The reason teams don’t shoot outside the box?

For me, an interesting stat would be in-swinging against out-swinging corners. Always seems to me that in-swingers give much more chance to score, but maybe the stats don't say that at all.

The downside of the shootings stats- the quality of the striker or striker. Kevin de Bruyners rip against Sterling's dribbling off the end of his foot or Borna's Excocets against McGregor's hitting the town square in Dornoch.

Efforts on target all count the same- some diddies might want to pass it to someone who can actually play, others have a pop.
 
Given the plethora of outside influences on Chairmen these days agitating to get a manager sacked, how long before someone gets the boot for ignoring the data!
 
Things like this make me sad tbh. Theres nothing greater than watching a 30 yarder nearly take the goal frame out of the ground.
 
I can't think of a more important stat in football (other than the score, of course) than expected goals. It's absolutely crucial.

Total number of shots don't tell you anything about from where the shots were taken.

Total number of shots on target doesn't tell you anything about how much the keeper worked to save them.

Expected goals tells you how likely the shot was to go in and whether the striker should have scored it.

You know when a commentator says, "he really should score that?" Expected goals tells you whether he should have or not.

In fact, if you look at Celtic's games earlier on this season, after drawing with Killie they won their next seven games. Look at the number of goals they should have scored in those matches and it's considerably lower, indicating that they're winning flukily, scoring lucky goals, not dominating play. Anyone keeping an eye on that and reading beyond just the results could see that that was going to run out at some point. Look at the results in their next nine games:

Lost to us
Lost to Milan
Drew with Aberdeen
Drew with Lille
Beat Aberdeen
Lost to Prague
Beat Motherwell
Drew with Hibs
Lost to Prague

I've no idea about how anyone can dispute how valuable it is.
 
Don Vito said:
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?
Click to expand...
Some of the gaffers long range efforts just wow! Tony yaboah one of my favourite goals ever. The gaffer is always saying he encourages our lads to shoot more from outside the box.
 
Vony Tidmar said:
Some of the gaffers long range efforts just wow! Tony yaboah one of my favourite goals ever. The gaffer is always saying he encourages our lads to shoot more from outside the box.
Click to expand...
Roofe was paying attention!

I like that he encourages players to take the high risk pass option now and again, it certainly pays off in the European games where the retain possession and passing game is more prevalent and that moment of quality makes the difference.
 
The Golden God said:
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.
Click to expand...
2 minutes for a goalkick?!
 
I hate idiot's shouting shoot, when there's 3 players within 30 cms of our players face. Aye mate let me have a dig straight aff this defenders shin, work the space, make an opening, running onto it then by all means crack a dig but when somebody is stood on your toes then shift it to a teammate
 
ClockworkOrange said:
I can't think of a more important stat in football (other than the score, of course) than expected goals. It's absolutely crucial.

Total number of shots don't tell you anything about from where the shots were taken.

Total number of shots on target doesn't tell you anything about how much the keeper worked to save them.

Expected goals tells you how likely the shot was to go in and whether the striker should have scored it.

You know when a commentator says, "he really should score that?" Expected goals tells you whether he should have or not.

In fact, if you look at Celtic's games earlier on this season, after drawing with Killie they won their next seven games. Look at the number of goals they should have scored in those matches and it's considerably lower, indicating that they're winning flukily, scoring lucky goals, not dominating play. Anyone keeping an eye on that and reading beyond just the results could see that that was going to run out at some point. Look at the results in their next nine games:

Lost to us
Lost to Milan
Drew with Aberdeen
Drew with Lille
Beat Aberdeen
Lost to Prague
Beat Motherwell
Drew with Hibs
Lost to Prague

I've no idea about how anyone can dispute how valuable it is.
Click to expand...
I didn't have a clue about what their xG was, I could just see this at the time by watching their games. I said as much on here, stating they "weren't grinding out wins, the mark of champions [which I also believe to be a real thing but that's a separate point], but playing poorly and getting lucky".

Didnt need xG to tell me that
 
Don Vito said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'd be more worried about it if this past month we hadn't had screamers from Aribo and Jack not to mention the Roofe/halfway line being on fire!
 
Tailwind said:
I didn't have a clue about what their xG was, I could just see this at the time by watching their games. I said as much on here, stating they "weren't grinding out wins, the mark of champions [which I also believe to be a real thing but that's a separate point], but playing poorly and getting lucky".

Didnt need xG to tell me that
Click to expand...

If you're serious about data in sports then nothing really makes up for watching the game, but xG gives you clear, quantifiable and unbiased data about a team's performance. A Rangers fan on a Rangers website telling other Rangers fans that Celtic are shite probably doesn't reveal much!
 
Tailwind said:
I didn't have a clue about what their xG was, I could just see this at the time by watching their games. I said as much on here, stating they "weren't grinding out wins, the mark of champions [which I also believe to be a real thing but that's a separate point], but playing poorly and getting lucky".

Didnt need xG to tell me that
Click to expand...
Sometimes teams have two or three goals more than the XG? :oops:
 
I get all this, but sometimes a dig from just outside the box is needed when playing against 10 defenders inside the box, instead of passing it from side to side getting nowhere.

With some of the quality we have lurking around the edge of the box you would be confident most would at least hit the target and Alfie would be there for any spillages from the keeper.
 
It's all about opportunity and judgement. A shot from distance may well have more chance of being blocked but if you want to walk it into the net you've got to get past a lot of defenders trying to take it off you.

Personally I don't think we take enough punts from outside the box.
 
WinkieWATP said:
Sometimes teams have two or three goals more than the XG? :oops:
Click to expand...
Its not useless

But its value is massively overplayed

And you provide one case in point

The grand selling point for it appears to be something people can easily observe just by watching the game
 
It's a low chance shot so you dont want to be trying it too much.

But sometimes the shot is just on and we never seem to go for those.
 
Tailwind said:
2 minutes for a goalkick?!
Click to expand...
Okay, might be a slight overreaction but they can well eat over a minute by the time they crawl to get the ball back, set it down on one side of the box, kick their studs off the post, decide to move the ball to the opposite side, kick their studs again, then wait for a warning off the referee.

Mutiply that by a few times a game when you have a weak referee. I can see why teams like us are conservative with our shots.
 
The Golden God said:
Okay, might be a slight overreaction but they can well eat over a minute by the time they crawl to get the ball back, set it down on one side of the box, kick their studs off the post, decide to move the ball to the opposite side, kick their studs again, then wait for a warning off the referee.

Mutiply that by a few times a game when you have a weak referee. I can see why teams like us are conservative with our shots.
Click to expand...
Be surprised if its more than 30s tbh
 
must send hagi and jack a text each and ask them wtf they are playing at . :))
i thought SG mentioned a week ago that we don't shoot enough from distance .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top