Unlucky - hit the woodwork twice.

[Salopian 1]

Leeds supporters and one or two commentators bemoaned the luck which was against them on Saturday.

The Daily Telegraph this morning published statistics for the Champsionship on which we appear twice:

- in total shots over the season, we have had 414 attempts at goal from 32 games or nearly 13 per game. (As we are avearging 1.6 goals per game our conversion rate is not very good.) We are second, to Leicester, who have had 415 attempts, but we have scored one goal more.

- (perhaps for the first time, or else I have missed it previously) the paper records the min-table of the three teams who have hit the woodwork most. We are equal first, with Leeds, having hit the woodwork 13 times, and followed by Portsmouth with 11.

Two tentative concklusions follow:

We are as effective in creating chances as any other team.

We lag behind Leeds in scoring, but we are as unlucky as them in hitting the bar or post. A few inches nearer the centre of the goal and we would have many more goals, and a much better goal diffference.

So those, including me, who complain that we have not hit big scores have to acknowledge that we are more creative than nearly all the rest (-nothing wrong with the midfield creatively), and pretty effective at scoring. If our goal difference is poorer than most at the top it must be put down to defensive weaknesses and a midfield which is less good at defnding.

[Chunky Norwich 0]

I didn''t realise the Torygraph knew football existed below the Premiership.

Nice stats though. Much has been made of our ''luck'' in scoring last-minute winners but in most of those games, we''ve been knocking at the door for 90 minutes without any reward. Maybe we really do need another striker

[priceyrice 133]

I do like some good stats and these quite clearly show the need for a proven finisher at the club but what are the chances of getting one of them in on loan.The chances are obviously being created and i do still think Bennet would be a great addition to the squad but these stats just back up what most fans already know.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Salopian"]Leeds supporters and one or two commentators bemoaned the luck which was against them on Saturday.

The Daily Telegraph this morning published statistics for the Champsionship on which we appear twice:

- in total shots over the season, we have had 414 attempts at goal from 32 games or nearly 13 per game. (As we are avearging 1.6 goals per game our conversion rate is not very good.) We are second, to Leicester, who have had 415 attempts, but we have scored one goal more.

- (perhaps for the first time, or else I have missed it previously) the paper records the min-table of the three teams who have hit the woodwork most. We are equal first, with Leeds, having hit the woodwork 13 times, and followed by Portsmouth with 11.

Two tentative concklusions follow:

We are as effective in creating chances as any other team.

We lag behind Leeds in scoring, but we are as unlucky as them in hitting the bar or post. A few inches nearer the centre of the goal and we would have many more goals, and a much better goal diffference.

So those, including me, who complain that we have not hit big scores have to acknowledge that we are more creative than nearly all the rest (-nothing wrong with the midfield creatively), and pretty effective at scoring. If our goal difference is poorer than most at the top it must be put down to defensive weaknesses and a midfield which is less good at defending.[/quote]Spot on, but the majority still don''t appear to be able to see that this is where we are throwing points away against the better teams in this league! [Y]

[chicken 0]

I don''t like stats.

The reason I say this is that they are not intirely accurate.

For example, ''shots'' sometimes only refer to shots that hit the target. Sometimes these shots are only half chances that you would expect the striker not to score from more times than they would. They often don''t include shots that hit the woodwork which are classed as off target.

It''s another reason why I don''t always pay a lot of attention to the ''assists'' column. Ofcourse it''s important that someone is creating the goals and if someone is doing it more than others then great. However a lot of that depends on the quality and reliability of the striker. Good crosses and chances can be made but if they don''t result in a goal through no fault of the creator, it doesn''t result in an assist. If they were to measure chances however . . . .

What I am trying to say here is that are we creating enough clear cut chances or are a lot of those actually half chances taken on hoping that the percentages land in our favour.

I often think that even good keepers make misstakes and that to find that misstake you have to test them more.

And finally, how many of those shots were not converted into goals through good defending or goalkeeping? A lot of teams line up against us at Carrow Road quite defensively, the clear cut chances therefore come fewer and therefore our players have to take on longer ranged efforts or take on more of the outside chances.

[Baracouda 47]

Yes, Unfortunately it''s the downside of the way we play. The passing teams usually commit the fullbacks forward to create extra men in attack. However, when it breaks down the quick counter is always on the cards.

But most of these sides have switched to 433 or 451 formations to try and counter this problem, deep laying playmaker and a defensive midfielder.

Maybe this is why Lambert wanted Bennett, try and copy Barce formation. With two skillful wingers (Wes/Bennett) but given licence to drift about.

Admittedly that would then leave 3 positions for Surmon, Lansbury, Fox, Crofts, Smith.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="chicken"]I don''t like stats.

The reason I say this is that they are not entirely accurate. [/quote]As my maths lecturer at university used to say: ''There are lies, damn lies and statistics.''

[Bill 1,788]

The previous post by chicken has covered this superbly.

These so called stats are no more than meaningless gibberish to offer up some kind of explanation to those who don''t really understand the game but want to somehow engane with the game beyond simply getting up and down when the club informs them.

"OoooH it''s the cuckoo clock shout, the game must be about to start"

" It is th samba music, we must have scored "

"Ofcourse it''s important that someone is creating the goals"

Yes, it''s the team that creates the goals. How long before we have an assist''s assist ?

The vast majority of goals are not the result of some intended pass that leaves the goalscorer with little or nothing to do other than to shepherd the ball over the line, they are where the previous player produced a speculative cross, corner, free kick they are where often the ball rebounds of a defender from a shot, cross, corner free kick etc

Are those defenders credited with an ''assist'' ? Or is the player who played the ball onto the defender credited with an ''assist'' ? Should the Stoke player who seeks to get a throw in deep in the opposition''s half (for Delap) worthy of half an ''assist'' or mayre a full ''assist'' as his effort is probable far more skillfull than Delaps throw.

Are we to award an ''assist'' if one player places the ball on the penalty spot for a penalty but another players takes and scores it ?

The ball hits the crossbar/post from a header/shot and the rebound is put away by another player ?

The sad thing is that if the game is continued to be portrayed in this ridiculous way then the percentage of happy clappies will increase and the game may well change to pander to their inability to understand it.