The amount of goals in the Premier League....

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

I saw a stat the other day that said the amount of goals scored (if comparing records after the first 3 games of this season and last) by Premier League sides has dropped.Norwich''s style last season was criticised for being "too defensive and negative" and the majority of fans justified the criticism by citing our lack of goals and the amount of draws (especially those at home) we had. I''m not trying to say that personally I was completely happy with our play last season (particularly away from home as there were so many games we played appalling defensive minded football where we seemed happy to settle for a point) but is it a case that for whatever reason teams are starting to realise how important it is to be strong defensively and does this mean that his detractors should cut Hughton some slack?Games between the bigger sides like Liverpool and Man United last week (and United''s home game v Chelsea) were examples of teams being content with keeping things tight and nicking results where possible. I accept that fans want to see goals but I think there has been a bit of a change in the sense that managers are setting up their sides to be defensively stronger and that sometimes this can maybe take something away from the play at the other end of the pitch. Of course there are excpeptions to the rule but on the whole I believe that most managers are focussing on the defensive side of things more- which unfortunately often makes for less entertaining football. 

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

Exceptions of course not excpeptions...

This forum needs an edit button!

[Houston Canary 0]

Interesting, but low scoring games can be very exciting too. The Soton game is a fine example. Likewise, high scoring games sometimes indicate low quality.

For me, it''s not how many goals are scored but how the game is played, the intensity level.

Granted, the Chelsea game was horrible and low scoring. Or no scoring. Big games like that bring in, and lose, casual observers.

[ReadingCanary 0]

Last season, defending, across all the teams, was shockingI remember Gary Neville in particular talking about how teams were just scoring for fun because the defending was woeful across the board

[morty 0]

[quote user="RvWs 4 year contract"]I saw a stat the other day that said the amount of goals scored (if comparing records after the first 3 games of this season and last) by Premier League sides has dropped.Norwich''s style last season was criticised for being "too defensive and negative" and the majority of fans justified the criticism by citing our lack of goals and the amount of draws (especially those at home) we had. I''m not trying to say that personally I was completely happy with our play last season (particularly away from home as there were so many games we played appalling defensive minded football where we seemed happy to settle for a point) but is it a case that for whatever reason teams are starting to realise how important it is to be strong defensively and does this mean that his detractors should cut Hughton some slack?Games between the bigger sides like Liverpool and Man United last week (and United''s home game v Chelsea) were examples of teams being content with keeping things tight and nicking results where possible. I accept that fans want to see goals but I think there has been a bit of a change in the sense that managers are setting up their sides to be defensively stronger and that sometimes this can maybe take something away from the play at the other end of the pitch. Of course there are excpeptions to the rule but on the whole I believe that most managers are focussing on the defensive side of things more- which unfortunately often makes for less entertaining football.  [/quote]Completely correct, and well put. And anyone who isn''t a 3rd grade moron should have sussed this out by now, which is why the tiresome bleatings of a lot here irk me so. Lets hope the penny drops soon for them lol.As you say, the game is slowly evolving, some may say to a more European style, and frankly it makes me wonder how they will continue to market the Premier league round the world on 1-nils.

[havemyhowsonit 0]

Because everyone has jumped on the bandwagon of having 1 bloke upfront.

It can''t be a surprise that its low.

Bring back the 4-3-3 and the 4-4-2. Our goals need you!!

[Warren Hill 0]

Goals=Entertainment is a wonderfully simplistic idea, but, as someone points out, goals can come from rank bad play as well as nice football.

I would expect a change of attitude in the Premier League this season, especially from the big teams. Not one English side made it to the last 8 ofthe CL last season. That''s a lot of dropped revenue. Now, I''d suggest that as a short-term fix, it is both easier and cheaper to set up to restrict the opposition to fewer chances than it is to restructure to try and create more chances against them.

I don''t know what others think, it''s just a theory.

[morty 0]

[quote user="alartz"]Because everyone has jumped on the bandwagon of having 1 bloke upfront.

It can''t be a surprise that its low.

Bring back the 4-3-3 and the 4-4-2. Our goals need you!![/quote]Yup, lets do that and get mullered every week[Y]

[Gaz06 0]

Warren HIll - That''s an interesting point and I think it''s one that Gary Neville mentioned in the Manchester United - Chelsea game. It makes no sense at all to really go at teams unless it''s necessary (although there does need to be a balance) . Especially in the CL where the result is determined over 180 minutes. You can always go more attacking later on, but a too attacking approach from the start could backfire and leave you beaten before the games even started.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

I posted about this last week. So far this season the matches that I have seen, all 3 Norwich games plus the tv games, have been quite defensive affairs. I pointed out that the situation is very different in Germany. So far this season the EPL is averaging 1.93GPG whilst the Bundesliga is averaging 3.36GPG. Just to add a few more flames to the fire the CL Final was contested by two German clubs.

 

 

 

 

[Houston Canary 0]

At least not every Prem manager has been neutered. Villa are gonna play damn the torpedos, full steam ahead. maybe we will too if our last game meabs anything

[crabbycanary 2]

The Man City game, was a ''nothing to lose'' game from our point of view. If Man City needed a win against us for the Title, and we needed 1 point for survival, then that game would have had a different look to it.

Villa, very nearly, didn''t get away with their kamikaze stuff last year. Is that because Lambert only knows one way of playing? This year will be the answer to that.

Some Villa fans even said that anything (from last season) was an upgrade on what they watched in the McCleish era, and would have kept Lambert even if they had gone down.

[ricardo 7,328]

Its far too early to read anything into an average based on only 3 weeks worth of data.

[havemyhowsonit 0]

Be some goals then wouldn''t there morty.

That would make everybody happy on here!

[YankeeCanary 0]

As Ricardo said, it is early days to form opinions for this season. The OP made a good observation, however, supported by Nutty''s input regarding the English games.

 

Morty''s input seemed a little harsh ( as well as incorrect as to how things are evolving ) so I checked the goals scored in the Premiership over the past several seasons ( back to 2004/05 when we were relegated:

2012/03     1063

2011/12     1066

2010/11      1063

2009/10      1053    

2008/09      942

2007/08      1002

2006/05      931

2005/04      944

2003/04      975

 

As you can see, the past four seasons has seen an average number of goals scored as being approximately 11% higher than the average of the five preceding seasons. So, if we like to see more goals scored rather than less recent history would favor that, despite the slower start this season.

The point that Morty made that was valid is that international audiences wants to see more goals not less, although I should only speak to the American audience as that is where my limited knowledge exists. People over here that I know who watch Premiership games often, or even occasionally, and whose formative years were not rooted in the English game, want to see more goals, not less. That being the case, the past four seasons reflect a trend line that is satisfying that need, which perhaps explains why competition for televising rights has intensified.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

Of course, my earliest year should have read 2004/05.

[morty 0]

Personally there is a difference in my opinion as to whether I am watching City or not.If I am watching a match as a neutral I want to see goals, but when I am watching City I am more prepared to accept a tactically clever game and a good performance, the goals are just a bonus.

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

I sure cocked up the years so I will re-post. I do not need an edit button. I need to read what I have written before I post it.

 

As Ricardo said, it is early days to form opinions for this season. The OP made a good observation, however, supported by Nutty''s input regarding the English games.

 

Morty''s input seemed a little harsh ( as well as incorrect as to how things are evolving ) so I checked the goals scored in the Premiership over the past several seasons ( back to 2004/05 when we were relegated:

2012/03     1063

2011/12     1066

2010/11      1063

2009/10      1053    

2008/09      942

2007/08      1002

2006/07      931

2005/06      944

2004/05      975

 

As you can see, the past four seasons has seen an average number of goals scored as being approximately 11% higher than the average of the five preceding seasons. So, if we like to see more goals scored rather than less recent history would favor that, despite the slower start this season.

The point that Morty made that was valid is that international audiences wants to see more goals not less, although I should only speak to the American audience as that is where my limited knowledge exists. People over here that I know who watch Premiership games often, or even occasionally, and whose formative years were not rooted in the English game, want to see more goals, not less. That being the case, the past four seasons reflect a trend line that is satisfying that need, which perhaps explains why competition for televising rights has intensified.

[Crafty Canary 495]

[quote user="morty"]Personally there is a difference in my opinion as to whether I am watching City or not.If I am watching a match as a neutral I want to see goals, but when I am watching City I am more prepared to accept a tactically clever game and a good performance, the goals are just a bonus.

[/quote]

I agree with this but would extend it to say that an exciting game is seen rather than purely more goals. As a student in London I would regularly see old first division games there and would be very critical if exciting football wasn''t on view. However when City were involved I was much more tolerant of poor value for money because of the emotional link to the game. I feel the same way about non-City involved live games on Sky tv. 

[morty 0]

[quote user="Dr Crafty Canary"]

[quote user="morty"]Personally there is a difference in my opinion as to whether I am watching City or not.If I am watching a match as a neutral I want to see goals, but when I am watching City I am more prepared to accept a tactically clever game and a good performance, the goals are just a bonus.

[/quote]

I agree with this but would extend it to say that an exciting game is seen rather than purely more goals. As a student in London I would regularly see old first division games there and would be very critical if exciting football wasn''t on view. However when City were involved I was much more tolerant of poor value for money because of the emotional link to the game. I feel the same way about non-City involved live games on Sky tv. 

[/quote]I would like to think that a supporter of a team would be able to appreciate watching his own team in a different way to watching a neutral team. Not just because of emotional involvement, but also from the fact of knowing so much more about the individual players, how they play together, our tactics, even what each player is tweeting about what goes on in his life.This forum frequently proves me wrong on the above points though lol.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Dr Crafty and Morty are getting very close to pointing out the difference between a supporter and a spectator. I''ve been in deep doodah before for doing the exact same thing. I wonder if it''s the difference between us old fogeys (sorry Morty!) who cut our teeth watching games as opposed to the tv generation who had the help of summarisers and pundits.

 

 

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

Dont get me wrong I dont think that to be entertaining a football match has to have a shed load of goals.I also find ALL Norwich games entertaining in the sense that I''m always interested in what''s going on and will watch either by going to the game or finding a way of using a non illegal link on the internet....              [;)] 

I guess the "goals means entertainment" factor applies (personally speaking) to games where Norwich arent playing.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- nutty nigel Dr Crafty and Morty are getting very close to pointing out the difference between a supporter and a spectator. I''ve been in deep doodah before for doing the exact same thing.

And indeed, it is now possible to watch almost every Norwich game home and away without forking out £1,000s of pounds a year. The viewing public is far more knowledgable about our performances than ever before. Certainly far more than the Radio Norfolk days, or even teletext days for those who did not live in the area.

Of course your definition of a supporter is authority and faith based, like a religion. Someone who supports the club will support every decision made at the club. Of course I see a supporter as something more pragmatic, if a manager is being utterly useless, such as Worthy in his latter year and Roeder, I will not support them for the good of the club.

If the club only had supporters of your definition, Nigel Worthington and Neil Doncaster would probably still be manager now and Andy Hughes captain.

[Cerberus 0]

Citizen,Good post. It is possible to be a supporter and have an independent mind. We are about to witness the opposite with the forthcoming party conference season where the leader will get a standing ovation, well for simply being the leader. You wont get far with the Doomy line of reasoning as Nutty thinks he was good for the club rather than the liability I thought he was.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- nutty nigel Dr Crafty and Morty are getting very close to pointing out the difference between a supporter and a spectator. I''ve been in deep doodah before for doing the exact same thing.

And indeed, it is now possible to watch almost every Norwich game home and away without forking out £1,000s of pounds a year. The viewing public is far more knowledgable about our performances than ever before. Certainly far more than the Radio Norfolk days, or even teletext days for those who did not live in the area.

Of course your definition of a supporter is authority and faith based, like a religion. Someone who supports the club will support every decision made at the club. Of course I see a supporter as something more pragmatic, if a manager is being utterly useless, such as Worthy in his latter year and Roeder, I will not support them for the good of the club.

If the club only had supporters of your definition, Nigel Worthington and Neil Doncaster would probably still be manager now and Andy Hughes captain.[/quote]What utter plop.My point was more about that I am not some sort of ritalin scoffing ADHD kid who gets in a sulk if we don''t score a few goals, because I can appreciate a game for what it is tactically.You are making some other point entirely.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

There are plenty of people who have the luxury of travelling all over the place to watch City but arent supportive of "Houghton" or other club decisions.

I know of people who can get to every Norwich game that are quite vocally against certain decisions and on the other hand I know people who either because they dont live anywhere near Norwich or money etc and back everything the club does.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- morty: My point was more about that I am not some sort of ritalin scoffing ADHD kid who gets in a sulk if we don''t score a few goals, because I can appreciate a game for what it is tactically. You are making some other point entirely.

Well yes indeed, I was making some other point entirely, because I wasn''t replying to your post. duh.

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="RvWs 4 year contract"]There are plenty of people who have the luxury of travelling all over the place to watch City but arent supportive of "Houghton" or other club decisions.

I know of people who can get to every Norwich game that are quite vocally against certain decisions and on the other hand I know people who very really go to Norwich games either because they dont live anywhere near Norwich or money etc and back everything the club does.[/quote]

[morty 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]--- morty: My point was more about that I am not some sort of ritalin scoffing ADHD kid who gets in a sulk if we don''t score a few goals, because I can appreciate a game for what it is tactically. You are making some other point entirely.

Well yes indeed, I was making some other point entirely, because I wasn''t replying to your post. duh.[/quote]You''re still talking plop[Y]

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

--- morty: You''re still talking plop

And I would expect you to say that. Your sheepy mantra is: ''The manager is in charge so he must be making the right decisions'', and anyone who questions said decisions is clearly an idiot talking plop.