Surprising - season tally of shots to goals scored

[wookie70]

Anecdotally I thought our shot to goal/shots on target ratio was terrible and that all the opposition had to do was get a shot on target and we conceded. Having talked to a few other Hibees we were all in agreement. I must admit to liking numbers and rarely trust anything, even my own opinion, without checking the facts. I took a look at all our league games so far this season. The findings surprised me. All stats are taken from game reports from the BBC website so a pinch of salt may be needed.

Hibs have scored 43 goals this season from 371 shots of which 144 were on target. 38.8% of our shots were on target, 11.6% of our shots resulted in goals and 29.9% of our shots on target result in goals.

The opposition have scored 24 goals this season from 191 shots of which 68 were on target. 35.6% of their shots were on target, 12.6% of their shots resulted in goals and 35.3% of their shots on target result in goals.

The last three results have been dismal and our goals to shot ratios have fell dramatically with only 4.3% of shots going in with 11.1% of those on target resulting in goals. Meanwhile the opposition have scored with 33.3% of their shots and 63.6% of those on target.

During the season we averaged 13.3 shots per game of which 5.1 are on target resulting in 1.5 goals. In the last 3 games we have averaged a season better average of 15.7 shots per game with 6 of those on target but have managed a very poor return of 0.7 goals per game.

During the season the opposition averaged 6.8 shots per game of which 2.4 are on target resulting in 0.9 goals. In the last 3 games they have averaged a season slightly better average of 7 shots per game with 3.7 of those on target but have managed an amazing return of 2.3 goals per game.

I am not a statistician but I would say the figures above prove our players have got proportionally as many shots on target as the opposition have and proportionally scored as many goals to the shots taken or shots on target as our opponents. The big difference in the last 3 games is not how many shots we have taken or got on target, as that is better than the season average, but the fact we haven't managed to score. Likewise our shots against have only been slightly worse than the season average but they have resulted in far more goals per game conceded.

Summing up our strikers in the last three games haven't had any luck or have not been clinical enough and our defense hasn't had any luck or not defended well enough. I suspect the truth is a mix of luck and performance. We have rode our luck at times this season and been good enough to win in other games. We are just having a spell where our luck has ran out at the same time as our performance has dipped slightly. Nothing to say that can't change on Sunday and we can go on a long unbeaten run and pick up some silverware. Don't panic!

[Hi Heid Yin]

Thank you for revealing those stats. They do make interesting reading and give an insight into the reality of our performances over the past 6 months. Right now our stats from the last 4 games do not make pleasant reading. This said, it would not surprise me to see our lads dispose of another SPL team on Sunday. Oh, the joys of being a footie fan.

[Monts]

Good stats. Very interesting. I was definitely of the opinion that the last 3 games weren't lost due to lack of chances, or even goalkeeping errors. It's the lack of chances that have been put away.

[Waxy]

Perhaps these stats mean we have a below average goalie. What else can they mean?

[wookie70]

Over the season Oxley lets in as many goals proportionately to the shots at his goal as the other goalies we play against. If I have the time I will do the same analysis for The Rangers and Falkirk and see if they are wildly different to us. I would say the stats show that Oxley is on a par with our average opposition. That opposition is Championship level so you could argue that puts him at that level.

[HiBremian]

Funny, I was wondering the same last night. Thanks for doing all the graft :thumbsup:

Looking at the last three games (or as much as I could look given reliance on periscope :greengrin), I think you have to take quality as well as quantity into account. I don't recall so many super-saves from the opposition keepers in these games, and do recall a long series of inner groans as our shots, whilst on target much of the time, were pretty tame, straight down the goalies' throat etc. Then there's the lack of shots/goals from set pieces. We had 9 corners last night to their 2. Against Dumbarton 16-1. Against Morton 12-5. That's 37-8 in corners over 3 games that we lost 7-2 on goals. We need to be more creative at set pieces, and get the quality of our shooting back to where it was.

[Beefster]

Perhaps these stats mean we have a below average goalie. What else can they mean?

They could mean that our strikers aren't as good as they think they are, given the standard of the opposition that is matching their rates?

[wookie70]

They could mean that our strikers aren't as good as they think they are, given the standard of the opposition that is matching their rates?

As a team we create far more shots than the opposition. That would suggest the team, including the strikers, are at a higher level than the opposition. How much higher is difficult to guage but it has been good enough to knock the 2 and 3 place teams in the league above out of Cup Competitions.

[BSEJVT]

Anecdotally I thought our shot to goal/shots on target ratio was terrible and that all the opposition had to do was get a shot on target and we conceded. Having talked to a few other Hibees we were all in agreement. I must admit to liking numbers and rarely trust anything, even my own opinion, without checking the facts. I took a look at all our league games so far this season. The findings surprised me. All stats are taken from game reports from the BBC website so a pinch of salt may be needed.

Hibs have scored 43 goals this season from 371 shots of which 144 were on target. 38.8% of our shots were on target, 11.6% of our shots resulted in goals and 29.9% of our shots on target result in goals.

The opposition have scored 24 goals this season from 191 shots of which 68 were on target. 35.6% of their shots were on target, 12.6% of their shots resulted in goals and 35.3% of their shots on target result in goals.

The last three results have been dismal and our goals to shot ratios have fell dramatically with only 4.3% of shots going in with 11.1% of those on target resulting in goals. Meanwhile the opposition have scored with 33.3% of their shots and 63.6% of those on target.

During the season we averaged 13.3 shots per game of which 5.1 are on target resulting in 1.5 goals. In the last 3 games we have averaged a season better average of 15.7 shots per game with 6 of those on target but have managed a very poor return of 0.7 goals per game.

During the season the opposition averaged 6.8 shots per game of which 2.4 are on target resulting in 0.9 goals. In the last 3 games they have averaged a season slightly better average of 7 shots per game with 3.7 of those on target but have managed an amazing return of 2.3 goals per game.

I am not a statistician but I would say the figures above prove our players have got proportionally as many shots on target as the opposition have and proportionally scored as many goals to the shots taken or shots on target as our opponents. The big difference in the last 3 games is not how many shots we have taken or got on target, as that is better than the season average, but the fact we haven't managed to score. Likewise our shots against have only been slightly worse than the season average but they have resulted in far more goals per game conceded.

Summing up our strikers in the last three games haven't had any luck or have not been clinical enough and our defense hasn't had any luck or not defended well enough. I suspect the truth is a mix of luck and performance. We have rode our luck at times this season and been good enough to win in other games. We are just having a spell where our luck has ran out at the same time as our performance has dipped slightly. Nothing to say that can't change on Sunday and we can go on a long unbeaten run and pick up some silverware. Don't panic!

Thanks for that, its very interesting but taken without a peer group comparison it has its limitations.

How would The Rangers and Falkirk's comparative stats show up?

[The_Exile]

So basically the stats show we're playing and acting like a bang average championship team? Isn't that heartwarming! :panic:

[wookie70]

The stats show that we convert our chances at a similar rate to the opposition but create more shots on goal

[Lancs Harp]

Our slump in form is a result of quite a few factors, whether its fewer chances created or taken or mistakes made or too many changes made to the team, they are all factors, but obviously you aren't going to win too many matches if, taking the Alloa match aside you only score 2 goals against moderate opposition (with all due respect) like Livi, Morton, Dumbarton and QoS in four games and equally you wont many games if you concede 3 goals in match like we did against Morton and Dumbarton.

Lots of questions to be answered at the moment as Im sure Stubbsy is very aware of.

[ancient hibee]

Surely comparing the number of goals we have scored to Rangers this season and Hearts last season tell you all you need to know.

[wookie70]

Here is a breakdown of the three top teams. Draw your own conclusions

16202

[FitbaFolkKen]

Here is a breakdown of the three top teams. Draw your own conclusions

16202

Falkirk are going to beat us 2.88 - 2.56 over 2 legs

[rcarter1]

Here is a breakdown of the three top teams. Draw your own conclusions

16202

First off - Hats off to the stats gatherer(s)… :top marks

So, we are not very good at taking chances compared to Falkirk and Rangers, but we create more chances than Falkirk, and so overall we have scored the same amount of goals as them. Seems about right.

What I would love to see is the relationship between player budget and goal scoring in this league.. :devil:

Need to work on shooting, or creating easier chances. (Hitting the bye-line and crossing?)

We have talented players, and more so than Falkirk is my impression. Just need to show them route to goal!

[wookie70]

Possibly a bit easier to understand.
It takes us 8.6 shots per goal on Average. Falkirk only need 6.7 and The Ranger 6.8.
With every 3.3 shots on Target we score a goal whereas it takes The Rangers and Falkirk only 3.

We concede a goal every 8 shots. The Rangers concede a goal every 10 shots and Falkirk even better at every 12.
We concede a goal every 2.8 shots on target. The Rangers concede a goal every 4.2 shots on target and Falkirk even better at every 4.6.

Rangers have shot the ball 1.28x more than us and get 5.2% more of those shots on target.
Falkirk have shot the ball 1.26x less than us but get 5.3% more of those shots on target. They have scored 1 more goal than us despite shooting 76 less times and hitting the target 14 times less.

Falkirk have also conceded 61 more shots than us of which 28 more were on target and have managed to concede 3 less goals.

If the stats tell me anything it is we are not as sharp as Falkirk up front despite creating more shots. We do very well against Falkirk in terms of giving up shots and shots on target but concede more goals. That suggests goalkeeper to me.

Rangers are also not too far away from us in terms of shots conceded and shots on target conceded but have managed to concede 7 less goals. Again that says Goalie differences to me. They also need to shoot less than us and hit the target less than us to score goals. Sharper strikers and a better creation as they make more shooting opportunities.



16203

[rcarter1]

Surely comparing the number of goals we have scored to Rangers this season and Hearts last season tell you all you need to know.

Pretty much. However these stats show that we can more chances than Falkirk, but are less able to take them. Hopefully we can use that to work out why.

Unfortunately the defence stats suggests that compared to Rangers and Falkirk we help other teams score with their chances. Im thinking either our formation lends itself to conceding easier chances, or the keeper is a bit …….

[rcarter1]

Possibly a bit easier to understand.
It takes us 8.6 shots per goal on Average. Falkirk only need 6.7 and The Ranger 6.8.
With every 3.3 shots on Target we score a goal whereas it takes The Rangers and Falkirk only 3.

We concede a goal every 8 shots. The Rangers concede a goal every 10 shots and Falkirk even better at every 12.
We concede a goal every 2.8 shots on target. The Rangers concede a goal every 4.2 shots on target and Falkirk even better at every 4.6.

Rangers have shot the ball 1.28x more than us and get 5.2% more of those shots on target.
Falkirk have shot the ball 1.26x less than us but get 5.3% more of those shots on target. They have scored 1 more goal than us despite shooting 76 less times and hitting the target 14 times less.

Falkirk have also conceded 61 more shots than us of which 28 more were on target and have managed to concede 3 less goals.

If the stats tell me anything it is we are not as sharp as Falkirk up front despite creating more shots. We do very well against Falkirk in terms of giving up shots and shots on target but concede more goals. That suggests goalkeeper to me.

Rangers are also not too far away from us in terms of shots conceded and shots on target conceded but have managed to concede 7 less goals. Again that says Goalie differences to me. They also need to shoot less than us and hit the target less than us to score goals. Sharper strikers and a better creation as they make more shooting opportunities.



16203

Im undecided about Oxley, but the stats could be explained in other ways. If the chances we concede are due to being caught on the break more so than Falkirk, then the shots we do concede may be converted by the opposition more easily than the shots Falkirk concede.

[wookie70]

Im undecided about Oxley, but the stats could be explained in other ways. If the chances we concede are due to being caught on the break more so than Falkirk, then the shots we do concede may be converted by the opposition more easily than the shots Falkirk concede.

Nothing conclusive about the stats but I have seen a lot of shots from outside or around the edge of the box go in. I have seen a lot great saves from Fotheringham and Rogers too. Purely anecdotal but I often think opposition goal keepers have great games against us but rarely have I thought that about the OX. He does have some great games but not enough for me.

[rcarter1]

Nothing conclusive about the stats but I have seen a lot of shots from outside or around the edge of the box go in. I have seen a lot great saves from Fotheringham and Rogers too. Purely anecdotal but I often think opposition goal keepers have great games against us but rarely have I thought that about the OX. He does have some great games but not enough for me.

I agree unfortunately that OX does not seem to make a lot of great saves. As a pro he should be looking at these stats, and doing his bit to improve, either by positioning or whatever. A player that isn't looking to improve, isn't for me a professional. I have no idea what OX does in training, but its hard to say he is the finished article. I hope Stubbs can, while retaining his belief and trust in the players, focus on these stats by addressing them in a professional manner. A manager who can't see their sides weaknesses-and work to address them is also not a pro in my book.

[gaz1875]

Excellent stuff, I was thinking today Falkirk have a lot less shots but seem to score more goals, this proves my thoughts were right. It also makes me think despite on paper having a fantastic looking strike force they are actually not any better than the team below us.

[BSEJVT]

Here is a breakdown of the three top teams. Draw your own conclusions

16202

Thanks very much for that.

It doesn't make encouraging reading even if it's unsurprising!

[Ronniekirk]

Stubbs has said that the amount of games we have been playing has resulted in managing the squad in a different way trying to rotate squad and rest up players ,and am sure he said with all these midweek games ,it was limiting what work they were doing on the training pitch .
Wonder if this may also be a factor ,and with wholesale changes injuries and for next game suspensions ,the team aren't building up an understanding
So form gets impacted upon
Last season Stevenson got burnt out through playing Too many games and the same could happen again towards the key play offs Given we have played more games this season


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[son of haggart]

For comparison - up to the last 6 games of last season you had

389 shots 169 on target 57 goals


Hearts for the same period had quite a few more shots not many more on target but a lot more converted.

[rcarter1]

For comparison - up to the last 6 games of last season you had

389 shots 169 on target 57 goals


Hearts for the same period had quite a few more shots not many more on target but a lot more converted.

You have a lot of outside the box goal scorers in your team, but I also think you pushed opponents back better, and led to a lot of chances being created in the 6 yard box (on with the defenders off balance). We seem to walk straight into teams, and its easier to get the blocks in, for the keeper to see what is coming, and such like. Our goal against you (:devil:) recently was a notable exception for us in terms of creating a virtually unmissable shot on target.

[son of haggart]

You have a lot of outside the box goal scorers in your team, but I also think you pushed opponents back better, and led to a lot of chances being created in the 6 yard box (on with the defenders off balance). We seem to walk straight into teams, and its easier to get the blocks in, for the keeper to see what is coming, and such like. Our goal against you (:devil:) recently was a notable exception for us in terms of creating a virtually unmissable shot on target.

Last year we had a big variety of strikers and three who would cut in from the wings and take potshots (King, Walker and Nicholson). You tended to focus more on your front two , and for all his merits shooting wasn't somerthing Scott Allan provided for you much. He was trying to create chances for the front two whereas everyone was taking shots for us - even our centre halves!

A bit different for us this year and the SPL defences, esp keepers are that bit better at dealing with long shots. This year for you, I was expecting Stokes to provide you with a really clinical finisher....

Stubbs doesn't seem as keen on width as Neilson either.

[oneone73]

Stubbs doesn't seem as keen on width as Neilson either.

You mean Potter.

[rcarter1]

Last year we had a big variety of strikers and three who would cut in from the wings and take potshots (King, Walker and Nicholson). You tended to focus more on your front two , and for all his merits shooting wasn't somerthing Scott Allan provided for you much. He was trying to create chances for the front two whereas everyone was taking shots for us - even our centre halves!

A bit different for us this year and the SPL defences, esp keepers are that bit better at dealing with long shots. This year for you, I was expecting Stokes to provide you with a really clinical finisher....

Stubbs doesn't seem as keen on width as Neilson either.

I agree with this. Problem we didn't really focus on creating good chances for them. It was all (and is) a bit random in terms of getting the ball to strikers in good positions (I put this at the door of both the strikers and the midfield - and hence to team shape and tactics - i.e. Stubbs).

You guys seem to get head height balls into the box more (?) and have had better height to exploit this? Is the hesitation to use width a way or reducing being caught on the break, or just deemed ineffective?