Intresting stats from F365

[Dubciteh]

Interresting article here in particular these points:

1) Manchester City Shoot Less Than Anyone
And we don't mean marginally less...we mean way, way, way less. They have spent almost £400m in the past three years - much of it on attacking talent - but that has bought them a grand total of 18 shots in their first three games of the season. To get some idea of context, traditionally shot-shy Arsenal have managed 45, Chelsea have mustered 43 and even Blackpool have had 26. City's closest, erm, challengers for bottom spot in this particular list of shame are Wolves (24). Oh dear.

10) Manchester City Can't CrossIn three Premier League games, Manchester City players have attempted 35 crosses from open play. You'd expect them to be successful with maybe a third of those crosses. Hmmm. It turns out only one of the 35 has hit its intended target. So all that money spent on wingers David Silva (£25m), James Milner (£26m), Adam Johnson (£7m) and Shaun Wright-Phillips (£9m) is paying rich dividends then...

http://football365.com/story/0,17033,87 ... 09,00.html

[Wooders]

interesting, although I expect this to improve when Milner, Silva and most importantly Johnson cement themselves into the team

a team sporting tevez should have a few more shots on goal though

[Kladze]

To get plenty of shots on goal a team has to create the opportunities to do so. ........ we haven't been.


yet

[bluej]

Interresting article here in particular these points:

1) Manchester City Shoot Less Than Anyone
And we don't mean marginally less...we mean way, way, way less. They have spent almost £400m in the past three years - much of it on attacking talent - but that has bought them a grand total of 18 shots in their first three games of the season. To get some idea of context, traditionally shot-shy Arsenal have managed 45, Chelsea have mustered 43 and even Blackpool have had 26. City's closest, erm, challengers for bottom spot in this particular list of shame are Wolves (24). Oh dear.

That's fair enough but Arsenal have played Blackpool and Blackburn in their first few games, Chelsea have hammered some shite teams as well. The more interesting ratio would be shots to goals, as you can have all the shots in the world and still lose 1-0 if you don't score.

[Esky]

Interresting article here in particular these points:

1) Manchester City Shoot Less Than Anyone
And we don't mean marginally less...we mean way, way, way less. They have spent almost £400m in the past three years - much of it on attacking talent - but that has bought them a grand total of 18 shots in their first three games of the season. To get some idea of context, traditionally shot-shy Arsenal have managed 45, Chelsea have mustered 43 and even Blackpool have had 26. City's closest, erm, challengers for bottom spot in this particular list of shame are Wolves (24). Oh dear.

That's fair enough but Arsenal have played Blackpool and Blackburn in their first few games, Chelsea have hammered some shite teams as well. The more interesting ratio would be shots to goals, as you can have all the shots in the world and still lose 1-0 if you don't score.

Anyone remember a game against Bolton around 5 years back? We had about 900 shots on goal, hit the woodwork 4 times and lost to a last minute Gary Speed penalty.

The stats are alarming, sure, but don't really mean much until we settle into the season.

[bluej]

Interresting article here in particular these points:

1) Manchester City Shoot Less Than Anyone
And we don't mean marginally less...we mean way, way, way less. They have spent almost £400m in the past three years - much of it on attacking talent - but that has bought them a grand total of 18 shots in their first three games of the season. To get some idea of context, traditionally shot-shy Arsenal have managed 45, Chelsea have mustered 43 and even Blackpool have had 26. City's closest, erm, challengers for bottom spot in this particular list of shame are Wolves (24). Oh dear.

That's fair enough but Arsenal have played Blackpool and Blackburn in their first few games, Chelsea have hammered some shite teams as well. The more interesting ratio would be shots to goals, as you can have all the shots in the world and still lose 1-0 if you don't score.

Anyone remember a game against Bolton around 5 years back? We had about 900 shots on goal, hit the woodwork 4 times and lost to a last minute Gary Speed penalty.

An excellent case to back up what I was saying! God that was a horrible day.

[ronk]

We also played Spurs away and Liverpool, not teams noted for poor defending. Sunderland was away too and they were mostly solid.

[Fish111]

They reckon 85% of stats are bullshit anyway.

[Dubaimancityfan]

Interresting article here in particular these points:

1) Manchester City Shoot Less Than Anyone
And we don't mean marginally less...we mean way, way, way less. They have spent almost £400m in the past three years - much of it on attacking talent - but that has bought them a grand total of 18 shots in their first three games of the season. To get some idea of context, traditionally shot-shy Arsenal have managed 45, Chelsea have mustered 43 and even Blackpool have had 26. City's closest, erm, challengers for bottom spot in this particular list of shame are Wolves (24). Oh dear.

That's fair enough but Arsenal have played Blackpool and Blackburn in their first few games, Chelsea have hammered some shite teams as well. The more interesting ratio would be shots to goals, as you can have all the shots in the world and still lose 1-0 if you don't score.

Anyone remember a game against Bolton around 5 years back? We had about 900 shots on goal, hit the woodwork 4 times and lost to a last minute Gary Speed penalty.

An excellent case to back up what I was saying! God that was a horrible day.

I remember that match very well. We hit the woodwork about 6 times ! Still can't believe we lost that match to a stupid penalty given away by Dunnie (who else) in injury time.
But it proves the case here. Shots on goal mean nothing if you don't score. Shoot 4, score 3 (don't concede) and Bob's yr uncle. We did that against Liverpool.

[Tony P]

Interresting article here in particular these points:

1) Manchester City Shoot Less Than Anyone
And we don't mean marginally less...we mean way, way, way less. They have spent almost £400m in the past three years - much of it on attacking talent - but that has bought them a grand total of 18 shots in their first three games of the season. To get some idea of context, traditionally shot-shy Arsenal have managed 45, Chelsea have mustered 43 and even Blackpool have had 26. City's closest, erm, challengers for bottom spot in this particular list of shame are Wolves (24). Oh dear.

That's fair enough but Arsenal have played Blackpool and Blackburn in their first few games, Chelsea have hammered some shite teams as well. The more interesting ratio would be shots to goals, as you can have all the shots in the world and still lose 1-0 if you don't score.

Anyone remember a game against Bolton around 5 years back? We had about 900 shots on goal, hit the woodwork 4 times and lost to a last minute Gary Speed penalty.

The stats are alarming, sure, but don't really mean much until we settle into the season.

I remember a small Irish lad with a dodgy barnet made his debut that day. Whatever happened to him?

[Fidel Castro]

Interresting article here in particular these points:

1) Manchester City Shoot Less Than Anyone
And we don't mean marginally less...we mean way, way, way less. They have spent almost £400m in the past three years - much of it on attacking talent - but that has bought them a grand total of 18 shots in their first three games of the season. To get some idea of context, traditionally shot-shy Arsenal have managed 45, Chelsea have mustered 43 and even Blackpool have had 26. City's closest, erm, challengers for bottom spot in this particular list of shame are Wolves (24). Oh dear.

That's fair enough but Arsenal have played Blackpool and Blackburn in their first few games, Chelsea have hammered some shite teams as well. The more interesting ratio would be shots to goals, as you can have all the shots in the world and still lose 1-0 if you don't score.

Anyone remember a game against Bolton around 5 years back? We had about 900 shots on goal, hit the woodwork 4 times and lost to a last minute Gary Speed penalty.

An excellent case to back up what I was saying! God that was a horrible day.

Looking back, it was better to watch than having one shot on goal, missing with an open goal and losing to a last-minute Darren Bent penalty ;-)

[TheGOAT]

Shots on goal actually mean fuck all. Shots in the goal are the ones that count!
We could have the lowest shots on goal all season, as long as the % shots to goals is high it really dont matter!

[Blue Since 76]

They reckon 85% of stats are bullshit anyway.

I hate it when people talk bollox just to prove a point - it's only 83.2%