Just done some research on the weekends games...

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

Norwich City were 2nd highest on the shooting list- (I included off and on target) with 34 shots.Only Spurs on 37 were higher. Kind of proves that actually Hughton ISNT a defensive manager I think.. Yes the shooting was poor- undeniable- but come on guys that isnt down to the Hoot...

[nutty nigel 7,902]

I love stats too. But they can be misleading. I doubt we were better than Arsenal. However the arse had a day where everything went for them. Hughton has different methods. I think we build from the back andf I thought we used to defend from the front. We can''t really compare last season with this at this stage.

 

 

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

My point is Master Nutty, is that we''re still creating chances.I went to Spurs and the two home games and in my opinion all three goalkeepers had very good games. We''re so much better at the back now that it means that if we only take 1 chance a game we''ll more likely win games.

[Baldyboy 1]

why do people constantly go on about creating chances? It matters only when the ball hits the net!!! we can create 14 chnaces but not score, then maybe that says that we dont practice hitting the target enough!! Other teams had less shots But still scored!!! Goals win games not statistics!!

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="baldyboy"]why do people constantly go on about creating chances? It matters only when the ball hits the net!!! we can create 14 chnaces but not score, then maybe that says that we dont practice hitting the target enough!! Other teams had less shots But still scored!!! Goals win games not statistics!![/quote]But that necessarily isnt Hughton''s fault is it? Goalkeepers can have great matches, we can maybe not have the luck.All I''m saying is things arent black and white. Just because we don''t win games doesn''t mean it''s the fault of the players or the management.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Grant Holts 3 year contract"]Norwich City were 2nd highest on the shooting list- (I included off and on target) with 34 shots.Only Spurs on 37 were higher. Kind of proves that actually Hughton ISNT a defensive manager I think.. Yes the shooting was poor- undeniable- but come on guys that isnt down to the Hoot...[/quote]Though the failure to strengthen the forward line with a proven goalscorer arguably is down to the Hoot, or maybe the Blowfish.  Yes, I''m still not sure that a loanee from Spurs is the answer.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="Grant Holts 3 year contract"][quote user="baldyboy"]why do people constantly go on about creating chances? It matters only when the ball hits the net!!! we can create 14 chnaces but not score, then maybe that says that we dont practice hitting the target enough!! Other teams had less shots But still scored!!! Goals win games not statistics!![/quote]But that necessarily isnt Hughton''s fault is it? Goalkeepers can have great matches, we can maybe not have the luck.All I''m saying is things arent black and white. Just because we don''t win games doesn''t mean it''s always the fault of the players or the management. [/quote]

[It's Character Forming 1,204]

[quote user="baldyboy"]why do people constantly go on about creating chances? It matters only when the ball hits the net!!! we can create 14 chnaces but not score, then maybe that says that we dont practice hitting the target enough!! Other teams had less shots But still scored!!! Goals win games not statistics!!
[/quote]

 

Yes but over the season the teams that create the most chances on target are the ones that score the most goals. 

 

Also the point is that some people seem to think we''re playing defensively under Hughton, but as we''re creating loads of chances, clearly that perception is wrong.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,423]

I''ve just got this absolutely horrid feeling that we''ll spend match after match sayng "but we created so many chances!" and yet we''re not scoring any goals. At the end of the day we can debate stats all day and all night, but if the ball isn''t in the back of the net we''re not going to get points on the board.

[......and Smith must score. 1,596]

[quote user="Canary Wundaboy"]I''ve just got this absolutely horrid feeling that we''ll spend match after match sayng "but we created so many chances!" and yet we''re not scoring any goals. At the end of the day we can debate stats all day and all night, but if the ball isn''t in the back of the net we''re not going to get points on the board.[/quote]Not if the other team can''t score either.

[ZLF 335]

what really counts is the quality of chance; we had what 3/4 clear openings better than half chances, a couple for holt and kane apiece and a couple of self created chances for surman and jackson, which means 31 of those efforts were quite speculative?

the main issue though is poor finishing.

[Gingerpele 0]

3/4 clear openings?

What about the four shots in about 5 seconds in the first half? And then Jackson, Surman, Kane and Snodgrass in the second half. There is 8 for you.

And I don''t think we had 34 shots. BBC (not that reliable) is saying 20 shots with 14 on target. I remember seeing someone post who had been watching on Sky say something like 11 shots on target (followed/preceded by something along the lines of half out shots on target).

[Gingerpele 0]

And Holt when Snodgrass pulled the ball back to him in first half, he shot side footed, probably should have gone with his left. And Barnett headed the ball back across to Bassong from a FK or Corner in the second half and was just a little too bit behind Bassong for him to get any power on it. And then Morison had a on target header right at the end, was a good chance.

[CanaryOne 0]

Those 4 shots in 5 seconds , none of which looked remotely like finding the net , Surmans shot , Jacksons shot and Kanes chance at the end apart from that we were toothless and even Kanes effort turned into a good back pass ,

[Google Bot 3,934]

Not sure why Holt hit the final ball with his Left peg when we had them backed up in their own box taking shots.

Think he was going for goal there? Or was it intended to be a cross?

[AJ 1,359]

Pretty sure it was just a pretty rubbish shot that turned out to be a cross. Either way, we should definitely have scored from one of those chances!

[kellybrook 0]

Wow, you missed the point, deliberately didn''t you.Go on, just spit venom at Hughton, you know you want to.

[quote user="baldyboy"]why do people constantly go on about creating chances? It matters only when the ball hits the net!!! we can create 14 chnaces but not score, then maybe that says that we dont practice hitting the target enough!! Other teams had less shots But still scored!!! Goals win games not statistics!![/quote]

[Salopian 1]

Memories are short in the case of some people! For the last three seasons we have been very creative, in terms of pops at goal, but we have had a poor conversion rate. Game after game, in all three divisions, we have generally had as many or more shots or headers at goal than our opponents.

 

In all that time we have lacked a consistent goal scorer. Even Holt, who performed heroics, squandered opportunitites regularly. It was for this reason that I was surprised and puzzled by CH''s decision to send  Vaughan out on loan, a decision which may come and haunt him.

 

CH is talking about spending time in training on this aspect of our game, - concentration, steadiness in front of goal, and accuracy (top corner or just inside the post, rather than blazing over or past or hitting straight at the keeper.). If he succeeds, and we all desperately hope that he does, converting just one more chance per game would make an enormous difference.

 

Otherwise our hope may have to be that CH can unearth another Demba Ba!

[crabbycanary 2]

I would rather look at stats like that than listen to the totally unsubstantied ''facts'' about Grant Holt''s weight!

Also, if you don''t buy a ticket, you''ve got no chance of winning the lottery, so please don''t have a go at shots etc, as it isn''t always the players fault that they do not go in, there are other circumstances (For example - the Kane shot from saturday/Ba shot last night, both the keepers should reasonably expect to save, one went in and one didn''t  

[Gingerpele 0]

While I mostly agree with you there Salopian, I think generally Holt has a pretty good conversion rate. I don''t have any stats to back that up, and I don''t know if there are any full stop. But I''ve never really thought Holt takes too many shots. Morison, Jackson and going back players like Cureton and Earnshaw are ones that stick in my mind as having a lot of missed opportunities when it comes to that final shot. Obviously Holt doesn''t score with every shot, but I don''t think his conversion rate is too bad at all. His main problem is that he is quite often out wide, not in the box. If he''s helping in the build up play, hows he going to be there to get on the end of the cross?

When Moro came on against Spurs, Holt pretty much spent the next 20 mins at every attack in the box, while Moro ''worked the channels'' as the experts like to say. Holt in the 18 yard area is very very dangerous. He is good rampaging around the pitch, but personally i''d like him to spend more time nearer the goal. Cross the ball to Holt and he''ll create chances.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

I disagree completely on the conversion rate point. I don''t have the benefit of access to any stats on the subject but would be amazed if we haven''t actually had an extremely good conversaion rate over the last 3 seasons, particularly last season when we would often have under 40% possession but come away from games with points having efficiently converted one or two of what was often only a handful of chances.

According to the Guardian stats we had 24 attempts at goal on saturday. i think from recollection we also had quite a few against QPR. We are definitely not playing defensively and in my view are having more shots and creating more chances than we did last season (I bet there were not many games where we had more than 12 attempts at goal last season). The difference for me is that at present the chance conversion rate has dropped. If we can''t sort that out it will be a long hard season. if, however, we can rectify it then it could be a good season as we are giving ourselves a better platform in games generally than last season and are creating more chances, despite some people bizarrely thinking we are defensive.

[Jim Smith 2,610]

[quote user="Gingerpele"]While I mostly agree with you there Salopian, I think generally Holt has a pretty good conversion rate. I don''t have any stats to back that up, and I don''t know if there are any full stop. But I''ve never really thought Holt takes too many shots. Morison, Jackson and going back players like Cureton and Earnshaw are ones that stick in my mind as having a lot of missed opportunities when it comes to that final shot. Obviously Holt doesn''t score with every shot, but I don''t think his conversion rate is too bad at all. His main problem is that he is quite often out wide, not in the box. If he''s helping in the build up play, hows he going to be there to get on the end of the cross?

When Moro came on against Spurs, Holt pretty much spent the next 20 mins at every attack in the box, while Moro ''worked the channels'' as the experts like to say. Holt in the 18 yard area is very very dangerous. He is good rampaging around the pitch, but personally i''d like him to spend more time nearer the goal. Cross the ball to Holt and he''ll create chances.[/quote]

Watching both the spurs and west ham games (and the highlights of the latter) it is interesting to note that when crosses are coming into the box Holt has often not been the one challenging for them and quite often seems to either lurking at the top of the box or around the penalty spot. Jackson seems to be the most advanced striker with Holt often sitting a bit deeper this season. i''m not sure if this is a deliberate tactic or is a lack of fitness manifesting itself in an inability to get in the box quickly enough but it has been noticeable.