City's shots & goals: are we that bad?

shemnel

Well-Known Member
Joined
21 Dec 2013
Messages
6,852
So, with a 3rd straight 1-1 draw at home, and a total of 58 shots in those 3 games, folk on BM are starting to tire of the perceived lack of 'cutting edge' and 'conversion' of chances to goals. Coupled with this, we have a perception that it's easy to score against City; just a paltry 14 shots in those same 3 games has yielded a goal in each.

Pep has seemingly backed up these concerns in the post Boro game interview.

I think it's worth exploring the numbers;

The following shows how many shots it takes a team to score this season in total, at home and away. Furthest left is the lowest ratio for total shots:goals. City are doing well in 4th, scoring in every game but one;

jkvypk.png


Looking just at home games (blue), City do appear to be a bit on the high side, actually ranking 10th in the league. Away from home City are actually clear 1st in shots to goals. We appear to be more accurate on the road?

Perhaps there's nothing too concrete there, apart from hints that we are being a bit wasteful at home and surprisingly ruthless away. Moving on, the below shows how many shots it takes for a team to concede in total, at home and away. Again, furthest left is where you want to be but this time the highest ratio of shots:goals. This time we can City are labouring in 11th;

2nao7c4.png


Worryingly, only Sunderland, Watford and Stoke have a lower ratio of shots:goals conceded at home, again reflecting worries that our defence are generous. (N.B. look at Boro, allowing shots galore on the road but not really conceding!)

A final piece of evidence to back up the above is that when City leak shots at home, they have the 2nd highest ratio of shots to shots on target by the opposition (0.38). Only West Ham have a worse record. Are teams really that accurate that they are biding their time or have City not quite learnt how to dominate and defend?

I would conclude that it's not the attack but the defence that is a bit concerning for now. Scoring wise, we're not so bad on average but could definitely improve at home. Conceding wise we're gifting goals - these stats suggest that shots against us are in very good positions meaning that we're susceptible to counter or not marking very tightly.

Further points:
- Liverpool, top of the league, are taking their chances very well but, conversely, are rock bottom in the shots to goals conceded rankings. So perhaps it IS in fact about taking your chances, and sod the defence!
- Chelsea look ominous.
 
I believe that if our shots/goals ratios are to revert to 'normal' it's the conceding that would be the first to bounce back. That is, not conceding the daft goal to Boro, the Everton one, the Spurs opener etc.

Being positive, coupled with the fact that we are actually not that bad overall (better away than home) in terms of shots to goals scored, the number of very good chances we are creating is actually awesome, i can think of half a dozen 'sitters' missed this season. If we start taking goals like we know we can, we'd be miles ahead in the league, the scoring charts and the shots to goals charts.

I believe this shows just how much we're improving in the creativity stakes.
 
I don't need the stats, having watched the games, I'd conclude its both. Not scoring enough, and conceding too easily. Stats are wonderful, but the eyes are better.

aye aye, i don't advocate hard stats for everything but I do think our propensity to gift amazing chances is by far the bigger contributor.

That said, i've always been (and always will be) a proponent of outscoring your opponent, i.e. just keep on bloody scoring and you'll piss the league.
 
Those stats suggest Chelsea are by far the most efficient team. Conte is doing amazing already.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.