That might partly add to the pressure on those we do, but I think the stat isn't really designed to show that. The stat shows that not only do we create very few scoring opportunities, even when we do we don't score, which suggests: (1) that the scoring opportunities we do create are not clear enough; or (2) our strikers have not performed well enough, or perhaps more likely a combination of those two.
The funny thing about your game tomorrow is that I'm not really sure who I want to win! Its a bit like my Mother-In-Law driving my brand new BMW off a cliff!
Why would you care about Man U losing? They're hardly stopping Ipswich's relentless promotion drive and they're not in the run for anything.
In which case in what way are you torn? Sounds to me that you just want us to lose. Which is fair enough.
And just as the Hootun-Outers have been telling us for the past year, that was a false position, we didn't deserve to finish 11th and only did so because our final two opponents were "on the beach". That's right isn't it?
Sorry, but that is just plain and simple dumb logic. The fewer shots we have mean the % should be higher, no? What that stat shows is that it's not necessarily the number of chances we were creating (which apparently was solely the fault of the previous manager, not anything to do with the deficiencies of our creative players or the performances of the opposition defenders, or the way they were set up) rather that our strikers have been unable to create the chances that we have created. Add in the number of man-of-the-match performances by opposition goalkeepers and that's a better indicator of why the % is so low. Sorry, don't think you can lay that one squarely at the door of the previous regime unfortunately - unless of course you want to blame him for signing RVW and Hooper, two strikers that the vast majority were over the moon to have added to the ranks.
Yes, I accept that. We have both used the end of last season to bolster our position. I would personally argue that we were on a par with a load of teams last season, from West Ham downwards. And ahead of the three promoted teams, except that they had the momentum of promotion.
Errrr no. It means that from the few shots on target we have managed this season we have not scored many goals from them? The lower the amount of shots on target the lower the conversion rate is likely to be. I would also hazard a guess that are shots on target have not been real goal scoring chances and more speculative efforts in desperation. And no I don't blame CH for Signing Hooper and Rvw, in every other team they have been prolific, just not under CH.
What can I do? When I concede your point, you say I am having my cake and eating it. If I don't concede your point, I am being intransigent and only seeing what I want to see.
I'm with you on this one Munky, but trying to be fair, how do they measure the conversion rate? Is it the number of shots (on and off target) per goal or just the shots on target per goal? Because if the former, then a lower number of shots on target could be indicative of low conversion rate...
