Fluffing Our Lines

[PannickAtTheDisco]

After the eventual farce that was Saturday, where we scored just 2 goals from 30 shots, 10 of those on target, whilst Spurs managed what seemed like the typical City suckerpunch of scoring 2 goals from 3 shots, with 2 on target, so 100% on target conversion rate, I'd thought I'd take a look and see if there were any indicators that our conversion rate would have any tangible effect on our results.

So I've looked back over the start of this season and the whole of last season, in all competitions, and added in the 3-2 defeat to the rags in 2017/18 as it stood out in my mind as another example of how our profligacy comes back to bite us. In total, I've looked at 65 games.

So, exhibit A:

This shows the number of goals scored, against our shots on target conversion rate for each result. As we can see, draws and losses come into play when our shots on target conversion rate falls below 40%, which is reflected in the fact that we don't score more than 2 goals in those games. Equally, when our conversion rate is 40% or higher, we don't score fewer than 3 goals and we do not lose, and the number of goals we score unsurprisingly rises with our conversion rate.

So, exhibit B:

Exhibit B compares our overall chance conversion rate against our shots on target conversion rate. As we would expect, to the top and right of the graph we record all our wins with high conversion rates. As we can see, the magic mark of around 40% conversion rate is the threshold where wins can turn into draws and losses, with the red dot at 40% being the 3-2 defeat to United in 17/18, however as you can see we had a very low chance conversion rate in that match at little over 10%, meaning most of our chances were off-target. As our chance conversion rate drops below 15%, and our shots on target conversion rate drops below 40%, draws and losses come into play.

Exhibit C:

This shows the chance conversion rate against the shots on target conversion rate for our opponents. Obviously, this is skewed by the fact that in the majority of games we keep a clean sheet, so the yellow dot at "0,0" is the majority of our results. What this allows us to see is the effect of the opposition's clinical nature on our results. Once again, the threshold of 40% shots on target conversion rate is a good indicator of where draws and losses come into play. This demonstrates the effect that the opposition being clinical has on our results.

Exhibit D:

This shows us the effect our Shots on Target conversion rate has on results. At 0-10% (all 0% where we failed to score), we naturally don't get favourable results. We do win the majority of matches despite low conversion rates, but what is key to those successes is the number in brackets which is clean sheets. We get away with low conversion rates by keeping those clean sheets, but take them out and below 30% we are much more susceptible to draws and losses (unsurprisingly).

Equally, we can see the effect higher conversion rates, with only 1 loss occurring where we have a shots on target conversion rate of 40% or higher, which was that ill-fated 3-2 defeat to the Rags where as mentioned earlier most of our shots were off-target. This emphasises how that 40% threshold, given the number of chances we create, becomes the mark at which we score more than 2 goals and take the game away from both the opposition and referee influence.

Finally, Exhibit E:

This is the same as Exhibit D, but showing our opponents. It highlights the strong nature of our defence in the majority of games, with 36 clean sheets. It also shows that below 40% the opposition stand very little chance of affecting the result. However, above 40% the opposition cause us more problems and naturally pick up more results, and interestingly in 7 games the opposition have a 100% conversion rate. Now, in one sense this is not unusual because our opponents have much fewer chances than us, so if they score 2 goals from 2 shots on target that's impressive but far more realistic than scoring all 10 shots on target that we create, but it demonstrates how disruptive clinical finishing is to our results, because as Spurs showed a 100% Shots on Target conversion rate was enough to take a point so it may well have a disruptive effect on the psychology of the team to know that every mistake is punished. The same is true of the United defeat, where they scored all 3 shots on target.

So, in summary, it appears that the threshold beyond which we are almost certain to win games is a 40% shots on target conversion rate for us. In addition, keeping the opposition shots on target conversion rate below 40% greatly improves our chances of winning, so the 2 work in tandem. Although most of this is self-evident by the very nature of football, it does highlight well the level of performance and finishing we need to be at to take the game away from our opponents, referees and VAR.

So additional stats for those 65 games:

Average number of shots: City - 18.12, Opponents: 6.71.
Average number of shots on target: City - 7, Opponents: 2.34.
Average number of goals scored: City - 2.75, Opponents: 0.65.
Average Chance Conversion Rate: City - 15.59%, Opponents: 10.37%.
Average Shots on Target Conversion Rate: City - 37.09%, Opponents: 23.79%.

So we operate on average below that 40% but that is often mitigated by clean sheets and good defensive performances, it's those rarer occurrences where one or both aspects changes significantly that it negatively impacts our results, with Saturday being a rarer example still of where both aspects were out of kilter enormously.

 

[MadchesterCity]

After the eventual farce that was Saturday, where we scored just 2 goals from 30 shots, 10 of those on target, whilst Spurs managed what seemed like the typical City suckerpunch of scoring 2 goals from 3 shots, with 2 on target, so 100% on target conversion rate, I'd thought I'd take a look and see if there were any indicators that our conversion rate would have any tangible effect on our results.

So I've looked back over the start of this season and the whole of last season, in all competitions, and added in the 3-2 defeat to the rags in 2017/18 as it stood out in my mind as another example of how our profligacy comes back to bite us. In total, I've looked at 65 games.

So, exhibit A:

This shows the number of goals scored, against our shots on target conversion rate for each result. As we can see, draws and losses come into play when our shots on target conversion rate falls below 40%, which is reflected in the fact that we don't score more than 2 goals in those games. Equally, when our conversion rate is 40% or higher, we don't score fewer than 3 goals and we do not lose, and the number of goals we score unsurprisingly rises with our conversion rate.

So, exhibit B:

Exhibit B compares our overall chance conversion rate against our shots on target conversion rate. As we would expect, to the top and right of the graph we record all our wins with high conversion rates. As we can see, the magic mark of around 40% conversion rate is the threshold where wins can turn into draws and losses, with the red dot at 40% being the 3-2 defeat to United in 17/18, however as you can see we had a very low chance conversion rate in that match at little over 10%, meaning most of our chances were off-target. As our chance conversion rate drops below 15%, and our shots on target conversion rate drops below 40%, draws and losses come into play.

Exhibit C:

This shows the chance conversion rate against the shots on target conversion rate for our opponents. Obviously, this is skewed by the fact that in the majority of games we keep a clean sheet, so the yellow dot at "0,0" is the majority of our results. What this allows us to see is the effect of the opposition's clinical nature on our results. Once again, the threshold of 40% shots on target conversion rate is a good indicator of where draws and losses come into play. This demonstrates the effect that the opposition being clinical has on our results.

Exhibit D:

This shows us the effect our Shots on Target conversion rate has on results. At 0-10% (all 0% where we failed to score), we naturally don't get favourable results. We do win the majority of matches despite low conversion rates, but what is key to those successes is the number in brackets which is clean sheets. We get away with low conversion rates by keeping those clean sheets, but take them out and below 30% we are much more susceptible to draws and losses (unsurprisingly).

Equally, we can see the effect higher conversion rates, with only 1 loss occurring where we have a shots on target conversion rate of 40% or higher, which was that ill-fated 3-2 defeat to the Rags where as mentioned earlier most of our shots were off-target. This emphasises how that 40% threshold, given the number of chances we create, becomes the mark at which we score more than 2 goals and take the game away from both the opposition and referee influence.

Finally, Exhibit E:

This is the same as Exhibit D, but showing our opponents. It highlights the strong nature of our defence in the majority of games, with 36 clean sheets. It also shows that below 40% the opposition stand very little chance of affecting the result. However, above 40% the opposition cause us more problems and naturally pick up more results, and interestingly in 7 games the opposition have a 100% conversion rate. Now, in one sense this is not unusual because our opponents have much fewer chances than us, so if they score 2 goals from 2 shots on target that's impressive but far more realistic than scoring all 10 shots on target that we create, but it demonstrates how disruptive clinical finishing is to our results, because as Spurs showed a 100% Shots on Target conversion rate was enough to take a point so it may well have a disruptive effect on the psychology of the team to know that every mistake is punished. The same is true of the United defeat, where they scored all 3 shots on target.

So, in summary, it appears that the threshold beyond which we are almost certain to win games is a 40% shots on target conversion rate for us. In addition, keeping the opposition shots on target conversion rate below 40% greatly improves our chances of winning, so the 2 work in tandem. Although most of this is self-evident by the very nature of football, it does highlight well the level of performance and finishing we need to be at to take the game away from our opponents, referees and VAR.

So additional stats for those 65 games:

Average number of shots: City - 18.12, Opponents: 6.71.
Average number of shots on target: City - 7, Opponents: 2.34.
Average number of goals scored: City - 2.75, Opponents: 0.65.
Average Chance Conversion Rate: City - 15.59%, Opponents: 10.37%.
Average Shots on Target Conversion Rate: City - 37.09%, Opponents: 23.79%.

So we operate on average below that 40% but that is often mitigated by clean sheets and good defensive performances, it's those rarer occurrences where one or both aspects changes significantly that it negatively impacts our results, with Saturday being a rarer example still of where both aspects were out of kilter enormously.

Interesting analysis can you do the final interpretation by club and also complete the same analysis for Liverpool as a benchmark? Please

 

[manimanc]

After the eventual farce that was Saturday, where we scored just 2 goals from 30 shots, 10 of those on target, whilst Spurs managed what seemed like the typical City suckerpunch of scoring 2 goals from 3 shots, with 2 on target, so 100% on target conversion rate, I'd thought I'd take a look and see if there were any indicators that our conversion rate would have any tangible effect on our results.

So I've looked back over the start of this season and the whole of last season, in all competitions, and added in the 3-2 defeat to the rags in 2017/18 as it stood out in my mind as another example of how our profligacy comes back to bite us. In total, I've looked at 65 games.

So, exhibit A:

This shows the number of goals scored, against our shots on target conversion rate for each result. As we can see, draws and losses come into play when our shots on target conversion rate falls below 40%, which is reflected in the fact that we don't score more than 2 goals in those games. Equally, when our conversion rate is 40% or higher, we don't score fewer than 3 goals and we do not lose, and the number of goals we score unsurprisingly rises with our conversion rate.

So, exhibit B:

Exhibit B compares our overall chance conversion rate against our shots on target conversion rate. As we would expect, to the top and right of the graph we record all our wins with high conversion rates. As we can see, the magic mark of around 40% conversion rate is the threshold where wins can turn into draws and losses, with the red dot at 40% being the 3-2 defeat to United in 17/18, however as you can see we had a very low chance conversion rate in that match at little over 10%, meaning most of our chances were off-target. As our chance conversion rate drops below 15%, and our shots on target conversion rate drops below 40%, draws and losses come into play.

Exhibit C:

This shows the chance conversion rate against the shots on target conversion rate for our opponents. Obviously, this is skewed by the fact that in the majority of games we keep a clean sheet, so the yellow dot at "0,0" is the majority of our results. What this allows us to see is the effect of the opposition's clinical nature on our results. Once again, the threshold of 40% shots on target conversion rate is a good indicator of where draws and losses come into play. This demonstrates the effect that the opposition being clinical has on our results.

Exhibit D:

This shows us the effect our Shots on Target conversion rate has on results. At 0-10% (all 0% where we failed to score), we naturally don't get favourable results. We do win the majority of matches despite low conversion rates, but what is key to those successes is the number in brackets which is clean sheets. We get away with low conversion rates by keeping those clean sheets, but take them out and below 30% we are much more susceptible to draws and losses (unsurprisingly).

Equally, we can see the effect higher conversion rates, with only 1 loss occurring where we have a shots on target conversion rate of 40% or higher, which was that ill-fated 3-2 defeat to the Rags where as mentioned earlier most of our shots were off-target. This emphasises how that 40% threshold, given the number of chances we create, becomes the mark at which we score more than 2 goals and take the game away from both the opposition and referee influence.

Finally, Exhibit E:

This is the same as Exhibit D, but showing our opponents. It highlights the strong nature of our defence in the majority of games, with 36 clean sheets. It also shows that below 40% the opposition stand very little chance of affecting the result. However, above 40% the opposition cause us more problems and naturally pick up more results, and interestingly in 7 games the opposition have a 100% conversion rate. Now, in one sense this is not unusual because our opponents have much fewer chances than us, so if they score 2 goals from 2 shots on target that's impressive but far more realistic than scoring all 10 shots on target that we create, but it demonstrates how disruptive clinical finishing is to our results, because as Spurs showed a 100% Shots on Target conversion rate was enough to take a point so it may well have a disruptive effect on the psychology of the team to know that every mistake is punished. The same is true of the United defeat, where they scored all 3 shots on target.

So, in summary, it appears that the threshold beyond which we are almost certain to win games is a 40% shots on target conversion rate for us. In addition, keeping the opposition shots on target conversion rate below 40% greatly improves our chances of winning, so the 2 work in tandem. Although most of this is self-evident by the very nature of football, it does highlight well the level of performance and finishing we need to be at to take the game away from our opponents, referees and VAR.

So additional stats for those 65 games:

Average number of shots: City - 18.12, Opponents: 6.71.
Average number of shots on target: City - 7, Opponents: 2.34.
Average number of goals scored: City - 2.75, Opponents: 0.65.
Average Chance Conversion Rate: City - 15.59%, Opponents: 10.37%.
Average Shots on Target Conversion Rate: City - 37.09%, Opponents: 23.79%.

So we operate on average below that 40% but that is often mitigated by clean sheets and good defensive performances, it's those rarer occurrences where one or both aspects changes significantly that it negatively impacts our results, with Saturday being a rarer example still of where both aspects were out of kilter enormously.

 

[Barcon]

If it's not on a 30' stanley fat max tape measure, I'm lost.

 

[cleavers]

So if we give away 2 daft goals, and don't score enough, we don't win ?

;-)

Seriously, its a good analysis, but on Saturday its exactly why I said VAR had nothing to do with the result, if we'd done our job, took easy chances, and not given away daft goals, we'd have won no matter how VAR was used, I left the stadium annoyed with the team not VAR.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

So if we give away 2 daft goals, and don't score enough, we don't win ?

;-)

Seriously, its a good analysis, but on Saturday its exactly why I said VAR had nothing to do with the result, if we'd done our job, took easy chances, and not given away daft goals, we'd have won no matter how VAR was used, I left the stadium annoyed with the team not VAR.

Exactly my view. It was just interesting to see there's a definitive threshold where we take the game completely away from the opposition, and why it's so important to not be profligate or complacent because it very quickly can destabilise us in a game.

 

[mat]

2nd game of the season.

Players still a bit rusty.

When we kick in and get that opportunity again we will break the PL scoring record.

Same points after two games as the century season so I'm not too worried.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

2nd game of the season.

Players still a bit rusty.

When we kick in and get that opportunity again we will break the PL scoring record.

Same points after two games as the century season so I'm not too worried.

No, I'm not either, it was just something that I was interested in looking at and we can now tangibly see the level the players need to reach again and how effective and unplayable we become at that level.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

2nd game of the season.

Players still a bit rusty.

When we kick in and get that opportunity again we will break the PL scoring record.

Same points after two games as the century season so I'm not too worried.

To be fair, we kicked in on Saturday. We fucking battered Spurs and were majorly unlucky not to win, regardless of VAR.

 

[cleavers]

2nd game of the season.

Players still a bit rusty.

When we kick in and get that opportunity again we will break the PL scoring record.

Same points after two games as the century season so I'm not too worried.

I'm not worried either, we are playing better football already than last season, and the season before, the players look hungry, but on Saturday no matter how great the football was, they gave away 2 stupid goals through a lack of concentration, and missed a stack of good chances, 2 in particular that didn't hit the target.

Yet the over reaction is against VAR, not the performance of our players on the pitch, I hope Pep's reaction is about the real reason we didn't win, it will be.