Lack of goals

[Dimmu]

51 minutes ago, rynny said:

I read @Millenniumram post to mean shots on target on it's own doesn't give a good indicator for attacking football.

People get hung up on the stat (especially fans that weren't at the game and rival fans).

Whilst it could be a good indicator, it is flawed as it doesn't take into consideration who is shooting. 

Obviously it has its flaws, but way better than the shots on target! 

[FindernRam]

Six Sigma: Well that takes me back to when I had a Boss who paid me rather than one ( a wife) who doesn't. Not sure I would use it in football though as its more suited to processes to make things

But taking a lighthearted look at it:

1: Determine: Customer needs and benefits: Collectively for football as a whole; more goals and exciting action. For an individual fan, promotion

2: Measure: Baseline and identify areas for improvement. Measure of goals is obvious. Excitement possibly shots, tackles, Less VAR

3: Identify root causes and determine improvements: Goals are too small, Goalkeepers and defenders too big. Solution: Bigger goals no player over six foot, body armour to encourage more contact. Ban VAR 

4: Improve, Implement changes-Good luck with FIFA UEFA etc

5:Control: Determine before and after and decide next steps--No chance

PS the "six" is nothing to do with the steps its about standard deviations from a mean-and we all know footy fans are deviants.

[Gone]

1 hour ago, Millenniumram said:

No I didn’t, I said it isn’t always a particulary good indicator. I never said it was entirely rubbish, in fact my whole post was me using shots on target to make a point about the increase in our attacking effectiveness. I merely meant to indicate that it doesn’t always tell the full story.

Beep beep beep vehicle reversing 

[FindernRam]

For people who may want to look at statistical analysis a bit deeper, take a dip into fivethirtyeight.com. It uses data from Opta and other reputable sources. Other pages give links to various stats methods without getting too mathematical.

It is a bit of fun to follow; from memory last year it was fairly good a predicting final positions quite early in the season. I like that this year although Leeds go up Forest do not. Worryingly we are only 10 points off the drop zone if EFL goes against us.

PS Gives us a 1/4 chance of a win at Swans.

[Millenniumram]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Beep beep beep vehicle reversing 

What?? I literally just requoted pretty much exactly what I originally said again 

[Srg]

22 hours ago, Millenniumram said:

I’m not saying that shots on target is a particular good measure of attacking effectiveness because it isn’t always, however when you’ve got stats quite that stark I think it’s clear something must have changed.

The exact quote.

Pretty obvious what you meant, to nearly everyone it seems.

[Millenniumram]

Wrong thread

 

[Gone]

16 minutes ago, Srg said:

The exact quote.

Pretty obvious what you meant, to nearly everyone it seems.

Oh no the football theorists gang are after me ? 

seriously it literally reads “shots on target are not a particularly good measure of attacking effectiveness”

My point is that’s a bloody stupid comment of course shooting at a ducking goal is a measure of attacking effectiveness how else are you going to score. Ffs it’s common sense, if you’d prefer that amount of possession between our back four as a good measure of attacking effectiveness then knock yourself out ???? 

[FindernRam]

@Millenniumram and @TexasRam I actually agree with both of you to a degree and we wouldn't have this thread if some of the goal shots actually went in.

However I would point out that dawn tomorrow is 07:38 if you want to take your handbags to Markeaton Park.. Just joking!

[Archied]

22 hours ago, Uptherams said:

So it's taken half a year for this side to listen to the management and attack, creat more chances and have shots at goal? Sorry but that's complete rubbish. 

 

So it taken a year and a half for the management to tell the players to attack blah blah blah ?

[Millenniumram]

3 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Oh no the football theorists gang are after me ? 

seriously it literally reads “shots on target are not a particularly good measure of attacking effectiveness”

My point is that’s a bloody stupid comment of course shooting at a ducking goal is a measure of attacking effectiveness how else are you going to score. Ffs it’s common sense, if you’d prefer that amount of possession between our back four as a good measure of attacking effectiveness then knock yourself out ???? 

“Because it isn’t Always!!!“. I haven’t once said that it’s never a good measure, just the caveat that there are instances when it isn’t. If you read the quote in context what I’m saying is patently clear. It was literally a side caveat to my main point and nothing more, which in case you haven’t noticed, relied entirely on the use of shots on target as a valid measure of attacking effectiveness. Because even if it doesn’t tell the full story, which as I say it doesn’t always, it does still give a decent indication as to the reality of the situation when the stats are as clear as they have been this month compared to before Christmas. 

Theres no football theorists after you, just people who have read and understood my point!

[Uptherams]

15 hours ago, The Orange Pimpernel said:

The philosophy is playing out from the back. This involves the back 5 plus midfield working together in a way that beats the inevitable press. Rooney is showing midfield how to present for and deal with the ball in that situation. Wisdom has become very good at it. Perhaps surprisingly Matt Clarke is getting much better (didn't Cocu recently say that he needed to learn how to do it as he hadn't played that way too much prior). Yes I think the staff have been consistant and the players are now, collectively, just getting starting to do it well. 

Why from your point of view do you feel a guy and a staff who have played and coached at the highest level dont know how to deal with championship football? 

Football league football is not beautiful. This is two world's colliding. It seems like they finally realised we don't have to build from the back constantly with possession and dominance. We aren't a top club and these players aren't of that calibre. Time and again this season we have chosen a backwards pass over one forward or a through ball just because of the risk of losing possession. Even the likes of Bogle being discouraged from making forward runs. It's been daft. Now we appear to have dropped this total football nonsense. More freedom to do something progressive in 1 or 2 passes/runs versus before, 10-20 passes that would lead to progression. Good sides in this league don't do either one. They do both. And no, the players didn't reach the required level to then implement the next phase. They were way, way off.