Goal Scoring

Shades Of Gray

Connecting The Connecting To The Goals

Not all shots are created equal.  Somewhat paradoxically, the difference between a high-probability shot and a lost cause is often indicated by a team's ability to connect passes in the attacking zone of the field.  Passing certainly doesn't score goals; many, many goals are scored from counter attacks, and the set pieces which result from counter attacks, to say nothing of defensive blunders and other errors by the opponent.  But passing does indicate a degree of control of the proceedings, a thoughtfulness and determination to fashion chances with a high probability of scoring.

From the QB's final match of the indoor league, as compared to City and Swansea (revisit that comparison here) in their EPL match:

76% final third passing Swansea V. Man City
71% final third passing Man City V. Swansea
71% opponent's half passing QBs V whoever that was on January 11th.

For the game, the QB's completed 81% of their passes (190 out of 235); 71% in the attacking 1/2 (78 out of 110) and 89% in our half (112 out of 125).  Interesting shooting numbers at the bottom of the post.

At least in that indoor game, the QBs put up numbers that compare favorably with the pros...and more importantly, with pros that play a style we'd like to emulate: short passing, dominance of possession.

But when we compare the final product of all that passing, we see a massive divergence:

The QBs took 37 shots which led to 5 goals...that's a 13% conversion rate.  We played 40 minutes and took as many shots as two teams playing for 90 minutes (180 team minutes!).  And converted at the lower rate of the two teams. City and Swansea combined for 5 goals on 30 shots: 16% conversion rate. 12.5% for the Swans, 21.4% for City.  Recall that City scored 3 to Swansea's 2...

In the EPL match that's 180 minutes divided by 30 shots = a shot every 6 minutes.  We offered up almost a shot a minute! Of course, indoor, small-sided soccer will allow for that but we can see that clearly we're profligate in front of goal, we take shots too often for two less than optimal reasons:
1. The player with the ball runs out of ideas- often because the players off the ball aren't moving or communicating
2. The proximity to goal, particularly when playing indoor versions of the game, makes for tunnel vision.  This is a phenomenon seen nightly in training.  Teams can play keep ball all night...until the goal is introduced, at which point it often looks like a completely different team as the target draws the players' complete attention like a black hole, and they appear incapable of incorporating teammates into the play.

Just because the goal is there doesn't mean we have to shoot at it.  Remember that in the big game, from live play only 2% of shots from outside the 18 will score.  Anyone can shoot from that range with reasonable power and hit the target...but just because they can hit the target doesn't make it a great chance.

I overstate on that second one, but the gist is accurate.  At some point players have to accept that a shooting chance is characterized by probabilities...not every chance at goal is of the same quality as every other chance.  It is a wide spectrum governed by time and score, distance from goal, defensive pressure (or lack thereof), which foot the shot falls to, what surface of the foot (or head or whatever body part) is to be used, the angle to the goal, the correctness of the GK's play, the weather conditions, a player's form- are they on a hot streak, or is their confidence low?

The variables are pretty limitless.  Obviously pros are going to be more selective and have the ability to manipulate and/or manage the variables of a goal scoring chance more effectively than a youth player.  That's why Bony, Michu, Dzeko and Aguero get the big bucks.

But that's not just better shooters, it's better chances.  Better buildup whether it's a counter or a controlled, slow build-up, leads to better critical pass conditions, a better pass begets a better first touch, and so on. Clearly the Quick Boys can control the ball...the question is, why, given that ability, would we be willing to hand the ball over on a low-probability chance at goal?

Finally, consider that it took us 17 shots to score our first goal (6% conversion rate).  The next four goals came on 11 attempts (36% conversion rate). We finished the game 0-9 (0%...duh).  If only I had tracked which of the two lines of players scored those four goals!  So we move on to the indoor cup, and the goal will be to move the team in the direction of being as patient and effective as we were in that middle stretch, creating chances of such high quality that we finish over 1/3 of them...knowing the difference between a chance that is high probability and one that is not.  Additionally, we will hope to defend in ways that get us the ball in situations that lead to chances at goal; takeaways near their goal, takeaways that lead to counter attacks.

A great analysis of Swansea here...remarkable graphics/stats.  The pitfalls of playing keep-ball!
Then again, we could look like this (Chile just embarrassing England):