Saints have had more shots on goal this season than Man City, Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal

[baggytrousers]

Thought I'd post this interesting table form the official Premier League site.

 

It shows teams ranked by the number of shots they've had on goal so far this season :

 

Rank Club Stat

1. Liverpool 55

2. Southampton 53

3. Manchester United 52

4. Chelsea 51

5. Manchester City 50

6. Swansea City 49

7. Crystal Palace 48

8. Everton 46

9. Tottenham Hotspur 44

10. Leicester City 39

11. West Bromwich Albion 37

12. Hull City 34

13. Arsenal 32

14. West Ham United 32

15. Sunderland 30

16. Stoke City 28

17. Bournemouth 27

18. Middlesbrough 27

19. Watford 25

20. Burnley 19

 

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/total_scoring_att?se=54

 

As you can see Saints rank second on 53 shots behind only Liverpool and ahead of Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, etc.

 

Not only that, but we've also delivered more crosses than the big clubs :

 

Rank Club Stat

1. Crystal Palace 98

2. Swansea City 89

3. Southampton 75

4. Chelsea 71

5. Manchester United 66

6. West Bromwich Albion 61

7. Tottenham Hotspur 59

8. Manchester City 57

9. Sunderland 57

10. Arsenal 56

11. Stoke City 56

12. Watford 54

13. Bournemouth 51

14. Liverpool 50

15. Everton 48

16. Middlesbrough 48

17. West Ham United 47

18. Burnley 46

19. Leicester City 46

20. Hull City 26

 

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/total_cross?se=54

 

Surely this must be some mistake as I keep on reading on this forum about how we are boring, just pass the ball sideways amongst our back four, are playing in a system that doesn't suit the players and that we are relegation fodder.

 

However, this very negative viewpoint of the games thus far in no way matches what I, and am sure many other Saints fans, have seen in the games so far.

 

There's a lot to be positive about in the performances so far but a lot of the WUMs on this forum have chosen, for their own purposes, to exaggerate some of the negatives to a ridiculous level.

 

Sure there have been some poor patches in games but there's also been some excellent approach play and, as the stats show we've been creating plenty of chances. Better quality in the final third would have seen us make a far better start to this season than we did last.

 

Personally, I'd rather believe what I've seen in front of me and the official stats to back that up than some cobblers about players body language, our manager being boring in interviews and other 'Feel it in my bones' type nonsense. 'Never did like the look of him. Should have appointed that Pellegrini. I've heard of him. Told you that Frenchie was no good. Didn't I tell you Darren'.

 

It's only 3 games into the season, 3 games !!! The players are still getting used to the new manager and system, an excuse they didn't have at the start of last season when they looked and played considerably worse. Remember Midtylland .

 

We are creating chances as these stats show. Just need to start converting some of them and get some more consistency and we'll be in for a solid, exciting season.

[Matthew Le God]

Of course it is goals and winning that matters. But our performances really haven't been as bad as some have been making out. We've dominated possession in all 3 games, had a lot of shots on goal and not had many on our goal. I don't think we are far away from really clicking and adding Boufal to the side should increase our attacking threat.

[shurlock]

Alot of shots have been speculative and from distance. That said, people were complaining that we didn't do that enough last season or in previous seasons.

[doddisalegend]

Personally think we've missed a really accomplished finisher for a while (JRod before his injury maybe or Lambert in the championship season) I had high hopes that Austin was going to be the answer but as yet that hasn't happened. It feels like the last few seasons we've had to create a lot of chances to actually score and our chance to conversion ratio has been quite low (no doubt someone will now produce stats to show that is not the case). Those stats say to me that it is business as usual for saints (create a decent amount of chances don't put enough of them away) as has been the case for the last few seasons.

[Crab Lungs]

We were chasing in all those games. That could easily be interpreted as desperation. All very well totting up those figures but that doesn't take into account the actual quality of the shot or cross.

[VectisSaint]

53 shots, 14 on target. We have a lot of shots when we are chasing the game late on, once we throw caution to the wind. The times when we look good, need to stop the goals against and then we might have a chance.

[SaintSeb]

What we've lacked so far is penetrating passes into the box for shots from closer in.

 

That and the teams we've played have defended well and deep.

 

I'm hopeful that with the addition of a creative player like Boufal, as well as an increased understanding of the system we're playing, we'll start to carve out more clear openings.

[Glassesbloke]

Decent thread. Saw somewhere else that we have the second-youngest squad this season, which also bodes well for the future - and in a year or two the academy players will be a lot more likely to reinforce the side. Yes, it's a pity we didn't sign another striker for whatever reason and yes, of course we need to make the shots count, but the team and formation is a work in progress, with a start no worse than in most other seasons. We should do reasonably well in Europe, with this style of play, and maybe the cups. Those who have played with him say that Puel IS able to adapt to suit what he has available, give him a chance. Of course, he will have only a short time to do this with a merciless media goading fans into negativity, but he should be given at least the ten games, not three.

[FriendlySaint]

We shoot from distance too often. Some of the players are in dream land when they have a crack from 30 yards. Most of our players have never scored a real long distance strike in their careers. Against Watford against ten men we had players shooting on sight. We need to get the ball into better positions before shooting. Shooting from distance against ten men was pointless and embarrassingly bad game management

[SuperSAINT]

What we've lacked so far is penetrating passes into the box for shots from closer in.

 

That and the teams we've played have defended well and deep.

 

I'm hopeful that with the addition of a creative player like Boufal, as well as an increased understanding of the system we're playing, we'll start to carve out more clear openings.

 

This. I also think (hope) that Boufal coming in will free up Tadic.

 

When Tadic is our sole creative force I think he's easier to stop.

[baggytrousers]

Decent thread. Saw somewhere else that we have the second-youngest squad this season, which also bodes well for the future - and in a year or two the academy players will be a lot more likely to reinforce the side. Yes, it's a pity we didn't sign another striker for whatever reason and yes, of course we need to make the shots count, but the team and formation is a work in progress, with a start no worse than in most other seasons. We should do reasonably well in Europe, with this style of play, and maybe the cups. Those who have played with him say that Puel IS able to adapt to suit what he has available, give him a chance. Of course, he will have only a short time to do this with a merciless media goading fans into negativity, but he should be given at least the ten games, not three.

 

Good point about us having the second youngest squad. Lot of really promising talent in that squad as well. The signings of Hojbjerg, Bouffal and Redmond has really laid down a marker in my view that we're bring in highly technical, talented young players with huge potential upside but Puel needs to be given time to work with them and help them realise their potential. If he does then exciting times ahead.

 

As you say, fans need to resist the negative narrative that's being floated in some quarters and give Puel and his system a fair chance. Ten games at least.

[silly point]

Playing Sunderland and Watford is known to do that

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saintant]

Any stats on how many of those shots have seriously troubled the opposition 'keeper? My guess is that it would be extremely few.

[doddisalegend]

Any stats on how many of those shots have seriously troubled the opposition 'keeper? My guess is that it would be extremely few.

 

well the Stats say Sunderland's keeper had to make six saves so in that game at least a fair few.

[david in sweden]

Those stats (on OP) are interesting to read, but are a terrible indictment of our shooting skills.

[Charlie Wayman]

Those stats (on OP) are interesting to read, but are a terrible indictment of our shooting skills.

 

This. There is only one stat that matters.

[Convict Colony]

Thought I'd post this interesting table form the official Premier League site.

 

It shows teams ranked by the number of shots they've had on goal so far this season :

 

Rank Club Stat

1. Liverpool 55

2. Southampton 53

3. Manchester United 52

4. Chelsea 51

5. Manchester City 50

6. Swansea City 49

7. Crystal Palace 48

8. Everton 46

9. Tottenham Hotspur 44

10. Leicester City 39

11. West Bromwich Albion 37

12. Hull City 34

13. Arsenal 32

14. West Ham United 32

15. Sunderland 30

16. Stoke City 28

17. Bournemouth 27

18. Middlesbrough 27

19. Watford 25

20. Burnley 19

 

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/total_scoring_att?se=54

 

As you can see Saints rank second on 53 shots behind only Liverpool and ahead of Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, etc.

 

Not only that, but we've also delivered more crosses than the big clubs :

 

Rank Club Stat

1. Crystal Palace 98

2. Swansea City 89

3. Southampton 75

4. Chelsea 71

5. Manchester United 66

6. West Bromwich Albion 61

7. Tottenham Hotspur 59

8. Manchester City 57

9. Sunderland 57

10. Arsenal 56

11. Stoke City 56

12. Watford 54

13. Bournemouth 51

14. Liverpool 50

15. Everton 48

16. Middlesbrough 48

17. West Ham United 47

18. Burnley 46

19. Leicester City 46

20. Hull City 26

 

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/total_cross?se=54

 

Surely this must be some mistake as I keep on reading on this forum about how we are boring, just pass the ball sideways amongst our back four, are playing in a system that doesn't suit the players and that we are relegation fodder.

 

However, this very negative viewpoint of the games thus far in no way matches what I, and am sure many other Saints fans, have seen in the games so far.

 

There's a lot to be positive about in the performances so far but a lot of the WUMs on this forum have chosen, for their own purposes, to exaggerate some of the negatives to a ridiculous level.

 

Sure there have been some poor patches in games but there's also been some excellent approach play and, as the stats show we've been creating plenty of chances. Better quality in the final third would have seen us make a far better start to this season than we did last.

 

Personally, I'd rather believe what I've seen in front of me and the official stats to back that up than some cobblers about players body language, our manager being boring in interviews and other 'Feel it in my bones' type nonsense. 'Never did like the look of him. Should have appointed that Pellegrini. I've heard of him. Told you that Frenchie was no good. Didn't I tell you Darren'.

 

It's only 3 games into the season, 3 games !!! The players are still getting used to the new manager and system, an excuse they didn't have at the start of last season when they looked and played considerably worse. Remember Midtylland .

 

We are creating chances as these stats show. Just need to start converting some of them and get some more consistency and we'll be in for a solid, exciting season.

 

[Glassesbloke]

OK, you can prove anything with statistics. But peoples' memories are short: remember all the same complaints last season about not putting chances away? How many times was Graziano criticised for aimless flicks, or Dusan for putting it wide? Last year, pass accuracy was 78 per cent, we are currently at 84 per cent, there were 14 or so shots per game as opposed to 18 this year. This year (OK, from TalkSport figures) in terms of number of key passes per game, Redmond is joint 6th and Tadic joint 2nd in the Premier League. All we need is a bit of patience.

[eelpie]

53 shots, 14 on target. We have a lot of shots when we are chasing the game late on, once we throw caution to the wind. The times when we look good, need to stop the goals against and then we might have a chance.

 

Nearly 25% on target doesn't sound good to me, and explains a lot.

[Bewildered]

https://www.whoscored.com/Regions/252/Tournaments/2/Seasons/6335/Stages/13796/TeamStatistics/England-Premier-League-2016-2017

 

offensive stats, last season in brackets.

 

2nd for shots per game, (8th)

8th for shots on target (9th)

tied 15th for dribbles (20th)

3rd for crosses per game (2nd)

t-4th for through balls per game (t9th)

16th for long balls (13th)

4th for short passes (11th)

 

General

3rd for possession (11th)

4th for pass completion (11th)

20th for aerials won (1st)

 

Defensive

 

13th for succesful tackles (9th)

7th for interceptions (6th)

tied 16th for fouls (7th)

tied 5th for offsides won (2nd)

2nd fewest shots conceded per game (7th)

 

Biggest discrepancy so far this season is how bad we are in the air, suggests we are lightweight which has been apparent during games so far.

[SuperSAINT]

https://www.whoscored.com/Regions/252/Tournaments/2/Seasons/6335/Stages/13796/TeamStatistics/England-Premier-League-2016-2017

 

offensive stats, last season in brackets.

 

2nd for shots per game, (8th)

8th for shots on target (9th)

tied 15th for dribbles (20th)

3rd for crosses per game (2nd)

t-4th for through balls per game (t9th)

16th for long balls (13th)

4th for short passes (11th)

 

General

3rd for possession (11th)

4th for pass completion (11th)

20th for aerials won (1st)

 

Defensive

 

13th for succesful tackles (9th)

7th for interceptions (6th)

tied 16th for fouls (7th)

tied 5th for offsides won (2nd)

2nd fewest shots conceded per game (7th)

 

Biggest discrepancy so far this season is how bad we are in the air, suggests we are lightweight which has been apparent during games so far.

 

Not having Vic & Pelle contributes to the bottom part.

[Dangermouth]

Statistics.

 

Can someone well-versed in proper statistical analysis send a description of what it comprises to everyone on this board so they know and understand what it means and its validity and restrictions.

 

It does not mean “If I quote this (gibberish) I AM RIGHT! FACT!!!” as some seem to think.

 

Here is a simplistic, accepted to be not statistically-significant study. I will explain my methodology such as it is and ignore the fact that there are so many unaccountable-for variables that real in-depth analysis is close to impossible i.e. this hinges very much on the realms of guesswork because it is real life, NOT a football manager game.

 

The purpose of this study is to attempt to ascertain the correlation and, if one exists, the strength thereof of between the number of shots in a game and the possession of the football that each team has during the game and the number of goals and the final result of the game. The number of shots will be split between those inside the box and those outside the box with the untested supposition that those inside the box are ‘better’ because they are more likely to result in a goal being scored.

 

Methodology: A number of post-match reports will be studied for data and this will be analysed in an attempt to answer the above. The post-match reports will be obtained from the website of the BBC and will comprise the ‘running commentary’ rather than the overview as this will provide information as to which shots were in/outside the box.

 

Other information gathered will be: the possession figure, the number of shots overall and the number on target vs those not on target.

 

SFC figures first.

 

Match 1.

 

SFC v Sunderland 27/8/16

Result 1-1

Possession: 64:36

Shots total: 16:5

On target 7:2

Total outside the box 15:1

Total inside the box 1:3

5 corners and 1 attempt in the box from SFC

Incidentally the only shot that SFC had inside the box in this game came in the 69th minute.

 

Conclusions: Possession does not correlate with success. Shots do not correlate to goals scored.

 

It was noted that a large number of shots from outside the area were inaccurate.

 

Match 2

 

SFC v Man City 1/5/16.

 

Result 4-2

Possession: 40:60

Shots total 14:6

On target 7:5

Total o/s box 5:2

Total i/s box 8:5

5 corners for SFC – 8 attempts i/s box.

Conclusion: Possession =/= success. Shots inside the box accounted for 5 out of the 6 goals therefore they could be considered to be better than those outside the box (1 goal in 7 attempts vs 5 in 13).

 

Match 3

 

SFC v Sunderland 5/316

Result 1-1

Possession 65:35

Total shots 16:11

On target 5:3

O/s box 5:3

Inside box 9:7

12 corners 9 attempts i/s box.

Conclusion: possession =/= success. Shots inside the box accounted for both goals therefore they are of greater benefit than those outside.

 

Overall. Possession is no indicator of success, in fact there is a suggestion it may be the opposite. Shots in the box account for more goals than those outside therefore they are more effective and to be preferred. Shots outside the box are less accurate than those inside the box.

The number of shots does not correlate to the score and thus final result although it might do if the shots were in the box.

 

The number of shots on target likewise does not indicate that there will be a successful outcome (goal) because the shot is on target.

 

The sample size was 3, the same as that alluded to by the OP when taking figures from a website.

 

What this probably does indicate is what we know: we aren’t making teams work or defend or challenging them or pushing them: it’s easy for them against us. Unless this changes we will prove to be largely ineffective (look at the scoring rates per game/chance/where the opportunity falls) when you consider how we play and our strikeforce (as it is).

 

One thing that this does highlight, however, is that we shouldn’t bother with normal corners. We have too few good headers/tall players for us to be a threat therefore we might be too predictable and set plays might be of little to no benefit to us i.e. we have reduced the number of weapons in our arsenal and perhaps weakened ourselves against such attacks.

 

Finally, one more figure. Gomes spilled the ball and we got lucky and Redmond scored. Pilkington erred and Rodriguez scored. How many more goalkeeping errors are we likely to benefit from? And how are we going to get teams turned, out of shape and making bad decisions which will create better opportunities for us closer to their goal?

 

PS Bouffal should beat a defender far more than 85% of the time in France. In England that could drop to 65-50% which is dire (see the Leandre Griffit interview).

 

PPS On the above about dribbles, etc. So what? All these things are are a count of what someone has decided to count. So we have Redmond who dribbles a lot and then someone wipes it up when he loses the ball (if that is the case). So what? Say the same happens with Boufal. So? It looks good on a highlight reel but produces zip.

 

Largely thus far this shows we have changed our personnel and adapted the way we play the game (measurements taken after a whole 3 games). So? That means that based on what has been measured there are differences between the teams’ styles.

 

@ Convict Colony: As to the point I tried to make on another thread I cannot find the graph to which I alluded on the Arsenal fan sites (it was either Goonersworld or Arsenal Mania) but it has been copied here also so I guess if you know what to look for you can find it by searching. As you can see the pitch of the graph for Saints is interesting and clearly not by accident. If you can copy it over here it would probably help/save people having to look and so not bothering.

[Whitey Grandad]

Isn't the defence also important, perhaps more important that the attack?

 

You cannot deduce anything from one or two games. Any team can fluke a goal or make a silly mistake.

 

 

In my bookcase I have a copy of 'Facts From Figures' by M.J. Moroney and chapter 8 is titled 'Goals floods and horse-kicks' and is about the Poisson distribution which relates to a large number of events each with a small probability of success and goals in football matches fall into this category. If you think that match statistics are significant then it might be worth a read.

Edited 4 September, 2016 by Whitey Grandad

[Saint Fen]

Statistics are misleading. We have had more procession in the 3 games but we have been slow to move the ball forwards, mainly moving it sideways.

 

Shots on goal have mainly been long range and we have rarely created a clear cut chance.

 

The main statistic is we have 2 points from a total of 9. Is that good enough? Especially when you consider we have played Watford and Sunderland at home. The bottom line is if we don't beat teams like Watford and Sunderland at home we will struggle.

 

I believe we have a decent squad and one capable of finishing in the top 10 however there is no doubt we have dropped back this summer, with the Manager (ok, hard to judge after 3 games) and the players (losing Mane, Pelle and Big Vic) plus other teams have strengthened.

[themasoon]

Statistics.

 

Can someone well-versed in proper statistical analysis send a description of what it comprises to everyone on this board so they know and understand what it means and its validity and restrictions.

 

It does not mean “If I quote this (gibberish) I AM RIGHT! FACT!!!” as some seem to think.

 

Here is a simplistic, accepted to be not statistically-significant study. I will explain my methodology such as it is and ignore the fact that there are so many unaccountable-for variables that real in-depth analysis is close to impossible i.e. this hinges very much on the realms of guesswork because it is real life, NOT a football manager game.

 

The purpose of this study is to attempt to ascertain the correlation and, if one exists, the strength thereof of between the number of shots in a game and the possession of the football that each team has during the game and the number of goals and the final result of the game. The number of shots will be split between those inside the box and those outside the box with the untested supposition that those inside the box are ‘better’ because they are more likely to result in a goal being scored.

 

Methodology: A number of post-match reports will be studied for data and this will be analysed in an attempt to answer the above. The post-match reports will be obtained from the website of the BBC and will comprise the ‘running commentary’ rather than the overview as this will provide information as to which shots were in/outside the box.

 

Other information gathered will be: the possession figure, the number of shots overall and the number on target vs those not on target.

 

SFC figures first.

 

Match 1.

 

SFC v Sunderland 27/8/16

Result 1-1

Possession: 64:36

Shots total: 16:5

On target 7:2

Total outside the box 15:1

Total inside the box 1:3

5 corners and 1 attempt in the box from SFC

Incidentally the only shot that SFC had inside the box in this game came in the 69th minute.

 

Conclusions: Possession does not correlate with success. Shots do not correlate to goals scored.

 

It was noted that a large number of shots from outside the area were inaccurate.

 

Match 2

 

SFC v Man City 1/5/16.

 

Result 4-2

Possession: 40:60

Shots total 14:6

On target 7:5

Total o/s box 5:2

Total i/s box 8:5

5 corners for SFC – 8 attempts i/s box.

Conclusion: Possession =/= success. Shots inside the box accounted for 5 out of the 6 goals therefore they could be considered to be better than those outside the box (1 goal in 7 attempts vs 5 in 13).

 

Match 3

 

SFC v Sunderland 5/316

Result 1-1

Possession 65:35

Total shots 16:11

On target 5:3

O/s box 5:3

Inside box 9:7

12 corners 9 attempts i/s box.

Conclusion: possession =/= success. Shots inside the box accounted for both goals therefore they are of greater benefit than those outside.

 

Overall. Possession is no indicator of success, in fact there is a suggestion it may be the opposite. Shots in the box account for more goals than those outside therefore they are more effective and to be preferred. Shots outside the box are less accurate than those inside the box.

The number of shots does not correlate to the score and thus final result although it might do if the shots were in the box.

 

The number of shots on target likewise does not indicate that there will be a successful outcome (goal) because the shot is on target.

 

The sample size was 3, the same as that alluded to by the OP when taking figures from a website.

 

What this probably does indicate is what we know: we aren’t making teams work or defend or challenging them or pushing them: it’s easy for them against us. Unless this changes we will prove to be largely ineffective (look at the scoring rates per game/chance/where the opportunity falls) when you consider how we play and our strikeforce (as it is).

 

One thing that this does highlight, however, is that we shouldn’t bother with normal corners. We have too few good headers/tall players for us to be a threat therefore we might be too predictable and set plays might be of little to no benefit to us i.e. we have reduced the number of weapons in our arsenal and perhaps weakened ourselves against such attacks.

 

Finally, one more figure. Gomes spilled the ball and we got lucky and Redmond scored. Pilkington erred and Rodriguez scored. How many more goalkeeping errors are we likely to benefit from? And how are we going to get teams turned, out of shape and making bad decisions which will create better opportunities for us closer to their goal?

 

PS Bouffal should beat a defender far more than 85% of the time in France. In England that could drop to 65-50% which is dire (see the Leandre Griffit interview).

 

PPS On the above about dribbles, etc. So what? All these things are are a count of what someone has decided to count. So we have Redmond who dribbles a lot and then someone wipes it up when he loses the ball (if that is the case). So what? Say the same happens with Boufal. So? It looks good on a highlight reel but produces zip.

 

Largely thus far this shows we have changed our personnel and adapted the way we play the game (measurements taken after a whole 3 games). So? That means that based on what has been measured there are differences between the teams’ styles.

 

@ Convict Colony: As to the point I tried to make on another thread I cannot find the graph to which I alluded on the Arsenal fan sites (it was either Goonersworld or Arsenal Mania) but it has been copied here also so I guess if you know what to look for you can find it by searching. As you can see the pitch of the graph for Saints is interesting and clearly not by accident. If you can copy it over here it would probably help/save people having to look and so not bothering.

 

 

A statistical analysis can only analyse the sample and variables it is given , obviously, what this means is that you cannot necessarily claim this will happen in another scenario outside of those variables. For example, if I tested this for last season I can't assume that it will be the case for this season or whether it would apply to another league as they would be different environments and contain different variables and outside factors that we wouldn't be able to account for.

 

Again a statistical conclusion is subject to the constraints of the test, and I agree with you a statistical review using only 3 games is no where near a large enough sample size but I would say those numbers are promising.

 

A test such as this would require a model that would compute the numbers and state the points/goals gained per possession point over 50% (for example), just looking at the data is not enough. There have been many times in research when I've seen something and assumed a result would occur and after programming it I actually get a different conclusion.

 

Also the interpretation of data is a seperate issue, we could all look at a dataset and see different things and infer different results.

 

Finally, a big issue in statistical analysis is the mis use of the word "correlation" as correlation DOES NOT mean causation. Many people will look at a correlation and incorrectly assume that this means that possession (or lack of) means goals but you would need to test for causation and that gets complicated.

An easy example of this issue would be seeing a correlation between me wearing shorts and Southampton winning, just because they may win on the occasions that I wear shorts and there's a correlation that does not mean that me wearing shorts causes saints to win.

 

Hope this helps.

[doddisalegend]

More damn stats.

 

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/09/03/liverpool-and-southampton-stars-top-pl-charts-in-key-area-thus-f/

[Batman]

More damn stats.

 

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/09/03/liverpool-and-southampton-stars-top-pl-charts-in-key-area-thus-f/

 

still failed to beat two of the worst sides at home in the league.

[Whitey Grandad]

still failed to beat two of the worst sides at home in the league.

 

You could argue that they aren't the worst sides if we can't beat them. Would you have said the same about Leicester at this stage of last season?

 

(Be prepared to see Leicester cited in every discussion about any aspect of the Premier League for the next few seasons )

[baggytrousers]

still failed to beat two of the worst sides at home in the league.

 

9 August 2015 Newcastle United 2–2 Southampton

15 August 2015 Southampton 0–3 Everton

20 August 2015 Southampton 1–1 Midtjylland

23 August 2015 Watford 0-0 Southampton

[sandwichsaint]

Can't believe anyone that's seen the three games could fall for this 'most shots' guff.

 

Watford keeper made a couple of scruffy saves, I can't remember DeGea making any meaningful save in the whole game, the Sunderland keeper played well but that was as much about managing his defence and commanding the box than actual shot stopping, although he did make three(?) genuine 'saves'.

 

For all those that have spent the last x number of seasons calling for us to shoot more, shoot from distance and to shoot on sight perhaps a re-think is needed? But not at the expense of tippy-tappy, walk it into the net Arsenal football that we saw in the first 15 mins of the Sunderland game! Who'd be a manager eh?

[Saint86]

Thought I'd post this interesting table form the official Premier League site.

 

It shows teams ranked by the number of shots they've had on goal so far this season :

 

Rank Club Stat

1. Liverpool 55

2. Southampton 53

3. Manchester United 52

4. Chelsea 51

5. Manchester City 50

6. Swansea City 49

7. Crystal Palace 48

8. Everton 46

9. Tottenham Hotspur 44

10. Leicester City 39

11. West Bromwich Albion 37

12. Hull City 34

13. Arsenal 32

14. West Ham United 32

15. Sunderland 30

16. Stoke City 28

17. Bournemouth 27

18. Middlesbrough 27

19. Watford 25

20. Burnley 19

 

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/total_scoring_att?se=54

 

As you can see Saints rank second on 53 shots behind only Liverpool and ahead of Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham, etc.

 

Not only that, but we've also delivered more crosses than the big clubs :

 

Rank Club Stat

1. Crystal Palace 98

2. Swansea City 89

3. Southampton 75

4. Chelsea 71

5. Manchester United 66

6. West Bromwich Albion 61

7. Tottenham Hotspur 59

8. Manchester City 57

9. Sunderland 57

10. Arsenal 56

11. Stoke City 56

12. Watford 54

13. Bournemouth 51

14. Liverpool 50

15. Everton 48

16. Middlesbrough 48

17. West Ham United 47

18. Burnley 46

19. Leicester City 46

20. Hull City 26

 

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/total_cross?se=54

 

Surely this must be some mistake as I keep on reading on this forum about how we are boring, just pass the ball sideways amongst our back four, are playing in a system that doesn't suit the players and that we are relegation fodder.

 

However, this very negative viewpoint of the games thus far in no way matches what I, and am sure many other Saints fans, have seen in the games so far.

 

There's a lot to be positive about in the performances so far but a lot of the WUMs on this forum have chosen, for their own purposes, to exaggerate some of the negatives to a ridiculous level.

 

Sure there have been some poor patches in games but there's also been some excellent approach play and, as the stats show we've been creating plenty of chances. Better quality in the final third would have seen us make a far better start to this season than we did last.

 

Personally, I'd rather believe what I've seen in front of me and the official stats to back that up than some cobblers about players body language, our manager being boring in interviews and other 'Feel it in my bones' type nonsense. 'Never did like the look of him. Should have appointed that Pellegrini. I've heard of him. Told you that Frenchie was no good. Didn't I tell you Darren'.

 

It's only 3 games into the season, 3 games !!! The players are still getting used to the new manager and system, an excuse they didn't have at the start of last season when they looked and played considerably worse. Remember Midtylland .

 

We are creating chances as these stats show. Just need to start converting some of them and get some more consistency and we'll be in for a solid, exciting season.

 

Where do we sit on shots inside the box, shot percentage on target and crosses completed, or average number of players in the 18yard box when we attack / cross? You can quote stats all you want but you have been very selective, the right stats show how poor and ineffective we are.

[Maggie May]

We were chasing in all those games. That could easily be interpreted as desperation. All very well totting up those figures but that doesn't take into account the actual quality of the shot or cross.

 

Agree - worst performances since Pardew and that's worrying me.

[HKsaint]

We dont know how to shot

[Heisenberg]

Be interesting to see how we change tactics when we eventually lead in a game.

[doddisalegend]

still failed to beat two of the worst sides at home in the league.

 

 

Spot on before this season I've never seen saints have a bad game at home ever I mean under Koeman we were amazing every game.......

[doddisalegend]

Agree - worst performances since Pardew and that's worrying me.

 

 

The last few games aren't even as bad as some of last seasons home games.

 

Worst since Pardew ?

[Verbal Kint]

Only 36% of those shots have been from inside the penalty area which is the lowest in the league. We're also the third highest for possession so far.

 

We've very good at passing it pointlessly until we get towards the box, and then we have no idea how to break them down so shoot speculatively. That's what the stats say. Boring football

[Heisenberg]

Only 36% of those shots have been from inside the penalty area which is the lowest in the league. We're also the third highest for possession so far.

 

We've very good at passing it pointlessly until we get towards the box, and then we have no idea how to break them down so shoot speculatively. That's what the stats say. Boring football

 

Like watching England vs Iceland at the euros. What do we have in common..... The DIAMOND

[Batman]

Spot on before this season I've never seen saints have a bad game at home ever I mean under Koeman we were amazing every game.......

 

the excuses on here can only last for so long

last season, we went away to the big clubs and gave them a game generally.

 

I fully expect arsenal to dispatch us with not much fuss, other than 10 mins in each half where we pass it nicely and offer little threat

[doddisalegend]

What excuses? We haven't been great so far this season but this desperate attempt by some to re write history to make out we were some brilliant footballing side that never had bad games before now, to fit their agendas, is laughable..

[Verbal Kint]

Where do we sit on shots inside the box, shot percentage on target and crosses completed, or average number of players in the 18yard box when we attack / cross? You can quote stats all you want but you have been very selective, the right stats show how poor and ineffective we are.

 

Shots inside the box as a percentage of total shots we are the lowest in the league. Last season we were 2nd.

Shots on target percentage we are currently 14th. Last season we were 12th.

We are 9th for accurate crosses this season and last season were 1st

 

I'm not a fan of stats but the only way you could interpret them so far is that Puel's style of play is completely ineffective

Edited 4 September, 2016 by Verbal Kint

[Heisenberg]

The international break might come at the right time. Gives Puel and his management team a chance to review our first 3 league games (and 6 pre season games) and I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion as the rest of us.

 

The break allows Puel and his team to work on a new strategy and formation and importantly allows them to watch how Man City, Man United, Everton and Chelsea have been successful thus far.

 

Puel is new to the premiership and he has bought with him something that worked well in France. He will learn

[Lukee]

^^This.

[baggytrousers]

The international break might come at the right time. Gives Puel and his management team a chance to review our first 3 league games (and 6 pre season games) and I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion as the rest of us.

 

The break allows Puel and his team to work on a new strategy and formation and importantly allows them to watch how Man City, Man United, Everton and Chelsea have been successful thus far.

 

Puel is new to the premiership and he has bought with him something that worked well in France. He will learn

 

I think a lot of us haven't come to a conclusion as yet given that we've only had 3 games. Would like to see him given a fair go. Would have thought you would have picked up that your personal viewpoint isn't shared by all Saints fans, far from it. All it takes is to read the large number of contrary posts and take them into account before you presume to speak for all Saints fans.

 

Interesting four teams you pick as a blueprint for success in the Premiership. The Manchester sides and Chelsea have undoubtedly had success but their blueprint has largely been based on spending huge amounts of cash to buy the title which we're not in a position to do. The fourth side you choose is not Arsenal as you might think but Everton which is quite frankly bizarre. Wouldn't really consider them at their peak to be any better than Saints are right now and whilst they did pretty well under Moyes they never seriously challenged.

 

The only teams who have really threatened to break the stranglehold of the top four with a more modest budget were Leicester and Tottenham last year and Brendan's Liverpool team in the Stevie Gerrard slip year so I'd consider all three of them worth looking at to see what could potentially work for Saints if they genuinely want to challenge the big four.

 

Tactically, these three are a mixed bag. Leicester played a 4-4-2 counter attack game with great team spirit and exceptional individual performances raising them well above the standard you might expect of them. Poch's Spurs side deployed a 4-2-3-1 high energy pressing game much like he did for us but has seemed to take it a step further with Spurs. Liverpool, in the year they almost won the title, played a 4-4-2 diamond very similar to what Puel is trying to implement here.

 

So, the three teams who have seriously challenged the big clubs have not tried to copy them using far poorer resources but instead found 3 different tactical approaches to shake things up and give the big clubs something to genuinely worry about. In each of the 3 cases these systems were initially deployed with mixed results but once the players got up to speed with them they got some momentum going and really challenged (and in Leicester's case beat) the established big four champions league clubs.

 

Why encourage our bold, new manager to be a predictable poor man's carbon copy of 3 of the 4 big clubs (plus crappy, little Everton) when we can be far more ambitious and really take it to them with innovative tactics coupled with young, talented, technical players ?

 

Seems backward thinking to me. Need to be more ambitious.

[Whitey Grandad]

Only 36% of those shots have been from inside the penalty area which is the lowest in the league. We're also the third highest for possession so far.

 

We've very good at passing it pointlessly until we get towards the box, and then we have no idea how to break them down so shoot speculatively. That's what the stats say. Boring football

 

The opposition have too much time to get behind the ball and get organised. I suspect that Puel may not have appreciated how fast and frantic t is in the Premier League.

[Hamilton Saint]

“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.”

 

― Mark Twain

[beowulf]

2 points from 9, 2 games at home against not the strongest sides. Not the best of starts...

[New Forest Steve]

I think a lot of us haven't come to a conclusion as yet given that we've only had 3 games. Would like to see him given a fair go. Would have thought you would have picked up that your personal viewpoint isn't shared by all Saints fans, far from it. All it takes is to read the large number of contrary posts and take them into account before you presume to speak for all Saints fans.

 

Interesting four teams you pick as a blueprint for success in the Premiership. The Manchester sides and Chelsea have undoubtedly had success but their blueprint has largely been based on spending huge amounts of cash to buy the title which we're not in a position to do. The fourth side you choose is not Arsenal as you might think but Everton which is quite frankly bizarre. Wouldn't really consider them at their peak to be any better than Saints are right now and whilst they did pretty well under Moyes they never seriously challenged.

 

The only teams who have really threatened to break the stranglehold of the top four with a more modest budget were Leicester and Tottenham last year and Brendan's Liverpool team in the Stevie Gerrard slip year so I'd consider all three of them worth looking at to see what could potentially work for Saints if they genuinely want to challenge the big four.

 

Tactically, these three are a mixed bag. Leicester played a 4-4-2 counter attack game with great team spirit and exceptional individual performances raising them well above the standard you might expect of them. Poch's Spurs side deployed a 4-2-3-1 high energy pressing game much like he did for us but has seemed to take it a step further with Spurs. Liverpool, in the year they almost won the title, played a 4-4-2 diamond very similar to what Puel is trying to implement here.

 

So, the three teams who have seriously challenged the big clubs have not tried to copy them using far poorer resources but instead found 3 different tactical approaches to shake things up and give the big clubs something to genuinely worry about. In each of the 3 cases these systems were initially deployed with mixed results but once the players got up to speed with them they got some momentum going and really challenged (and in Leicester's case beat) the established big four champions league clubs.

 

Why encourage our bold, new manager to be a predictable poor man's carbon copy of 3 of the 4 big clubs (plus crappy, little Everton) when we can be far more ambitious and really take it to them with innovative tactics coupled with young, talented, technical players ?

 

Seems backward thinking to me. Need to be more ambitious.

 

This :nod:

[beowulf]

'Why encourage our bold, new manager to be a predictable poor man's carbon copy of 3 of the 4 big clubs (plus crappy, little Everton) when we can be far more ambitious and really take it to them with innovative tactics coupled with young, talented, technical players ?'

 

'innovative tactics'

[malcolm waldron]

So, the three teams who have seriously challenged the big clubs have not tried to copy them using far poorer resources but instead found 3 different tactical approaches to shake things up and give the big clubs something to genuinely worry about

 

I'll be pleased if we give Swansea something to 'genuinely worry' about having really failed to worry a ten man Watford and a below par Sunderland side in the first two homes games.