The reason teams don’t shoot outside the box?

Don Vito

Well-Known Member
A report on the BBC business news website about data analysts in football points out that since the introduction of xG (expected goals) technology, the distance of shots on goal in the EPL has decreased season on season. The reasoning is that the data indicates long range shooting is unproductive and the data now indicates that teams have changed how they produce their attacking play to eliminate it.
In the same report, Arsenal under Wenger were named as pioneers of the data analysis, so perhaps that’s why they are often seen to be walking the ball into the net? Gerrard might beg to differ, but apparently there’s no place for his game winning screamers in the new hip coaches ”philosophy”.
Pep Guardiola is on record as castigating his players for long range shooting (Vinnie! No Vinnie!..........oh!)
As this technology expands into football as teams try to eliminate the variables, do you think it’s a game you will want to watch, are we all watching it now at Ibrox, will we all just adapt as long as we’re winning?
 
Warburton said this years ago in a press conference.

However, long range efforts are more likely to be blocked by players, therefor any blocked before it reaches the goalkeeper or who aren't the last man aren't recorded as "shots on target" it skews the figures.
 
A report on the BBC business news website about data analysts in football points out that since the introduction of xG (expected goals) technology, the distance of shots on goal in the EPL has decreased season on season. The reasoning is that the data indicates long range shooting is unproductive and the data now indicates that teams have changed how they produce their attacking play to eliminate it.
In the same report, Arsenal under Wenger were named as pioneers of the data analysis, so perhaps that’s why they are often seen to be walking the ball into the net? Gerrard might beg to differ, but apparently there’s no place for his game winning screamers in the new hip coaches ”philosophy”.
Pep Guardiola is on record as castigating his players for long range shooting (Vinnie! No Vinnie!..........oh!)
As this technology expands into football as teams try to eliminate the variables, do you think it’s a game you will want to watch, are we all watching it now at Ibrox, will we all just adapt as long as we’re winning?
Its lovely to see a slick passing move with a goal at the end of it eg Ryan Kents against Antwerp...but at times in Scotland when we are playing a team who have decided to have eleven men in the area, i think now and again a low piledriver of a shot which could ricochet anywhere, preferably into the net may be one of the few ways to get a goal.
 
Some managers didn't like players shooting from distance before xG came about. I can remember years ago Kevin Nolan scoring from outside the box for Bolton and he said afterwards that he was just glad it went in because Sam Allardyce would have fined him for shooting outside of the box.
 
Its lovely to see a slick passing move with a goal at the end of it eg Ryan Kents against Antwerp...but at times in Scotland when we are playing a team who have decided to have eleven men in the area, i think now and again a low piledriver of a shot which could ricochet anywhere, preferably into the net may be one of the few ways to get a goal.
Agree with this.
The odd shot now and again must pay dividends.
 
Its lovely to see a slick passing move with a goal at the end of it eg Ryan Kents against Antwerp...but at times in Scotland when we are playing a team who have decided to have eleven men in the area, i think now and again a low piledriver of a shot which could ricochet anywhere, preferably into the net may be one of the few ways to get a goal.
Also keeps the defenders guessing
 
I think in Scotland against 11 players in the opposition half you need to sometimes to keep the defenders guessing. If they know that we are never going to shoot from outside then they don’t need to close down outside the box and can just pack in and close passing lanes.

However if we’re taking the odd shot from 20-25 yards every 10 minutes then defenders will need to pressure further up which leaves spaces in behind to pass through. Also if there is literally 10 players in the opposition box then a rocket shot can hit off anyone, fall to anyone, hit someone’s hand etc so I think for SPL games it’s definitely something we should do more of.
 
Data analysis is massive now.
Read that Man City had appointed a guy who was a PHD in Computational AstroPhysics, had been lecturing at Harvard and advising the government. They made him head of data analysis.
So it’s not going away.
 
Warburton said basically the same thing about corners years ago and lumping the ball into the box was mostly pointless which is why we tried the short corner a lot while he was in charge.
 
I think the key to being successful is being able to mix things up, perhaps something that can be applied to life beyond football. At the end of the day scoring a goal is about doing something or a great many things unexpected to the opposition, otherwise the opposition would know what to do to counteract it and out-with human error would be successful in preventing the goal.

Reminds me of the countless successful people who've gained success and hold Q&As with an audience desperate to replicate the success. These people will then reveal in detail how they became a success. But the audience are too naive to realise it was their difference or originality which helped them be a success, replication is unlikely to yield the same success because it's already been done before.

I see the same in football. Constantly play the same and teams will work out your methods and eventually counteract it. The odd long shot can easily catch a team off-guard, so it's certainly not something which should be ignored, especially if what you're doing isn't working. It's also about not giving the opposition a moment's peace.

If the opposition is wondering is he going to shoot or pass it on to the wings or play through the middle, it's far more difficult to defend against as opposed to - they're going to pass it side to side until they can get it down the wings.
 
Data analysis is massive now.
Read that Man City had appointed a guy who was a PHD in Computational AstroPhysics, had been lecturing at Harvard and advising the government. They made him head of data analysis.
So it’s not going away.
It will only become the norm as more and more teams see the “benefits” of it. The question is are we going to be happy with the style of football where all variables are coached and driven out of the game?
For example, what’s the point of practising shooting direct on goal from a free kick if the data tells you it’s more productive to pass it short and build a move that has a better percentage chance of producing a goal?
 
One good example of this was the Vincent Kompany thunderbolt into the postage stamp late in a crunch game to win it, where his teammates were in the process of shouting at him not to shoot.

As far as I remember he was asked what was going through his mind and he said something like what Pep would say to him if he’d skied it.

Edit: doh, that’s the example the OP refers to..... :oops::))

Edit #2: a lot of stuff in hockey is being driven by analytics now too. The Leafs have ploughed a lot of money into it as well.
 
Agree with this.
The odd shot now and again must pay dividends.

I always thought this too, for a long time.
I'd watch games where we might struggle to create anything of note in the first 15 minutes and would wonder why we didn't just try to get the ball close to the box and then just hit one.

I think maybe a random shot now and then needs to be looked at in the context of the full match, maybe?

So I guess if you are building an attack then you've got all your forwards expending energy getting into position and trying to move to open the defense. Then you have a random wild shot and all of that energy expended is basically just a waste since you all now have to reset. Even worse if the shot is blocked and it leads to a turnover. Now you could end up with a dangerous counter attack going against you.

For a team like us I think long range shots would more likely lead to just wasted time in the match and the ability for the opposition to take a breather. So while you might get the odd goal such as Jack against Kilmarnock you probably won't get many of them.

Jack's goal against Killie might be considered part of a set piece by analysts anyway?
Free kick comes in and there's a scramble and it breaks out and he blasts it in. From an analyst perspective not much different than if the cross was just headed in, maybe?

Compared to what Christie does with the tims which is they are trying to build an attack and he just gets it and boots it right into the stands. The opposition get a wee break in pressure and their keeper takes an age to retrieve the ball and get things going again.
 
Modern technology, analysis or whatever, wouldnt have stopped the hammer from hitting the slammer.
A sight to behold.
 
It will only become the norm as more and more teams see the “benefits” of it. The question is are we going to be happy with the style of football where all variables are coached and driven out of the game?
For example, what’s the point of practising shooting direct on goal from a free kick if the data tells you it’s more productive to pass it short and build a move that has a better percentage chance of producing a goal?

I obviously don't know what age you are, but it seems to be the natural evolution of football fans to just complain about the modern game and tell everyone it was better decades ago anyway. That will happen no matter what direction the game goes in! :-D
 
It's probably right, however I think mixing up the attacking option is crucial against the low block.

If the defender know you'll never take a pop, they don't need to worry about staying a year or 2 off you when on the edge of the box and can keep their shape.
 
A lot of it is down to teams being far too reliant on ball retention, a lot of EPL games have been utter shite due to this this year. Seen many a game this season with teams hitting the byline only to work their way back to the edge of the box or in other cases their own half, the saying is that if the opposition don't have the ball then they can't score but they are taking it to new extremes.

There is very few teams in the EPL that will risk that little bit more for extra reward, one of the things I enjoy most about watching us is that when Tav and Borna hit the byline they will stick the ball in, it might not work all the time but all it takes is one mistake one bad clearance etc.
 
A lot depends on what level your team is playing at and what shooting capabilities your players have. It’s not much of a requirement for the likes of Man City but they are spoiled with incredible talent. On the other hand, if you aren’t quite Barcelona in their prime, but you have an ‘Albertz’ in your side, it’s a no brainer to pull the trigger more often.
 
One good example of this was the Vincent Kompany thunderbolt into the postage stamp late in a crunch game to win it, where his teammates were in the process of shouting at him not to shoot.

As far as I remember he was asked what was going through his mind and he said something like what Pep would say to him if he’d skied it.

It's really interesting because you can definitely look at exceptional players who can conjure something spectacular from nowhere.

Probably it would vary from team to team.

For example, for us in Europe I think we punch above our weight because we do absolutely everything we can to make sure we are better in areas where we actually can be objectively better. So maybe the opposition has a load of guys worth 10+ million but they are all trying to find that magic moment while we are just doing the basics and doing them better.

Against Galatasaray I would say they were relying on big players Falcao and Babel to provide "moments" to beat us but when you look at us and our two goals it's clear that we were trying to use our basic fitness and movement and passing to beat them. Neither of the goals are spectacular in the Kemar Roofe against Standard way but they are absolutely beautiful team goals.
 
I obviously don't know what age you are, but it seems to be the natural evolution of football fans to just complain about the modern game and tell everyone it was better decades ago anyway. That will happen no matter what direction the game goes in! :-D
Yeah, good point, but I wasn’t really complaining, more asking if we‘re happy to go with the flow.
I‘m 61, but no technophobe, started work with a chisel and slate and retired using 3D technology, Just prefer a little unpredictability in the game.
 
I think this season we've had a decent mix compared to last season when we seemed hell bent on walking the ball in week in week out

Mixing things up helps keep defences guessing and draws defenders out to the ball if they think theres a shot coming
 
Yeah, good point, but I wasn’t really complaining, more asking if we‘re happy to go with the flow.
I‘m 61, but no technophobe, started work with a chisel and slate and retired using 3D technology, Just prefer a little unpredictability in the game.

As someone else pointed out, the data analysis “”moneyball” style of managing is fine if you have the talent. I can’t see it catching on in League 2.
If you have a free kick on the half way line and lump it into the box and fight for the second ball, you have a higher percentage chance of scoring than if you play 36 passes before it goes into the box. That’s simply fact. But teams don’t do it now because possession is king, if you have the ball they can’t score etc.
Which is also bollox cos Leicester won the league without having more than 50% possession in any game they played.
So all in all, I haven’t a clue.......
 
I think in some ways the stats can hinder the game. For example, if a midfielder is more worried about his ‘passes complete’ percentage than he is winning the game, he might be more inclined to play lots of safe passes rather than incisive ones that come with more of a risk of being intercepted.
Which option, ultimately, helps the team win the match?
Tricky.
 
As someone else pointed out, the data analysis “”moneyball” style of managing is fine if you have the talent. I can’t see it catching on in League 2.
If you have a free kick on the half way line and lump it into the box and fight for the second ball, you have a higher percentage chance of scoring than if you play 36 passes before it goes into the box. That’s simply fact. But teams don’t do it now because possession is king, if you have the ball they can’t score etc.
Which is also bollox cos Leicester won the league without having more than 50% possession in any game they played.
So all in all, I haven’t a clue.......
Leicester was a freak season though, so I don't think you can't really count that.
 
Its lovely to see a slick passing move with a goal at the end of it eg Ryan Kents against Antwerp...but at times in Scotland when we are playing a team who have decided to have eleven men in the area, i think now and again a low piledriver of a shot which could ricochet anywhere, preferably into the net may be one of the few ways to get a goal.
The way a lot of teams in this bum league are set up with everyone back defending their box, sometimes it’s going to take a low pile driver or the occasional 30 yard screamer to break the deadlock so I would be dismayed if the Gaffer was telling players they can’t shoot but I don’t think we need to worry too much about that as he was keen on having a go himself from outside the box.

I think the key to it is having a player or a few in the team who practice it a lot and have the ability to score from longer range, we’ll get our rewards from time to time as long as they are allowed to pull the trigger and in some cases the player in possession is prepared to pull the trigger when the opportunity arises as we have been a bit shot shy at times in games, opting to play a pass when a shot would have been the better choice.
 
How much duller would be all our lives, if Bert Konterman hadn't blasted that rocket shot at Hampden, or Ray Wilkins launched his famous screamer?

There will always be such moments in the game and hopefully, many more too.
 
I don't really share the same we need to shoot more opinion that some of our fans do.

The vast majority of times we will be up against 11 players defending the edge of the box, chances are it will be blocked or it will be skied over the bar. Giving the opposition the chance to waste about 2 minutes, you times that that 5 or 6 shots and its a large part of the game gone, especially when you have officials who don't book keepers for time wasting until the last minute.

Granted you do get exceptions.
 
I never really get annoyed at us not shooting from distance, the odd instance does boil my piss though (mainly Aribo or Davis).

I get sometimes you may win a corner, or a deflection goes in but there is a lot of emphasis on keeping the ball rather than playing a percentage.

Majority of the time our lads can’t see the goal due to the 10 man wall, shooting against that wall would likely surrender possession.

Wasting time, and hampering our ability to form an actual ‘chance’. Like I said though, obviously you do get an exception.

From a Rangers perspective, we’ve done very well this season by playing smart in that regard - when to shoot - when to pass.
 
If you've a team capable of passing through defences and creating openings that are close to the opposition goal, then they'll play to those strengths.

If you've players who have high accuracy shooting round the box then I think pot-shots can be handy. The tims have tried the shoot-on-sight tactic all season. Christie, McGregor etc all look to shoot immediately but as they're woeful at it, it's cost them. Particularly in Europe when it's naive to go that way.

Our midfielders aren't particularly adept at it, Kamara/Davis/Jack aren't really the types to fire rockets from outside the box (although Jack has had a few screamers)

Our current team is more suited to European football as we've seen. Pass and move and create spaces in tight areas.
 
I think the key to being successful is being able to mix things up, perhaps something that can be applied to life beyond football. At the end of the day scoring a goal is about doing something or a great many things unexpected to the opposition, otherwise the opposition would know what to do to counteract it and out-with human error would be successful in preventing the goal.

Reminds me of the countless successful people who've gained success and hold Q&As with an audience desperate to replicate the success. These people will then reveal in detail how they became a success. But the audience are too naive to realise it was their difference or originality which helped them be a success, replication is unlikely to yield the same success because it's already been done before.

I see the same in football. Constantly play the same and teams will work out your methods and eventually counteract it. The odd long shot can easily catch a team off-guard, so it's certainly not something which should be ignored, especially if what you're doing isn't working. It's also about not giving the opposition a moment's peace.

If the opposition is wondering is he going to shoot or pass it on to the wings or play through the middle, it's far more difficult to defend against as opposed to - they're going to pass it side to side until they can get it down the wings.
I am sure Maradona said something along the lines of ... that football was all about the art of deception.
 
I don't really share the same we need to shoot more opinion that some of our fans do.

The vast majority of times we will be up against 11 players defending the edge of the box, chances are it will be blocked or it will be skied over the bar. Giving the opposition the chance to waste about 2 minutes, you times that that 5 or 6 shots and its a large part of the game gone, especially when you have officials who don't book keepers for time wasting until the last minute.

Granted you do get exceptions.
Great point about booking keepers.
The time to book them is early on not after they have spent the entire game cheating their opponents.
 
A report on the BBC business news website about data analysts in football points out that since the introduction of xG (expected goals) technology, the distance of shots on goal in the EPL has decreased season on season. The reasoning is that the data indicates long range shooting is unproductive and the data now indicates that teams have changed how they produce their attacking play to eliminate it.
In the same report, Arsenal under Wenger were named as pioneers of the data analysis, so perhaps that’s why they are often seen to be walking the ball into the net? Gerrard might beg to differ, but apparently there’s no place for his game winning screamers in the new hip coaches ”philosophy”.
Pep Guardiola is on record as castigating his players for long range shooting (Vinnie! No Vinnie!..........oh!)
As this technology expands into football as teams try to eliminate the variables, do you think it’s a game you will want to watch, are we all watching it now at Ibrox, will we all just adapt as long as we’re winning?
Crap try telling that to the Germans as they can and do score goals from a distance, best entertaining League in the World.
 
Great point about booking keepers.
The time to book them is early on not after they have spent the entire game cheating their opponents.

Does my head in. Goalkeeper wastes so many minutes. Finally gets a booking in the 92nd minute, the referee wastes another 30 seconds booking him and writing it in the book, the keeper has won twice.

You book them early on when it's clear they're time wasting and it puts a stop to it immediately.
 
Think of it like martial arts and the chess matches elite strikers play.

If you always throw the same punches, the same combinations, its easy to defend against. The guys who are hard to read and defend against are the ones who have more tools in their arsenal.

Similar in football. If you never shoot from range the opponent never has to defend it or consider it.

So the value in long range shots is not just the ones that fly into the top corner, but in how it disrupts defences and doesn't allow them just to set up for passing around and through them.

The long shots you take on and the frequency may need to be considered in light of the success of such shots. But it should always be a part of your overall attacking strategy.
 
Last edited:
I think the key to being successful is being able to mix things up, perhaps something that can be applied to life beyond football. At the end of the day scoring a goal is about doing something or a great many things unexpected to the opposition, otherwise the opposition would know what to do to counteract it and out-with human error would be successful in preventing the goal.

Reminds me of the countless successful people who've gained success and hold Q&As with an audience desperate to replicate the success. These people will then reveal in detail how they became a success. But the audience are too naive to realise it was their difference or originality which helped them be a success, replication is unlikely to yield the same success because it's already been done before.

I see the same in football. Constantly play the same and teams will work out your methods and eventually counteract it. The odd long shot can easily catch a team off-guard, so it's certainly not something which should be ignored, especially if what you're doing isn't working. It's also about not giving the opposition a moment's peace.

If the opposition is wondering is he going to shoot or pass it on to the wings or play through the middle, it's far more difficult to defend against as opposed to - they're going to pass it side to side until they can get it down the wings.

Only read the OP when I replied, I hadn't see that you had made a similar point
 
So often you see some players in shooting opportunities just outside the box and you think they are about to take a shot at goal, but then they decide to make an easy pass sideways or backwards to a team mate.

As mentioned part of the problem might be all this data analytics, if they take a shot and it goes wide that will go down as a mark against them, but if they make complete and easy pass in the final third that will go down as a positive in their stats.

You get some players and their passing stats look fantastic because they just make easy sideways and backwards passes all the time, they hardly make any risky passes like through balls etc.

In data terms the players who make the more penetrating high-risk high-reward passes end-up looking worst on paper than the players who make lots of low-risk low-reward passes.
 
Crap try telling that to the Germans as they can and do score goals from a distance, best entertaining League in the World.

Given this is a thread about data analysis, you might want to check what the data says first. Trend is the same according to this.
 
Back
Top