The9 Posted 16 September, 2015 Share Posted 16 September, 2015 (edited) Lots of people have been saying we're not scoring enough, but are we not converting chances or are we not creating? Here's a little thing I ran through a spreadsheet just now, happy to entertain any kind of shots/goals/stats-based findings: Quick fact - we're by no means the least effective at converting shots on target to goals - Liverpool and Spurs are worse than us. West Ham have mental conversion rates, but that won't last. R is Shots taken ranking. Team, Goals, Shots, Shots On Target, Shots per game, Shots On target per game, Shots per Goal, Shots On target per Goal, Team R Team Goals Shots SOT Spg SOTpg SpGl SOTpGl 13 West Ham 11 57 19 11.4 3.8 5.18 1.73 West Ham 8 Leicester 11 67 23 13.4 4.6 6.09 2.09 Leicester 19 Sunderland 6 46 14 9.2 2.8 7.67 2.33 Sunderland 17 Bournemouth 6 51 15 10.2 3 8.50 2.50 Bournemouth 14 Aston Villa 6 55 16 11 3.2 9.17 2.67 Aston Villa 16 Everton 8 52 22 10.4 4.4 6.50 2.75 Everton 6 Norwich 8 73 24 14.6 4.8 9.13 3.00 Norwich 11 Crystal Palace 8 61 24 12.2 4.8 7.63 3.00 Crystal Palace 12 Manchester Utd 6 58 18 11.6 3.6 9.67 3.00 Manchester United 4 Chelsea 7 77 22 15.4 4.4 11.00 3.14 Chelsea 2 Manchester City 11 93 36 18.6 7.2 8.45 3.27 Manchester City 7 Swansea 7 73 32 14.6 6.4 10.43 4.57 Swansea 15 West Brom 3 53 14 10.6 2.8 17.67 4.67 West Bromwich Albion [b]3 Southampton 5 83 25 16.6 5 16.60 5.00 Southampton[/b] 20 Newcastle 2 35 10 7 2 17.50 5.00 Newcastle United 9 Watford 3 64 16 12.8 3.2 21.33 5.33 Watford 18 Stoke 3 49 17 9.8 3.4 16.33 5.67 Stoke 10 Liverpool 3 62 18 12.4 3.6 20.67 6.00 Liverpool 5 Tottenham 4 76 27 15.2 5.4 19.00 6.75 Tottenham 1 Arsenal 5 112 39 22.4 7.8 22.40 7.80 Arsenal Edited 16 September, 2015 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 16 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 16 September, 2015 Basically we're 14th ranked in number of Goals 3rd ranked in number of Shots (and Shots per game, obviously as everyone has played the same number of games) 5th ranked in number of Shots on Target (and SOTpg) 14th in number of Shots taken per Goal (16.6 shots taken for every goal) 15th in number of Shots on Target per Goal. So we're doing well in taking shots, but not that great at converting them into goals. Sort of suggests that our efforts on goal aren't very good... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 16 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 16 September, 2015 As if by magic, percentage of Shots on Target from all Shots. Team SOT% Swansea 43.84 Everton 42.31 CPalace 39.34 Man C 38.71 Tottenh 35.53 Arsenal 34.82 Stoke 34.69 Leicest 34.33 West H 33.33 Norwich 32.88 Man U 31.03 Sundrl 30.43 [b]SAINTS 30.12[/b] Bmouth 29.41 A Villa 29.09 Liverpl 29.03 N'cstle 28.57 Chels 28.57 WBA 26.42 Watf 25.00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 16 September, 2015 Share Posted 16 September, 2015 So the question is: If we had more players who could finish would we still create as many shooting chances? i.e. is a typical Southampton player in the final third one who is good in most areas but not in finishing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandwichsaint Posted 16 September, 2015 Share Posted 16 September, 2015 Only three teams have more shots on target, yet 12 teams have scored more goals. Based on that we're not boring or over-defensive, we're just carp at turning shots-on-target into balls-into-the-net. Perhaps we don't create very clear cut chances, or too-often we shoot from unproductive areas, or our finishing isn't as clinical as (most) other teams? I'm sure RK's on to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 16 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 16 September, 2015 (edited) So the question is: If we had more players who could finish would we still create as many shooting chances? i.e. is a typical Southampton player in the final third one who is good in most areas but not in finishing? That's certainly A question... I'd say one of many. Look at West Ham in those tables - hugely effective at scoring goals from shots on target, but pretty crappy at actually creating Shots in the first place, and basically average at making the shots they take into shots on target. A quick look at the goals themselves (from what is admittedly a small sample size of only 5 league games this season) will probably show they've scored a few goals into empty nets or something similar. Edited 16 September, 2015 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 16 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 16 September, 2015 Only three teams have more shots on target, yet 12 teams have scored more goals. Based on that we're not boring or over-defensive, we're just carp at turning shots-on-target into balls-into-the-net. Perhaps we don't create very clear cut chances, or too-often we shoot from unproductive areas, or our finishing isn't as clinical as (most) other teams? I'm sure RK's on to it. Man City, Swansea, Spurs and Arsenal all have more Shots on Target, so 4, but the rest of the point stands. Lots of shots on target - but then that's got to be taken in context of last season when we seemed (and I don't have the stats to hand) to be reluctant to shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 16 September, 2015 Share Posted 16 September, 2015 The underlying data are too crude to make much use of. Not all shots are created equal. Some may be speculative long-rangers, under pressure from defenders; some may be tap-ins, after walking the ball into the net. Without understanding the locations of shot and the conditions in which they're created, it really is hard to say whether we're not being creative or clinical enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 16 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 16 September, 2015 Also, "the trouble with Arsenal is they always try to walk it in" is still a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 16 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 16 September, 2015 Only 5 matches worth of data, plenty of video out there, not many goals to research, someone could probably determine the relationship between shots and quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 16 September, 2015 Share Posted 16 September, 2015 Only 5 matches worth of data, plenty of video out there, not many goals to research, someone could probably determine the relationship between shots and quality. Half the problem with determining a quality chance is that it is in part determined by the quality of player taking it. For example, there will be chances where you would expect a Sergio Aguero to do better than a Shane Long. So is it a quality chance or not!?! It will be hard to reach a conclusion from all of this and the naked eye often doesn't lie - ultimately Saints do not convert enough of their chances and it costs us dearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 16 September, 2015 Share Posted 16 September, 2015 Half the problem with determining a quality chance is that it is in part determined by the quality of player taking it. For example, there will be chances where you would expect a Sergio Aguero to do better than a Shane Long. So is it a quality chance or not!?! It will be hard to reach a conclusion from all of this and the naked eye often doesn't lie - ultimately Saints do not convert enough of their chances and it costs us dearly. I'm in the 'we don't create enough chances' camp. Whose naked eye is lying, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
verlaine1979 Posted 16 September, 2015 Share Posted 16 September, 2015 I'm in the 'we don't create enough chances' camp. Whose naked eye is lying, then? I agree - stats from West Brom say we had 15 shots, 4 of which were on target, but were any of them actually nailed on scoring chances other than J-Rods header? JWP blasted on over from the edge of the box towards the middle of the second half (and most certainly should've done better) but it wasn't a foregone conclusion that a strike on target wouldn't have been saved or blocked from that position. Other than that, it was half-chances at best from narrow angles (Tadic, Mane 2nd half). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 16 September, 2015 Share Posted 16 September, 2015 Basically we're 14th ranked in number of Goals 3rd ranked in number of Shots (and Shots per game, obviously as everyone has played the same number of games) 5th ranked in number of Shots on Target (and SOTpg) 14th in number of Shots taken per Goal (16.6 shots taken for every goal) 15th in number of Shots on Target per Goal. So we're doing well in taking shots, but not that great at converting them into goals. Sort of suggests that our efforts on goal aren't very good... So not so defensive as some have been saying then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 17 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 17 September, 2015 So not so defensive as some have been saying then? I'm not sure you can draw any conclusions about defensive balance from attacking stats only. We set out to not concede goals whilst trying to score them, the balance of that varies depending on the opposition and (when we don't have 5 defenders) two nuances in central midfield; whether we play 1 or 2 DMs, and if we do, who they are. I don't think anyone would say a back 4 with one DM is particularly defensive, but it is still fairly defensive if we pick JWP and Davis in the middle instead of one of them and Mane, for instance. I would say basically fielding a back 7 against Watford was pretty defensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 22 September, 2015 Share Posted 22 September, 2015 To continue the West Ham shot conversion madness, they had three shots on target Saturday and scored twice. Going into added time it was two and two! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarrettIvo Posted 23 September, 2015 Share Posted 23 September, 2015 Do the stats record things like ridiculous saves? Cause those two from De Gea on Sunday were certainly significant. The first in particular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 23 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 23 September, 2015 Do the stats record things like ridiculous saves? Cause those two from De Gea on Sunday were certainly significant. The first in particular. I think it might be a difficult thing to record objectively. I guess the only way to categorise it as "ridiculous" save is to gather a bunch of positional data from the players, ball velocity, position, etc and find the outliers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 23 September, 2015 Share Posted 23 September, 2015 So our minimum target is to finish above 14th place (on current shots to goals evidence) Work to be done there in the training ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 23 September, 2015 Share Posted 23 September, 2015 Do the stats record things like ridiculous saves? Cause those two from De Gea on Sunday were certainly significant. The first in particular. It must roughly average out with easy goals won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 23 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 23 September, 2015 It must roughly average out with easy goals won. Given the level of luck involved in influencing football results, I'm sure there are a pile of mini-moments which have massive significance, but as yet this is a relatively unpublished area of analytics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now