Lies, damned lies and frustrating statistics

[pdf]

Overheard after the game at WHL Saturday “Spurs get loads of possession, Defoe is always offside, Spurs don’t convert their chances and we need another striker who can convert chances and score goals. Simple as.”

The Guardian ran an entertaining article on Saturday focusing on the top three teams in the Premier League and how effective their strike forces were by focusing on their shooting accuracy. The same day POTL’s useful ITK round-up (thanks) generated several replies stating “I deal in facts”. Facts are subjective and there are, of course, lies, damned lies and statistics but after another frustrating game against Aston Villa (28 shots; BBC match report, 15 shots; Sky report - damned statistics) I started to wonder whether Spurs create more frustration by not converting their chances than other teams.

Sky provide a few Opta statistics (see http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11662_2705370,00.html). According to these Spurs have the third highest number of shots (325 - Chelsea 424, Man U 333) and the fourth highest number of shots on target (144 - Chelsea 187, Scum 156, Man U 149) - We are top four.

Sadly, the relative number of goals created from all this activity is poor. In terms of goals per shot we are seventh (13.8%, Scum 19.4%, Man C 18%, Man U 16.8%). In terms of goals per shots on target we are even worse – eighth. 31.3% of Spurs shots on target end in a goal (Scum 38.5%, Man U 37.6%, Villa 37.3%).

The bad news is that it is getting worse. We converted a lower proportion of our shots in the last 12 games (and this includes the Wigan game where we had 28 shots; same as the Villa game at the weekend) than in the first 13 games of the season. Before jumping to conclusions built on ‘facts’ (or is it damned statistics?), it is worth noting that Chelsea are worse than Spurs for converting goals per shot (13.7%) and goals per shot on target (31%). I suppose their supporters’ frustration is eased by the fact they are rather higher in the table than we are.

Do the statistics prove anything? Probably not and I had doubts about posting this article, except for one thing. Defoe is always offside (38 times - most in the Premiership), but I knew this frustrating fact already.

Edited to remove HTML code

 

[DiscoD1882]

is there a stat for number of shots on target and therefore saved by opposition keeper?

EDIT: Mental note read article before commenting:duh:

 

[StanSpur]

Yet again the game at the weekend frustrated. There were only 2 people who had a "bad" game and they were Defoe and Harry. Defoe is awful at playing the offside trap and what i found worse on Saturday was the number of touches he had. He is a good instinctive striker but his football brain i feel is not the best so when he tries to think about what to do he either runs himself off the ball or away from a shooting position. It was so frustrating that everytime he got the ball he tried to turn the defender the wrong way and found himself facing his own goal rather than theirs. As for Harry i cannot understand why he didn't make a change after 70 minutes. Villa had given up the thought of winning and were playing for the draw so we could afford to break up our attacking flow for 20 minutes and try something different. We had a £100,000 per week striker sitting on the bench who could at least have done the job of Crouch for 20 minutes surely. Another game where we dropped too many points and i'm afraid that is CL gone for another season. Come on Defoe and Harry go get um.

 

[Leigh]

Haha, nice post.

 

[JimmyG2]

I don't think statistics are subjective. Which ones you choose to take note of, how you interprete them and which ones are compiled and published might be.

In a 0-0 draw one shot which results in a goal is more rewarding in terms of points than 20 shots which are saved or deflected. I know which game I would rather watch though.

The more shots that you have the more goals you are likely to score, statistics and common sense agree here. Against Villa we could have had more shots, Palacios and Modric spurned chances to shoot and although Defoe tends to shoot when he could pass to better effect on occasions he is our top scorer by a distance and shouldn't be discouraged.

Shooting accuracy is shots on target not goals scored. Most teams bring a goalkeeper with them who gets paid to stop shots on target. I think that visiting keepers are all on a bonus when they come to WHL.

I have had my foot blown off before on here in the statistics minefield.

 

[avonspurs]

Oh PDF, you are so right.... I adore statistics but, even I, get frustrated when flicking between the BBC and SKY sports websites on a Saturday afternoon to see one saying that we have 55% possession, 12 shots on target against an opponents 2 shots, whilst the other says that we have possession of 45% and 7 shots on target.

I mean: how hard is it to define a shot on target?!?!? What definition do they use? Is this a shot that the goalkeeper has had to save OR any shot that looks goalward but has been blocked/stopped (by that measure, could Gomes kicking the ball upfield in a direct line towards their goal be CLASSED as a shot on target?!?!?!)

So frustrating. However, it was fun today speaking to gooner scum mates and to say: Chelski had 3 shots on target, and scored twice; you had 8 and didnt!! On the flip side, its becoming like that for us too.... are we the new Arsenal?!?!

 

[avonspurs]

I don't think statistics are subjective. Which ones you choose to take note of, how you interprete them and which ones are compiled and published might be.

In a 0-0 draw one shot which results in a goal is more rewarding in terms of points than 20 shots which are saved or deflected. I know which game I would rather watch though.

The more shots that you have the more goals you are likely to score, statistics and common sense agree here. Against Villa we could have had more shots, Palacios and Modric spurned chances and although Defoe tends to shoot when he could pass to better effect on occasions he is our top scorer by a distance and shouldn't be discouraged.

Shooting accuracy is shots on target not goals scored. Most teams bring a goalkeeper with them who gets paid to stop shots on target. I think that visiting keepers are all on a bonus when they come to WHL.

I have had my foot blown off before on here in the statistics minefield.

On the subject of statistics and percentages, what percentage of your foot did you lose? :wink:

 

[Declan]

Who's the £100,000 a wk striker???

 

[pdf]

"In a 0-0 draw one shot which results in a goal"

Anyone who scores in a 0-0 draw is probably worth more than £100,000 a week to Spurs. :smile:

 

[JimmyG2]

"In a 0-0 draw one shot which results in a goal"

Anyone who scores in a 0-0 draw is probably worth more than £100,000 a week to Spurs. :smile:

Yes well, perhaps it was my head that got blown off.
I won't edit it because it serves me right for not fully engaging brain before my two typing digits run riot. But you know what I mean.

 

[StanSpur]

Who's the £100,000 a wk striker???

The ice man. He teased us with the thought of comming on 75 in when he took his blue coat off, only to reveal a yellow jumper and another jog up and down the touchline.

 

[newbie]

1) teams are sitting back against us so when we have a shot less time and space.
2) Harry could have brought subs on but then we looked like scoring more and more as the game went on. give us time and we will get better and better

 

[Declan]

The ice man. He teased us with the thought of comming on 75 in when he took his blue coat off, only to reveal a yellow jumper and another jog up and down the touchline.

we wouldnt pay Ruud that money so i doubt we're payin Eidur it!! though i do agree he shoulda been thrown on for the last 20 mins on sat

 

[StanSpur]

I didn't say we were paying it. He's on a contract of over 100k per week in Monaco and therefore he is still on that sum. we are likely only paying a % of that but the fact remains the same, he is valued at 100k per week and should have come on to try and break down the bus with something other than effort - bit of guile would have been nice in the last 10 minutes.

 

[spurs_viola]

The goals per shots on target stats just confirm what many were already frustrated about: that too many of our shots are too close to the keeper or straight at him, especially in the last couple of months. So we get the matches like Stoke and Hull, where the keepers seem to have "a game of his life", when in fact if at least some of the shots were a little further away from the keeper and/or had more power, they would not have kept a clean sheet.

Saying that, it is hard to discourage someone like Defoe from shooting when he has or makes a chance, as he is our sole regular goalscoring threat at the moment - and he knows it. The coaches' job is to drum it into him that at this stage of his career he must be able to see a better option when it's there, be it a pass or extra movement.

However, one must note that perhaps he does it so often because he does not have a proper partner with whom to interchange the link-up play? The kind of play he seemed to have been able to show with Pavlyuchenko next to him in attack. And BTW, Pav also admitted in the Russian press that he has the best understanding with Defoe on the pitch, even in training.

 

[Declan]

I didn't say we were paying it. He's on a contract of over 100k per week in Monaco and therefore he is still on that sum. we are likely only paying a % of that but the fact remains the same, he is valued at 100k per week and should have come on to try and break down the bus with something other than effort - bit of guile would have been nice in the last 10 minutes.

I would consider Eidur, in PL terms, as a 50-60k per week striker at best

 

[pdf]

Spurs_Viola At the risk of tipping this thread over the edge and being blasted as a complete anorak and ‘stato’ the Sky link throws up some interesting stats about Defoe. His goals to shots ratio (23%) is better than Spurs team average (12.7%) and better than Rooney and Drogba (21% and 16% respectively). But he is behind Torres (29%) and our ‘reject’ Bent (26%)

My gut feel would be that Defoe is greedy and, like others have suggested, takes too many shots. But in comparison with others he has had a lower proportion of Spurs shots (20% of our 325 shots) than the other ‘leading’ strikers (Rooney 29% of Man U shots, Bent 27%, Drogba 22% - Torres injured etc only 14%).

Perhaps we should use him more and encourage him to take more shots. Afterall the statistics suggest he is doing better than the others. But like you I do wish he had a better team brain, instead of a wonderful instinct for goal.

 

[DC_Boy]

we needed a striker in the window (not EG - though he may help)

we didn't get him - i understand on the ENIC model there wasn't a player available that was value for money -

it's the way it is

of course we might, just might, still get 4th - but it's unlikely

we'll still be financially sound - that's the way it is

 

[Riandor]

I thought it quite interesting in the Chelsea vs Arsenal game how the commentators referred to the fact that Drogba only has one hat-trick in the EPL.

That might be true... but what Drogba offers is regular goals rather than the Feast/Famine we seem to be getting at the moment.

Consistency is key and currently our strikers for whatever reason don't seem to be able to score on a regular basis.

What is hurting us most though is still the lack of goals from midfield at the moment.

Again as a comparison, how many goals do Lampard, Gerrard, Fabregas get a season?!

Lennon is the one player I feel we have missed the most... and whilst Bentley is taking his chance well, we need goals as well as performances from himself and any of the other 3 playing across the middle.

R.

 

[JuanRebelde]

As stats go what about 6 points from 15 in 2010 or 3 goals in 5 league games this year? Wasteful in attack and increasingly predictable is how I see us at the moment.

When we should now have left Liverpool and co well behind we are now possibly going to drop to 6th after citeeh play. I think we have missed our chance to finish 4th and the recent transfer window movements did nothing to convince me otherwise.