Steven Bergwijn

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss the latest matches, our players and any transfer news surrounding Spurs. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts. You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

9 shots
5 on target
3 goals

I wouldn't say we were bad at creating chances. Son pulled a worldy out of their keeper too so could easily have been 4 goals out of 5 shots.


we also took 9 shots against Bournemouth, but i didn't feel like our offense created many chances in that game either.
5 on target and 3 goals (vs Newcastle) compare to 0 on target (Bournemouth) does say we were more clinical against Newcastle (although last goal kane scored was in 442 formation), but it's same amount of shot we took in bournemouth.

We took 13 15 shots against Woolwich in 442 formation. Once again we weren't clinical and had only 4 on target, but we definitely create more chance with 442 against even better team.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Airfixx

Eroding the true defnition of glory since 1976...
We were just really clinical against newcastle (433), but in terms of creating chances, we were bad through out whole game. it was actually just great individual plays that created two goals.

I personally like 442 better. I thought we had best game against Woolwich, creating a lot of chances and looked very dangerous offensively. if we had been more clinical in that game, we would've scored more IMO.
We scored 3 and could have scored more whilst Newcastle had loads of chances on paper but in truth Hugo had a quiet night.....
 
Comment
We scored 3 and could have scored more whilst Newcastle had loads of chances on paper but in truth Hugo had a quiet night.....
Newcastle wasn't clinical yes, but in terms of creating chances, they dominated the game.
We had similar number of ball possession 48% to 52%, but they had 22 shot while we only had 8 shots whole game . This is less than what we took against Bournemouth (9 shots)
We were able to score 3* because we were clinical, not because we created many chances.

Now let's compare game against Woolwich. (we were in 442 formation)
Woolwich had 63% ball possession compare to our 37% ball possession, but we took 15 shots while aresenal only had 13. That's almost twice as many shots compare to game against Newcastle despite having less time possessing the ball.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Airfixx

Eroding the true defnition of glory since 1976...
Newcastle wasn't clinical yes, but in terms of creating chances, they dominated the game.
We had similar number of ball possession 48% to 52%, but they had 22 shot while we only had 8 shots whole game . This is less than what we took against Bournemouth (9 shots)
We were able to score 3* because we were clinical, not because we created many chances.

Now let's compare game against Woolwich. (we were in 442 formation)
Woolwich had 63% ball possession compare to our 37% ball possession, but we took 15 shots while aresenal only had 13. That's almost twice as many shots compare to game against Newcastle despite having less time possessing the ball.
Just because Newcastle had more shots; it doesn't mean they had better chances.... Or more genuine opportunities.

 
Comment
Just because Newcastle had more shots; it doesn't mean they had better chances.... Or more genuine opportunities.


They have low XG (or you can call it genuine opportunity) because they have shitty forwards who couldn't take shots properly. We have higher XG because we were clinical with little chance we had.
But still... they took 13 shots inside the box compare to us only talking 5 shots in the box whole game.

The point i am trying to make here is that you cannot expect to win many games with just taking 8 shots whole game. We are not gonna be clinical like this all the time.

I just don't get why you are so against us playing 442 when we had such good game against Woolwich.
 
Comment
They have low XG (or you can call it genuine opportunity) because they have shitty forwards who couldn't take shots properly. We have higher XG because we were clinical with little chance we had.
But still... they took 13 shots inside the box compare to us only talking 5 shots in the box whole game.

The point i am trying to make here is that you cannot expect to win many games with just taking 8 shots whole game. We are not gonna be clinical like this all the time.

I just don't get why you are so against us playing 442 when we had such good game against Woolwich.
The whole point off xG is that it doesn't place huge emphasis on the quality of the forwards. It measures the quality of the chance. Sure, they might not have the best finishers in the world, but that wasn't the problem; the shots they took generally weren't good chances and had low likelihoods of being scored by any player.
 
Comment

Airfixx

Eroding the true defnition of glory since 1976...
They have low XG (or you can call it genuine opportunity) because they have shitty forwards who couldn't take shots properly. We have higher XG because we were clinical with little chance we had.
But still... they took 13 shots inside the box compare to us only talking 5 shots in the box whole game.

The point i am trying to make here is that you cannot expect to win many games with just taking 8 shots whole game. We are not gonna be clinical like this all the time.

I just don't get why you are so against us playing 442 when we had such good game against Woolwich.
I said nothing about 442 or systems.

I just don't think Newcastle deserve to be portrayed as the better side on the night.


I could repeatedly take pot shots from 30 yards and clock up 'shots' and 'shots on target' numbers; it doesn't mean I was likely to score or had the better of the game.
 
Comment
Look past the stats.

9 shots vs Newcastle with 5 on target, 3 in and nearly 4 suggests they were 9 good chances.
Taking pot shots into row z 22 times doesn't tell a story.
Stats rarely tell you where the shots were from.
This is where stats like expected goals come into play and I don't see them for any of the games mentioned.
 
Comment

Airfixx

Eroding the true defnition of glory since 1976...
Look past the stats.

9 shots vs Newcastle with 5 on target, 3 in and nearly 4 suggests they were 9 good chances.
Taking pot shots into row z 22 times doesn't tell a story.
Stats rarely tell you where the shots were from.
This is where stats like expected goals come into play and I don't see them for any of the games mentioned.
XG stats for the Newcastle game are a few posts above.... (1.2 v 2.0 in our favour)

IIRC - NLD was 2.2 v 0.7 in our favour.
 
Comment

ErikLamela'sHip

RIP Cheeseroom, 2016-18
Look past the stats.

9 shots vs Newcastle with 5 on target, 3 in and nearly 4 suggests they were 9 good chances.
Taking pot shots into row z 22 times doesn't tell a story.
Stats rarely tell you where the shots were from.
This is where stats like expected goals come into play and I don't see them for any of the games mentioned.
This growing trend to cite xG or whatever amongst fans strikes me as the work of geeks who don't understand or watch the games properly.
 
Comment
This growing trend to cite xG or whatever amongst fans strikes me as the work of geeks who don't understand or watch the games properly.
I'd say basic stats are what you're describing, but breaking them down in to what they actually mean is where the technical aspects come in.
A geek who doesn't understand football might quote a players spring speed, but what someone who understands football would counter with is the players speed with and without the ball greatly differs. Some one may actually be faster with the ball at their feet than a team mate who is faster without it.

Without substance to stats, they're nothing more than Top Trumps .
 
Comment
Top Bottom