Do you agree with Pep that this season we are not very good in the boxes?

[PannickAtTheDisco]

In some Arsenal article from last night, there is a stat about away games and chances created. We are first with 92 and 2nd have something like 65. I don't think shot conversion is real stat that can prove that we lack good finishing at times, it's the sitters we miss and we have loads of sitters created in each game. You can have bad conversion rate while you're shooting from 30 yards, that's expected, but majority of our shots are from 5-10 yards and we always miss few that look like impossible to miss, even when we score 8 in a game.

The correlation is between shots on target conversion rate and our win %. As I've shown the effect is demonstrable and it is precisely related to the chances you mention, as opposed to speculative 30 yard strikes that sail over the bar. Yes, we miss the target on a number of sitters, but the strongest correlation is between chances that actually hit the target and our chances of winning.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Interesting fact.

Pep Guardiola has spoken a lot in the past few days about how his Manchester City side need to be more clinical in front of goal if they are going to win the Champions League, but the statistics don't really back him up.

In each of the three previous seasons under Pep, City’s shot conversion ratio in Europe has been higher than the actual winners, above 20% each time, and always ranked in the top four.

And it seems that having the best shot conversion ratio is far from a guarantee of success anyway. In the eight seasons since City made their debut in this competition in 2011, only two of the teams to top that category have got past the last 16 - Paris St Germain (QF) in 2014 and Liverpool (runners-uo) in 2018.

As I've shown, the average conversion rate is misleading. Ours this season is better than it was in the previous 3 seasons under Pep, but crucially it's masking the fact that in a couple of games it's been really high, but when it's been below the 40% threshold we've dropped points. Conversion rate has to be looked at game by game.

This is particularly important in the CL knock-outs over 2 legged ties:

i.e.

16/17 v Monaco.
1st Leg: City 5-3 Monaco, City SOT conversion rate: 83.33% (5 out of 6), Monaco: 50% (3 out of 6).
2nd Leg: Monaco 3-1 City, City rate: 33.33% (1 out of 3), Monaco: 75% (3 out of 4).
Average over the 2 legs: City: 66.67% (6 out of 9), Monaco: 60% (6 out of 10).

So we come out of it with a higher overall conversion rate, but crucially it's that 33% versus 75% in the 2nd leg that is the larger disparity and knocked us out by an away goal.

17/18 v Liverpool
1st Leg: Liverpool 3-0 City, City rate: 0% (0 out of 0), Liverpool 60% (3 out of 5)
2nd Leg: City 1-2 Liverpool, City rate: 33.33% (1 out of 3), Liverpool 66.67% (2 out of 3).
Average over the 2 legs: City: 33.33% (1 out of 3), Liverpool 62.5% (5 out of 8).

So Liverpool were more clinical in both legs and on aggregate won comfortably. Obviously we had 2 goals wrongly disallowed for offside but as they don't count as shots on target as a result our percentage would shift to 60% (3 out of 5). Now, may seem not to make a difference but that would have meant an away goal and 2-0 up at HT in the return, so 3-3 on aggregate and going through on away goals, so we were screwed there but nonetheless the conversion stats tell the story, when we score and they count we are in the driving seat.

18/19 v Spurs
1st Leg: Spurs 1-0 City, City rate: 0% (0 out of 2), Spurs: 25% (1 out of 4).
2nd Leg: City 4-3 Spurs, City rate: 50% (4 out of 8), Spurs: 42.86% (3 out 7).
Average over the 2 legs: City: 40% (4 out of 10), Spurs: 36.36% (4 out of 11).

So again we edge the average, but firstly we barely scrape the 40% threshold, secondly it shows the importance of the away goal because Spurs had 42.86% at our place vs. our 50% conversion rate, whereas we had 0% thanks to Kun's penalty miss compared to Spurs 25%. Converting that penalty puts us at 50% for both legs and we cruise through, but the disparity between the 2 games put us in a tricky position and in the hands of VAR again.

So what can we see? Well, the importance of looking at each game individually against our ideal threshold and not averages. Secondly, the importance of a consistent average and not wild swings and thirdly, the importance of scoring away goals and the fact that our opponents visiting the Etihad in these crucial knock-out games tend to have higher conversion rates and take away key away goals, whereas we don't do the same. That's what's costing us, yes we need to tighten up but we also need to take our chances more consistently.

We don't create as many chances in these tight games and we need to take them in both legs, because the opposition certainly do so.

 

[big gaz]

Have there been any good double entendres , u er mrs moments or Kenneth Williams quotes to make me go to page one of the thread ?

 

[aguerooooo]

This aged well...

easier to comment when he missed three sitters at Palace and stand by the fact his tally could be even higher This confirmed by Pep who did suggest about are quality in both boxes however i did comment on my liking for him

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

The number of straightforward chances that any pro footballer in any division should score against Liverpool (but don't) is high. Opposing strikers seem unable to kick the ball straight when presented with a straightforward chance against Liverpool. I don't think they've been better than us this season. Our game is all about risk and reward. We're at our best when teams have a go at us and get into our box (the risk), and we win the ball and get up the pitch into space (the reward). If you study Pep's methods, it's all about pulling the opponents out of their comfort zone normal shape and getting the play onto one side of the pitch. He drills our centre backs to hold onto the ball, sometimes going side to side until the opposing striker (and maybe his support act) runs forward at us in a straight line - at which point we lay it off at the last second and run into the space vacated by the striker - it's risky and takes bottle to do it. If we don't execute the tactic perfectly or get caught half asleep like Ota, we're more likely to concede. We're going through a spell like that because we've got midfielders at CB and the opposition are targeting what they see as a weakness. Pep teams always go at the opposition's stronger side, circulate the ball until they lose their shape and then a crossfield precision diagonal pass. At Barca, when they had the ball on one side of the pitch, he drilled Messi to get as far away from the ball as possible and stand on the opposite flank waiting for the opposition to lose their shape, at which point Iniesta hits the precision crossfield pass to Messi who ran diagonally at the opponent's weaker side. Although Kevin doesn't play the same game as Iniesta (David is the most similar), Kevin, although not exclusively so, usually provides the precision crossfield pass to Raheem or one of our full backs. Pep is full of solutions, but don't always expect a typical solution - he doesn't always work that way. If we wanted normality, we'd have a Poch type coach.

To compare this season then...

So we have more shots, more on target, score more goals, have a better conversion rate and shots on target conversion rate. We also concede fewer shots, but concede more on target, concede fewer goals and the opposition has a worse conversion rate in both regards compared to Liverpool.

So why are we 6 points behind? Obvious really, we conceded 7 of those goals against Norwich, Wolves and Spurs and in those games our conversion rate was low, hence we dropped points. Liverpool have conceded more goals but only conceded more than once 3 times, twice in the CL (Napoli & Salzburg) and against Chelsea in the Super Cup, they don't do it in the league. This allows them to have lower conversion rates because they concede fewer league goals.

So in summary, we create more opportunities but Liverpool hit the target more often, however we are more clinical.
The opposition creates more chances against Liverpool, but we give away better opportunities because we concede more shots on target and a much higher proportion of our shots conceded are shots on target (49.5% vs 30.7% for Liverpool). So the difficulty for teams against Liverpool is hitting the target, when they do they actually take more chances than they do against us, which also tells us that Ederson is a much better keeper than certainly Adrian and in all honesty Alisson as well, but we knew that anyway.

So the above is interesting to see that actually the opposition aren't hopelessly different, but that broad overviews don't pick up the nuances of individual games (goalkeeping howlers, ref decisions) but most importantly, the key games where we fluff our lines and the opposition doesn't, costing us 8 points.

 

[Marvin]

To compare this season then...

So we have more shots, more on target, score more goals, have a better conversion rate and shots on target conversion rate. We also concede fewer shots, but concede more on target, concede fewer goals and the opposition has a worse conversion rate in both regards compared to Liverpool.

So why are we 6 points behind? Obvious really, we conceded 7 of those goals against Norwich, Wolves and Spurs and in those games our conversion rate was low, hence we dropped points. Liverpool have conceded more goals but only conceded more than once 3 times, twice in the CL (Napoli & Salzburg) and against Chelsea in the Super Cup, they don't do it in the league. This allows them to have lower conversion rates because they concede fewer league goals.

So in summary, we create more opportunities but Liverpool hit the target more often, however we are more clinical.
The opposition creates more chances against Liverpool, but we give away better opportunities because we concede more shots on target and a much higher proportion of our shots conceded are shots on target (49.5% vs 30.7% for Liverpool). So the difficulty for teams against Liverpool is hitting the target, when they do they actually take more chances than they do against us, which also tells us that Ederson is a much better keeper than certainly Adrian and in all honesty Alisson as well, but we knew that anyway.

So the above is interesting to see that actually the opposition aren't hopelessly different, but that broad overviews don't pick up the nuances of individual games (goalkeeping howlers, ref decisions) but most importantly, the key games where we fluff our lines and the opposition doesn't, costing us 8 points.

Thanks BJL.

Where do you get your stats from?

I think maybe the reason that opposition shots results on shots on targets reflects the fact that City are much more open than Liverpool.

We have had some very poor performances too such as Wolves at home, whereas even when Liverpool struggle to create many chances, they still are difficult to score against, e.g. Sheff Utd away. They were rubbish and yet won. We have been very good most games but had 2 bad performances (Norwich and Wolves. Spurs was a fluke).

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Thanks BJL.

Where do you get your stats from?

I think maybe the reason that opposition shots results on shots on targets reflects the fact that City are much more open than Liverpool.

We have had some very poor performances too such as Wolves at home, whereas even when Liverpool struggle to create many chances, they still are difficult to score against, e.g. Sheff Utd away. They were rubbish and yet won. We have been very good most games but had 2 bad performances (Norwich and Wolves. Spurs was a fluke).

collated them, either through BBC or UEFA depending on the competition via the match reports.

That's true, which is reflected through the fact that teams have more shots against Liverpool but fewer on target, suggesting that those chances are more difficult. Norwich and Wolves were poor performances but they share 2 key traits with Spurs. The shots on target conversion rate was 25% or below and the opposition's rate was 100%. In contrast, Crystal Palace we also had a shots on target conversion rate of 20% but Palace's was 0%, naturally as we kept a clean sheet. It shows the importance of those 2 wonderful Ederson saves in that game, however, as if like Traore they had both gone in Palace too would have had 100% conversion rate.

So it shows the fine margins we operate at and how profligate finishing puts huge pressure basically on Ederson to bail us out, because we give away more shots on target than our rivals due to the sticking plaster across our defence. We concede a full 1.3 shots on target per game more than last season, which is an increase of 60.9% which is very noticeable both watching games and in results, and shows the impact of losing Laporte and Kompany and not having suitable replacements, but the impact it has at the other end is that we need to be sharp, games where last season 25% shots on target conversion rate would be enough with a 1-0 or 2-1 win no longer are enough. We're Jekyll and Hyde with finishing so far this season and it needs to be more consistent across each game, which as I showed with the CL knock-outs is also critical at that stage of the competition. The boom and bust of 60% conversion in one leg and 0% in the other gets you knocked out against a team that does 50% and 25%.

 

[cleavers]

So basically, we don't score enough of our goal attempts, and concede too many of our opponents goal attempts, resulting in us not wining games we should, who'd have guessed it ?

Not having a go @BJL_City (impressive analysis), but its only what my eyes tell me watching us, even the 8-0 against Watford told me we that miss far too many chances, the Spurs game was ridiculous (even ignoring VAR's input (or lack of)). Norwich we should have won, despite a below par performance. Piss poor defending from one player (and poor finishing, though we were well below par in that department, and most others) cost us against Wolves. Palace it was down to good goalkeeping that won us the game, on a day we should have scored a bag full.

It frustrates me, because we should be at least level with liverpool, and I don't think they are playing very well either.

Conclusion, Pep sees it spot on.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I used to be great in the boxes.

 

[Marvin]

collated them, either through BBC or UEFA depending on the competition via the match reports.

That's true, which is reflected through the fact that teams have more shots against Liverpool but fewer on target, suggesting that those chances are more difficult. Norwich and Wolves were poor performances but they share 2 key traits with Spurs. The shots on target conversion rate was 25% or below and the opposition's rate was 100%. In contrast, Crystal Palace we also had a shots on target conversion rate of 20% but Palace's was 0%, naturally as we kept a clean sheet. It shows the importance of those 2 wonderful Ederson saves in that game, however, as if like Traore they had both gone in Palace too would have had 100% conversion rate.

So it shows the fine margins we operate at and how profligate finishing puts huge pressure basically on Ederson to bail us out, because we give away more shots on target than our rivals due to the sticking plaster across our defence. We concede a full 1.3 shots on target per game more than last season, which is an increase of 60.9% which is very noticeable both watching games and in results, and shows the impact of losing Laporte and Kompany and not having suitable replacements, but the impact it has at the other end is that we need to be sharp, games where last season 25% shots on target conversion rate would be enough with a 1-0 or 2-1 win no longer are enough. We're Jekyll and Hyde with finishing so far this season and it needs to be more consistent across each game, which as I showed with the CL knock-outs is also critical at that stage of the competition. The boom and bust of 60% conversion in one leg and 0% in the other gets you knocked out against a team that does 50% and 25%.

You've probably already covered this but I suspect that we barely created any chances of note against Wolves. Then chance creation was as big a problem as execution.

We possibly also have lost some attacking impetus with the loss of Sane. Although he was not an automatic starter, his wing play was devastating at times.