldclarets]

We shoot we score. Come on burnley.

[WestMidsClaret]

First shot on target after 80 minutes though.

[cricketfieldclarets]

First shot on target after 80 minutes though.

Nowhere near good enough.

[WestMidsClaret]

Nowhere near good enough.

Definitely not. I'm absolutely gutted with how thungs are going atm.

[cricketfieldclarets]

We need to sign players to create things along with those to allow a different system.

[Tall Paul]

I think we had more shots today than any other game this season.

[Murger]

We need to sign players to create things along with those to allow a different system.

But he wouldn't sign players to fit into a new system. It's always the same predictable line up to go with the same long ball tactics.

[fanzone]

What's a shot

[Rileybobs]

First half today was dire, of that there’s no doubt. But using the goals on target statistic as a stick to beat today’s performance with is disingenuous. We missed two glaring chances in the second half which should have hit the back of the net. We also had a couple of goal bound shots blocked which don’t register as shots on target. We don’t create enough chances, I’m not disputing that, but we should have scored at least twice today.

[Paul Waine]

I think we had more shots today than any other game this season.

Didn't we have more at Arsenal? and lose that one, as well

[evensteadiereddie]

I like our willingness and ability concerning crosses from the left or right but would love to see some direct, attacking play with McNeil, JBG and so on actually running at defences. You beat your man and you're likely to be in or on the edge of the box, a shooting chance will be there. The two lads mentioned are very, very good on the ball but invariably pass the ball onto someone rather than cut in and take a chance and put defenders under real pressure.

[Longside4evr]

Stats can deceive but what you see through one's eye dont

[cricketfieldclarets]

First half today was dire, of that there’s no doubt. But using the goals on target statistic as a stick to beat today’s performance with is disingenuous. We missed two glaring chances in the second half which should have hit the back of the net. We also had a couple of goal bound shots blocked which don’t register as shots on target. We don’t create enough chances, I’m not disputing that, but we should have scored at least twice today.

That's even more alarming if we should've scored never mind hit the target.

Theres no hiding that our shots in goal for the last 2 months is abysmal.

[Rileybobs]

That's even more alarming if we should've scored never mind hit the target.

Theres no hiding that our shots in goal for the last 2 months is abysmal.

Yes, but who do you blame for not hitting the target with a very good goal scoring chance? It can only be the player. And if so, can you really expect us to do much better than Wood for example? We have three strikers who have proven they can score goals at this level - it’s difficult to legislate for the chances missed today but these things happen. Using the shots on target statistic, particularly on the second half performance is very misleading.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Yes, but who do you blame for not hitting the target with a very good goal scoring chance? It can only be the player. And if so, can you really expect us to do much better than Wood for example? We have three strikers who have proven they can score goals at this level - it’s difficult to legislate for the chances missed today but these things happen. Using the shots on target statistic, particularly on the second half performance is very misleading.

Probably nerves from the negativity. From fans to manager.

[Rileybobs]

Probably nerves from the negativity. From fans to manager.

Possibly. Probably just a lack of form and confidence. It happens.

[Tall Paul]

Didn't we have more at Arsenal? and lose that one, as well

No. 18 in that game compared to 21 today.

Stats can deceive but what you see through one's eye dont

You must have written that the wrong way round.

[Cleveleys_claret]

Yet we gave our 2 strikers new 3 year contracts not so long ago.

[cricketfieldclarets]

No. 18 in that game compared to 21 today.



You must have written that the wrong way round.

Really?

[Tall Paul]

Really?

Yes really.

Screenshot_20200101-190102.png (150.09 KiB) Viewed 1942 times

[cricketfieldclarets]

Yes really.

Screenshot_20200101-190102.png

My mistake sorry yours was after the whistle mine was before it had updated. Still not great as 3 more shots with no more on target.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Possibly. Probably just a lack of form and confidence. It happens.

What about the other 19 games?

Only two sides have had less shots on goal than us and between them they put 5 past us!

You can only score if you shoot. And weve shown when we do hit the target we are as clinical as most. Which is the most frustrating thinf.

[Stayingup]

A bit misleading. Shots on target that are blocked dont count. We had a few of them.

[cricketfieldclarets]

A bit misleading. Shots on target that are blocked dont count. We had a few of them.

Even if you count them, they also cou t for others. So we are still way behind.

[Tall Paul]

Sheffield United are the only team with fewer shots on target than us and they're a team that loads of posters have said are showing us how it should be done.

[deanothedino]

Stats can deceive but what you see through one's eye dont

Not quite, your bias affects what you see as well.

[Spijed]

Sheffield United are the only team with fewer shots on target than us and they're a team that loads of posters have said are showing us how it should be done.

They only reason they are doing well is that they are defending far better than us at the moment. They are a far more long ball team than us according to the stats.

[aggi]

They only reason they are doing well is that they are defending far better than us at the moment. They are a far more long ball team than us according to the stats.

I'd say describing them as a far more long ball team is definitely pushing it.

They've played 40 more (or ~ 2.5%) long balls than us. However they've also played more passes than us (over 1,000 more) so long balls only make up 19% of their total passes compared to 22% of our passes.

Personally, as we play a higher proportion of long balls, I'd say the stats suggest we're more of a long ball team.

[quoonbeatz]

They only reason they are doing well is that they are defending far better than us at the moment. They are a far more long ball team than us according to the stats.

That is very much not the only reason they are doing well. They're playing some really good, innovative football and if they had a decent striker could be doing even better.

[kentonclaret]

Ex Burnley strikers would have made a nice "first goalscorer" treble yesterday

Nakhi Wells
Danny Ings
Sam Vokes