Match Day Thread Wycombe Vs Norwich, Sun 28th Feb @ 12:00

[zogean_king]

I guess I shall go and produce another match day thread for the midweek game

 

[robbieBB]

That's weird, WhoScored (I don't know what the general view is on the accuracy of their figures), put Norwich way out last at 15.7 shots per goal (Blackburn next at 13.8 shots per goal and the best is Bristol City at 8.1 shots per goal). 15.7spg is a conversion rate of c.6.34%.

Whoa! "Shots pg" = "Shots per game" (see the footnote on that Whoscored page). So rather than bottom of the shots per goal table, we are top of the shots per game table!

 

[robbieBB]

That's interesting. That for me provides statistical support to the view that we need to be more clinical in front of goal. 7.1% puts us below the 7.5% average for the league.

Well I tried to get a productive debate about this going on the Stats thread, and look what happened there Everybody uses the term "clinical" in this context, apparently sure in their own minds that they know what it means. I wish someone would just tell us what it means. I think it would help to try other ways of more accurately capturing in what way we are lacking, if indeed we are lacking at all.

 

[Canary Rob]

Whoa! "Shots pg" = "Shots per game" (see the footnote on that Whoscored page). So rather than bottom of the shots per goal table, we are top of the shots per game table!

Thanks, that makes a bit more sense!

 

[Canary Rob]

Well I tried to get a productive debate about this going on the Stats thread, and look what happened there Everybody uses the term "clinical" in this context, apparently sure in their own minds that they know what it means. I wish someone would just tell us what it means. I think it would help to try other ways of more accurately capturing in what way we are lacking, if indeed we are lacking at all.

"Clinical" means scoring more frequently than the average, which covers shooting precisely from good positions, but also choosing when to shoot and when not to based on the probability of scoring

I am afraid, and I know you won't like it, but it's too complex a measure to be purely referable to facts - though obviously the number of shots vs the number scored and vs the number on target are all indications.

 

[Canary Spring]

According to one of the links on the "stats" thread, there is no such thing as a clinical striker. I assume, then, there's no such thing as a clinical team. I don't believe it but if true, then my confidence in the xG stat goes way down.

 

[RiverEndRick]

I tend to agree with Rob that "it's too complex a measure to be purely referable to facts". Do we shoot more than other teams or is there another explanation?

The top stat for me is where we are in the table and we're well ahead of the others in that regard.

 

[robbieBB]

According to one of the links on the "stats" thread, there is no such thing as a clinical striker. I assume, then, there's no such thing as a clinical team. I don't believe it but if true, then my confidence in the xG stat goes way down.

If "clinical" simply means "score a lot of goals", or "score more goals than most other teams", then of course there are "clinical teams". Likewise "clinical strikers". But "clinical" so used has no value as regards explaining why the team or players are or are not scoring the goals they should. The suggestion that "there is no such thing as a clinical striker" is simply the suggestion that eg the goal scoring prowess of players like Lewandowski , or teams like Man City, is best explained by looking at specific factors such as quality of chances created rather than some magical quality of "clinicalness" that certain teams or players have and others lack.
Rob's "It's too complex a measure to be purely referable to facts" is simply another way of saying that "clinical" is a vague wave in the direction of a number of more specific factors relating to goal scoring efficiency or otherwise, as Rick also acknowledges by then asking the more specific question: "Do we shoot more?".

 

[Canary Spring]

If "clinical" simply means "score a lot of goals", or "score more goals than most other teams", then of course there are "clinical teams". Likewise "clinical strikers". But "clinical" so used has no value as regards explaining why the team or players are or are not scoring the goals they should. The suggestion that "there is no such thing as a clinical striker" is simply the suggestion that eg the goal scoring prowess of players like Lewandowski , or teams like Man City, is best explained by looking at specific factors such as quality of chances created rather than some magical quality of "clinicalness" that certain teams or players have and others lack.
Rob's "It's too complex a measure to be purely referable to facts" is simply another way of saying that "clinical" is a vague wave in the direction of a number of more specific factors relating to goal scoring efficiency or otherwise, as Rick also acknowledges by then asking the more specific question: "Do we shoot more?".

I'll reply on the "stats" thread.