Srg Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Want to see the replay on that Forsyth shot - looked like he bottled in and blasted over. Looked that from where I was too. But obviously if people sat behind it said it hit the bar, we have to go with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 it looked like it hit the bar from the other end of the pitch, it changed direction. Was flying towards Row O, Seat 93, then changed direction towards Row T, Seat 189. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 it looked like it hit the bar from the other end of the pitch, it changed direction. Was flying towards Row O, Seat 93, then changed direction towards Row T, Seat 189. But 36 shots only 9 on target isnt very accurate shooting is it? Even allowing for the 2 or 3 that hit woodwork. Their keeper was quite busy but we didnt really work him that much. Would have been a travesty if we hadnt won, should have had 6 at least, I thought Martin should have had peno too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 But 36 shots only 9 on target isnt very accurate shooting is it? Even allowing for the 2 or 3 that hit woodwork. Their keeper was quite busy but we didnt really work him that much. Would have been a travesty if we hadnt won, should have had 6 at least, I thought Martin should have had peno too. The '9 on target' stuff is nonsense - you can infer from a goalkeeper making a save that the shot was more than likely 'on target' but how can a BBC guy sitting in the press box make a judgement on one that is blocked when it's hardly travelled a yard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The '9 on target' stuff is nonsense - you can infer from a goalkeeper making a save that the shot was more than likely 'on target' but how can a BBC guy sitting in the press box make a judgement on one that is blocked when it's hardly travelled a yard? OPTA cameras and computers collate the data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 OPTA cameras and computers collate the data. Really? I never realised that it was 'real time' - I also never realised that 'hawk eye' type ball-tracking technology was in use at football grounds. I've just had a look at OPTA's definition of a 'shot on target'... a) Goes into the net b) Would have gone into the net but for being stopped by a goalkeeper's save c) Would have gone into the net but for being stopped by a defender who is the last man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Really? I never realised that it was 'real time' - I also never realised that 'hawk eye' type ball-tracking technology was in use at football grounds. I've just had a look at OPTA's definition of a 'shot on target'... a) Goes into the net b) Would have gone into the net but for being stopped by a goalkeeper's save c) Would have gone into the net but for being stopped by a defender who is the last man. Ok. We had quite few shots blocked last night, so is a shot off target if it is blocked by a defender who is not the last man? Or does it not count as a shot at all? TBF, 3 goals and hitting the woodwork 3 times is a fair effort but if wed been really clinical it could have been 10 goals or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 That's exactly the way I'm looking at it, Pete. It doesn't seem to even count as a shot - or by default it's defined as a shot that is 'not on target'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mostyn6 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Really? I never realised that it was 'real time' - I also never realised that 'hawk eye' type ball-tracking technology was in use at football grounds. I've just had a look at OPTA's definition of a 'shot on target'... a) Goes into the net b) Would have gone into the net but for being stopped by a goalkeeper's save c) Would have gone into the net but for being stopped by a defender who is the last man. from my understanding, the opta technology tracks things, but the human interaction confirms certain things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfs1ram Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 See Chelsea had 39 shots tonight but no goals !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Contain Nuts Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Talking of statistics, ex Derby player Steve Cross used to compile such stats for the BBC reports about 10/11 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 We had 36 shots 9 on target 12 off target, including the 3 or 4 that hit the woodwork 15 shots were blocked, the vast majority of which were on target Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 One thing that annoys me about shot stats. A few weeks I saw a post where someone said something about us only have 2 shots or something like that on target. Like those are the only shots that count. But a shot from 30 yards that rolls to the keeper is 'on target' where as a wonderful move that finishes in a shot that just goes inches wide is 'off target'. Doesn't matter. Just remember thinking we'd created a few chances and the comment 'we've only had two shots on target' wasn't really representative of how close we'd come to scoring. Forsyth has probably had two of the best chances in the last two games. Neither hit the target but for he came bloody close. Just seems when reading out stats 'shots off target' are dismissed to easily. I get more frustrated watch a player in a 1v1 shoot into the keeper than put it wide by an inch. Yet statistically he'll do better out of it. I think you should atleast be able to put the ball around the only fooker stood in the way!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerTedd Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Interesting stats from last night: Man city - shots: 24; on target: 10; goals: 5 Chelsea - shots: 39; on target: 9; goals: 0 Derby - shots: 36; on target: 9; goals: 3 Not entirely sure what that tells us. We're more clinical than Chelsea? I think the point is that if you keep creating opportunities and peppering the goal, goals aren't necessarily inevitable, but it's certainly a better idea than simply taking two shots all game and hoping they go in (although even that works sometimes, such is the unpredictability of football, and why we live it). Didn't we used to have the most clinical strike force at one point, in terms of the shots to goals ratio? How are we doing on that star now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsilks Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Interesting stats from last night: Man city - shots: 24; on target: 10; goals: 5 Chelsea - shots: 39; on target: 9; goals: 0 Derby - shots: 36; on target: 9; goals: 3Not entirely sure what that tells us. We're more clinical than Chelsea? I think the point is that if you keep creating opportunities and peppering the goal, goals aren't necessarily inevitable, but it's certainly a better idea than simply taking two shots all game and hoping they go in (although even that works sometimes, such is the unpredictability of football, and why we live it). Didn't we used to have the most clinical strike force at one point, in terms of the shots to goals ratio? How are we doing on that star now? It tells me that 1. Man City are currently playing much better football than anyone else (and they were playing against 10 men) 2. Derby and Chelsea were hosting very poor sides that have only managed 5 away wins between them all season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddie Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 It tells me that 1. Man City are currently playing much better football than anyone else (and they were playing against 10 men) 2. Derby and Chelsea were hosting very poor sides that have only managed 5 away wins between them all season It tells me that as well as being one of the best two sides in Europe at the moment, Man City were in the lead from the early stages, so Tottenham had to chase the game (coupled with being a man down following an utterly ludicrous decision). This tends to lead to far more 'clearer' opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Day Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 Tells me that Man City, Chelsea and Derby had quite a few shots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PistoldPete2 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Tells me that Man City, Chelsea and Derby had quite a few shots West Hams keeper was mobbed after the game as he had played a blinder. Yeovils keeper didnt play a blinder. Still we won and Chelsea didnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JE90 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 West Hams keeper was mobbed after the game as he had played a blinder. Yeovils keeper didnt play a blinder. Still we won and Chelsea didnt. West Ham parked the bus big time. Yeovil did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbrianRam Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Any-other day West Ham would have lost 5 or 6-0, they got lucky like Chelsea did in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.