Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Just seen an interesting stat.On average it takes us 14.3 shots in the opponents box to score a goal. The next worst to that is Burnley with 7.4 shots average in the opponents box to score a goal. We have been let down by our forwards over the past couple of months. Also over the last 6 games we stand 11th for shots, ahead of Man Utd and Southampton. Normally if we lose its by 1 goal so I think it's fair to say that our forward players are letting us down more than the manager. It would be interesting to see how many shots we actually have inside an opponents penalty area per game. Whilst our finishing has been poor, I think the route of the problem has been actually creating clear cut chances. If we had more flair in the side with either Benteke or Weimann as a striker (and not playing wide!!) I think the above stats would look a lot better. But it all points back to Lambert and his poor tactics No mate those stats point towards our forwards playing like shit. Is our beast defence all down to Lambert or does it point more towards our defenders playing good ? What percentage is down to the manager and what percentage is attributed to the players ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shots and chances are two seperate things. Liverpool registered 18 shots when we beat them at Anfield earlier in the season for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Just seen an interesting stat.On average it takes us 14.3 shots in the opponents box to score a goal. The next worst to that is Burnley with 7.4 shots average in the opponents box to score a goal. We have been let down by our forwards over the past couple of months. Also over the last 6 games we stand 11th for shots, ahead of Man Utd and Southampton. Normally if we lose its by 1 goal so I think it's fair to say that our forward players are letting us down more than the manager. It would be interesting to see how many shots we actually have inside an opponents penalty area per game. Whilst our finishing has been poor, I think the route of the problem has been actually creating clear cut chances. If we had more flair in the side with either Benteke or Weimann as a striker (and not playing wide!!) I think the above stats would look a lot better. But it all points back to Lambert and his poor tactics No mate those stats point towards our forwards playing like shit. Is our beast defence all down to Lambert or does it point more towards our defenders playing good ? What percentage is down to the manager and what percentage is attributed to the players ? Definately down to the manager. But it has definately sacrificed the attacking intent. I remember a shit defence but scoring many a goal. Need that balance, but unfortunately Lambert is finding it increasingly difficult to find any. But no worries fans, as the goals will come. An if Lambert says the goals will come,the goals will come, as he knows better than all us, so we will just have to wait, weather this season of next, in the Championship, they will come............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shots and chances are two seperate things. Liverpool registered 18 shots when we beat them at Anfield earlier in the season for example. It says 14 shots inside the box. 14. I understand what you're saying, but it's not a sample size of 1 game either. It doesn't explain a lot of things, but it is significant. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw_nuff Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Jeez. We registered one shot on target against Chelsea away. That turned out to be a toe-poke by Hutton from the half-way line not a goal line clearance. The chances stats are bollox. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lions_Roar Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Jeez. We registered one shot on target against Chelsea away. That turned out to be a toe-poke by Hutton from the half-way line not a goal line clearance. The chances stats are bollox. But this says 14 shots in the box, not shots in general. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shots and chances are two seperate things. Liverpool registered 18 shots when we beat them at Anfield earlier in the season for example. It says 14 shots inside the box. 14. I understand what you're saying, but it's not a sample size of 1 game either. It doesn't explain a lot of things, but it is significant. I don't think it is. Anyone that watches our games knows that we don't have a one in two goal ratio this season because we are squandering a glut of guilt-edge chances every week. That stat is probably being inflated by headers from set-pieces and blocked shots etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shots and chances are two seperate things. Liverpool registered 18 shots when we beat them at Anfield earlier in the season for example. Yep. And that's partly why neither of their strikers who started that day played at VP. Amazingly, having a bit of cash helps improve a team's performances and results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw_nuff Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Jeez. We registered one shot on target against Chelsea away. That turned out to be a toe-poke by Hutton from the half-way line not a goal line clearance. The chances stats are bollox. But this says 14 shots in the box, not shots in general. Sure, but we all have eyes. We all saw the game against Liverpool. The truth is we had a few really good chances I'll admit, and on another day you'd bet one of those would go in. But we only created after an insipid attacking display in the first half in which we should have been two down at least. we don't really work chances. I wait with anticipation on our latest aquisition to see if he makes the difference. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Until something changes at the club (the manager would be a start) then of course the same old things are going to be said. The team plays in the same shit way with the same shit results, week after week, It's kind of funny though, that you're attacking posters on here for repeating the same lines, yet support a manager who serves up dross, week after week, then parrots the same nonsense almost word for word in the most-match interviews. You're not a complete idiot, so why is it that you seem to imagine that every kick of the ball has the manager's signature on it? The TEAM have been serving up dross. Some think the reason is all down to the manager, some don't. It's a tiny (but important) bit of extra thinking to realise that some things can actually happen despite the manager and not because of him. You're not entirely stupid, so perhaps you could explain why we should stick with a manager who hasn't improved the team at all in 3 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shots and chances are two seperate things. Liverpool registered 18 shots when we beat them at Anfield earlier in the season for example. It says 14 shots inside the box. 14. I understand what you're saying, but it's not a sample size of 1 game either. It doesn't explain a lot of things, but it is significant. I don't think it is. Anyone that watches our games knows that we don't have a one in two goal ratio this season because we are squandering a glut of guilt-edge chances every week. That stat is probably being inflated by headers from set-pieces and blocked shots etc. Exactly this. People aren't really suggesting we're creating lots of good chances and just not putting them away are they? This is the kind of thing where you need to mix stats with what you see with your eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Until something changes at the club (the manager would be a start) then of course the same old things are going to be said. The team plays in the same shit way with the same shit results, week after week, It's kind of funny though, that you're attacking posters on here for repeating the same lines, yet support a manager who serves up dross, week after week, then parrots the same nonsense almost word for word in the most-match interviews. You're not a complete idiot, so why is it that you seem to imagine that every kick of the ball has the manager's signature on it? The TEAM have been serving up dross. Some think the reason is all down to the manager, some don't. It's a tiny (but important) bit of extra thinking to realise that some things can actually happen despite the manager and not because of him. You're not entirely stupid, so perhaps you could explain why we should stick with a manager who hasn't improved the team at all in 3 years? Maybe I was wrong. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Using any set of money to prove a point is just daft IMO. Guzan being signed on a free doesn't make him bad, Gill being signed for cheap doesn't mean he will have less impact on games that a more expensive player. I don't need to look at fees and wages to know the players we have could and should be playing better as individuals and a team. The reason they're not is not because of the amount they're paid each week. Yeah, it's daft to use money to prove a point. It's not like the better players in World football cost more money or anything. Soldado cost £30 million and benteke cost £7 million. Which player is better? Bale cost £95m and Bowery cost £600K. Which player is better? (finding the odd example that bucks a trend doesn't make your argument valid) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 TBF I think that stasis around the club would make it hard for any manager to really motivate the players. I mean it's not like we're actually trying to achieve anything at all. What's the dream they're buying into? Careful now. An understanding of human psychology is beyond most armchair football analysts. I do love the fact you seem to genuinely think your knowledge of the game is above others, all while you defend such a poor performing manager. My knowledge of football is nothing special at all at all at all. It doesn't need to be. It's enough for me to know that the manager's knowledge of football is greater than that of anyone on VT. That doesn't mean he's doing a perfect job, but it does mean that he's likely to be better at seeing where he's gone wrong than you or I. The issue isn't seeing it. The issue is getting it right. Something he's failed to do for nearly 3 whole years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Using any set of money to prove a point is just daft IMO. Guzan being signed on a free doesn't make him bad, Gill being signed for cheap doesn't mean he will have less impact on games that a more expensive player. I don't need to look at fees and wages to know the players we have could and should be playing better as individuals and a team. The reason they're not is not because of the amount they're paid each week. Yeah, it's daft to use money to prove a point. It's not like the better players in World football cost more money or anything. Soldado cost £30 million and benteke cost £7 million. Which player is better? Bale cost £95m and Bowery cost £600K. Which player is better? (finding the odd example that bucks a trend doesn't make your argument valid) This again is backing up my point. There's comparisons like yours and there's comparisons like mine. My point point was that focusing on one aspect of spending being net, gross, wages, fees etc.. To just prove your point is daft. There's a lot more to take into account than just one set of figures you choose to support your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 As everybody rightly points out though, it's his complete lack of coaching ability that is the main reason he should be sacked. "Everybody" does not point this out, and if they did there is no proof that they're right Lambert is here until at least the end of the season so the teams interests are probably best served bygetting behind him Well if you want to bring pedantry and lack of proof into it, you've no evidence that he'll be here until the end of the season, or that getting behind him will have a discernible effect on results. Well we'll see who's correct on that one. As for whether booing and protesting help or hinder I think that everybody rightly knows that it's the latter 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaCas Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Using any set of money to prove a point is just daft IMO. Guzan being signed on a free doesn't make him bad, Gill being signed for cheap doesn't mean he will have less impact on games that a more expensive player. I don't need to look at fees and wages to know the players we have could and should be playing better as individuals and a team. The reason they're not is not because of the amount they're paid each week. Yeah, it's daft to use money to prove a point. It's not like the better players in World football cost more money or anything. Soldado cost £30 million and benteke cost £7 million. Which player is better? Bale cost £95m and Bowery cost £600K. Which player is better? (finding the odd example that bucks a trend doesn't make your argument valid) This again is backing up my point. There's comparisons like yours and there's comparisons like mine. My point point was that focusing on one aspect of spending being net, gross, wages, fees etc.. To just prove your point is daft. There's a lot more to take into account than just one set of figures you choose to support your argument. No it doesnt back your point On average more expensive players are better - this is not really in debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bunnski Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shots and chances are two seperate things. Liverpool registered 18 shots when we beat them at Anfield earlier in the season for example. It says 14 shots inside the box. 14. I understand what you're saying, but it's not a sample size of 1 game either. It doesn't explain a lot of things, but it is significant. I don't think it is. Anyone that watches our games knows that we don't have a one in two goal ratio this season because we are squandering a glut of guilt-edge chances every week. That stat is probably being inflated by headers from set-pieces and blocked shots etc. Exactly this. People aren't really suggesting we're creating lots of good chances and just not putting them away are they? This is the kind of thing where you need to mix stats with what you see with your eyes. The stat is that we score 1 goal per 14.3 shots inside the box, we are bottom of that table. Burnley are second from bottom with 1 goal per 7.4 shots inside the box. Chelsea are top with 1 goal per 3.4 shots inside the box. The stat is relevant in the sense that it shows we are way behind everyone else in the league for taking our chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shots and chances are two seperate things. Liverpool registered 18 shots when we beat them at Anfield earlier in the season for example. It says 14 shots inside the box. 14. I understand what you're saying, but it's not a sample size of 1 game either. It doesn't explain a lot of things, but it is significant. I don't think it is. Anyone that watches our games knows that we don't have a one in two goal ratio this season because we are squandering a glut of guilt-edge chances every week. That stat is probably being inflated by headers from set-pieces and blocked shots etc. Absolutely. Though I do also prescribe to the opinion that our so-called strike force (force!) has been generally lackluster not only in their movement and work rate, but also their finishing. I think that is undeniable myself, not that we should have scored a boat load of goals and be 10 points better off but that we should have scored more than we have in spite of the tactics deployed. They haven't done their bit either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Using any set of money to prove a point is just daft IMO. Guzan being signed on a free doesn't make him bad, Gill being signed for cheap doesn't mean he will have less impact on games that a more expensive player. I don't need to look at fees and wages to know the players we have could and should be playing better as individuals and a team. The reason they're not is not because of the amount they're paid each week. Yeah, it's daft to use money to prove a point. It's not like the better players in World football cost more money or anything. Soldado cost £30 million and benteke cost £7 million. Which player is better? Bale cost £95m and Bowery cost £600K. Which player is better? (finding the odd example that bucks a trend doesn't make your argument valid) This again is backing up my point. There's comparisons like yours and there's comparisons like mine. My point point was that focusing on one aspect of spending being net, gross, wages, fees etc.. To just prove your point is daft. There's a lot more to take into account than just one set of figures you choose to support your argument. No it doesnt back your point On average more expensive players are better - this is not really in debate You both make valid points. You shouldn't just look at one thing. When you're looking at transfer activity the net spend is the most relevant as it includes both your incoming transfers and outgoing transfers. Gross, is fairly useless on it's own.. You also have to take into account free transfers, wages, the squad inherited etc. On average more expensive players should theoretically be better players hence they have a higher worth/value in the first place. That will clearly not always be the case though - and I'm sure most of us could up with an expensive signing who is crap and a cheap one that has done really well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts