Cies Football Observatory - The importance of big chances… or not!

[Attila]

The ability to both create and convert big chances is a key success factor. However, issue number 187 of the CIES Football Observatory Weekly Post highlights that in four out of the five major European leagues, teams heading the table distinguished themselves from runner-up clubs above all for their ability to score with no clear-cut opportunity available.

http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2016/187/en/

United at 34%...7th worst out of 98 teams teams worse than us are

Stoke 31
Montpeiller 33
Angers 31
Rennes 32
Empoli 32
Bologna 33

 

[Son Of Sam]

Story of United's life.

To think the team has actually created more "clear-cut" chances than Chelsea and we are 19 points behind them is a testament to our poor attacking quality.

Jose should sack the entire strikers.

 

[Arruda]

Stats in football are shit. They say very little.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Stats in football are shit. They say very little.

Yes, but they say what you want them to say.

 

[DWelbz19]

Only Eibar have a higher chance conversion rate than Monaco. Blimey.

 

[RedSky]

Stats in football are shit. They say very little.

Only if you don't understand them.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yes, but they say what you want them to say.

No they don't.

Stats don't say anything. They're just stats.

It's how they're interpreted that matters. The stats in the OP are easy to interpret. We've created shit-loads of chances but our finishing has been gash. If we'd even managed an average conversion rate this season we'd have top four absolutely nailed down and possibly still be in a title race. Of course, we all knew that already.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

No they don't.

Stats don't say anything. They're just stats.

It's how they're interpreted that matters. The stats in the OP are easy to interpret. We've created shit-loads of chances but our finishing has been gash. If we'd even managed an average conversion rate this season we'd have top four absolutely nailed down and possibly still be in a title race. Of course, we all knew that already.

I've interpreted the footage from the football matches different too. Not enough clear cut chances, a lot of shots from quite difficult angles and attempts to blast it through defenders and goalkeeper.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I've interpreted the footage from the football matches different too. Not enough clear cut chances, a lot of shots from quite difficult angles and attempts to blast it through defenders and goalkeeper.

That's not interpreting anything. That's just your (flawed) memory of what happened.

The stats in the OP are based on a consistent interpretation of events on the pitch, applied to every team in every league. Completely different to you giving your (biased) opinion on what you think happened at United.

 

[villain]

We were 3rd in chances created, and converted 34% of them.

It would be funny if it wasn't so depressing.

 

[el3mel]

I've interpreted the footage from the football matches different too. Not enough clear cut chances, a lot of shots from quite difficult angles and attempts to blast it through defenders and goalkeeper.

That " clear cut chance" that's repeated a lot here is very funny. So our amazing players can't score unless they are 1 vs 1 with the GK (ignore the fact that they aleardy missed multiple of these chances too). They can't score any creative goals or take hard shots like any top team in the world, as if Chelsea system put the players straight in front of the opposite GK to allow them to score.

If this proves anything it proves how limited our players are , that the only way for them to score is to be in 5 yards from a goal with no GK standing to score.

 

[Ish]

Stats in football are shit. They say very little.

Stats alone, sure. But I agree with Pogue below. Stats, in conjunction with another form of evidence, like observations or so, could make it very meaningful.

No they don't.

Stats don't say anything. They're just stats.

It's how they're interpreted that matters. The stats in the OP are easy to interpret. We've created shit-loads of chances but our finishing has been gash. If we'd even managed an average conversion rate this season we'd have top four absolutely nailed down and possibly still be in a title race. Of course, we all knew that already.

 

[Moonwalker]

I'd love to know what constitutes a 'big' chance, and why it is that we are fourth in chance creation according to squawka (with 425 chances), yet first according to these stats.

Perhaps some of these enlightened gentlemen, to whom it's all so clear, can elucidate it for the lower orders.

 

[RedSky]

I'd love to know what constitutes a 'big' chance, and why it is that we are fourth in chance creation according to squawka (with 425 chances), yet first according to these stats.

Perhaps some of these enlightened gentlemen, to whom it's all so clear, can elucidate it for the lower orders.

Big chance
A situation where a player should reasonably be expected to score usually in a one-on-one scenario or from very close range.

Squawka take their data from Opta so it's a simple copy/paste job. CIES do their own stat recording:

The CIES Football Observatory is a research group within the International Centre for Sports Studies (CIES), which is an independent study centre located in Neuchâtel, Switzerland. Created in 2005 by Dr. Raffaele Poli and Dr. Loïc Ravenel, the CIES Football Observatory currently comprises a staff of four full-time permanent researchers who specialise in the statistical analysis of football.

The reason there's a difference is because Opta and CIES obviously interpret chances differently. Who knows which one is more accurate, Opta is more widely used but that doesn't mean it's more accurate. Just that it's more accessible/obtainable.

 

[fellwin]

I'd love to know what constitutes a 'big' chance, and why it is that we are fourth in chance creation according to squawka (with 425 chances), yet first according to these stats.

Perhaps some of these enlightened gentlemen, to whom it's all so clear, can elucidate it for the lower orders.

Besides we are not really first but 3rd behind Tottemham and City

 

[rocks13]

So if Stoke were better finishers they'd probably be above us in the league?

 

[Moonwalker]

Besides we are not really first but 3rd behind Tottemham and City

Right, my bad. That's certainly less of a discrepancy.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

That's not interpreting anything. That's just your (flawed) memory of what happened.

The stats in the OP are based on a consistent interpretation of events on the pitch, applied to every team in every league. Completely different to you giving your (biased) opinion on what you think happened at United.

Yes, but every team plays differently with different players, and tends to create a different kind of chance when it comes to the numbers.

Big chance

A situation where a player should reasonably be expected to score usually in a one-on-one scenario or from very close range.

I'm sorry but that's not much of an objective standard.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yes, but every team plays differently with different players, and tends to create a different kind of chance when it comes to the numbers.


I'm sorry but that's not much of an objective standard.

Well it blows your "blasting shots through defenders and goalkeeper" stuff out of the water, that's for sure.

 

[RedSky]

Well it blows your "blasting shots through defenders and goalkeeper" stuff out of the water, that's for sure.

You'd laugh hard if you could see the stats I have infront of me.

 

[rocks13]

You'd laugh hard if you could see the stats I have infront of me.

Is that the stats of actual goals scored and points gained?

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Well it blows your "blasting shots through defenders and goalkeeper" stuff out of the water, that's for sure.

Appearently some here consider it extremely bad luck/poor finishing when such a shot gets defleted off target.

 

[NYAS]

I don't care how ridiculous I sound to some of you Uber-negatives on here but the stuff in the OP is exactly the reason why I don't think we're far away at all to being a genuinely top team again.

 

[RedSky]

Is that the stats of actual goals scored and points gained?

Nah, conversion rates depending on areas of the pitch.

 

[RedSky]

To get your juices flowing... here's an interesting stat...

Manchester United has the 2nd highest amount of shots in the Six Yard Box (43) and yet has the 2nd worst conversion rate in the Six Yard Box (23.3%)

 

[Lentwood]

I think you only need a pair of functioning eyes and to have watched a few of our games to see that finishing generally has been an issue

Obviously every side thinks finishing is an issue as you tend to remember the big chances that you missed - however these stats back up what the majority of sensible heads at Utd have said all season.

We are two goalscorers away from title challengers

 

[Pogue Mahone]

To get your juices flowing... here's an interesting stat...

Manchester United has the 2nd highest amount of shots in the Six Yard Box (43) and yet has the 2nd worst conversion rate in the Six Yard Box (23.3%)

Crazy stats but the "and yet" is kind of misleading. If you're talking about conversion rate then the absolute number of shots is irrelevant. That 23.3% is no more or less atrocious whether we have the most or least amount of shots in total.

 

[Akshay]

Crazy stats but the "and yet" is kind of misleading. If you're talking about conversion rate then the absolute number of shots is irrelevant. That 23.3% is no more or less atrocious whether we have the most or least amount of shots in total.

I guess the link could be that the sample size isn't as small, so the percentage is more likely to be relevant. If we'd had had very few shots in that area it would have been hard to know if the conversion rate really meant anything.

It's frustrating - some like to call us a boring team based on the number of goalless draws at OT but it's the finishing far more than general play that's the cause of that.

 

[RedSky]

I guess the link could be that the sample size isn't as small, so the percentage is more likely to be relevant. If we'd had had very few shots in that area it would have been hard to know if the conversion rate really meant anything.

It's frustrating - some like to call us a boring team based on the number of goalless draws at OT but it's the finishing far more than general play that's the cause of that.

Some other stats...

Manchester United:
Total Shots: 563 (4th)
Outside of Box: 234 (2nd)
Six Yard Box: 43 (2nd)
Penalty Area: 286 (5th)
Goals: 51 (7th)

Our percentage of Blocked Shots is pretty low (12th)
Our percentage of On Target is pretty high (4th)
Our percentage of Off Target is very low (16th)

What this does all show with the inclusion of the stats in my other post is that we're actually putting an impressive amount of shots on target, but not many of them actually result in goals. Not only that but we're very bad at finishing in the six yard box, average in the Penalty Area and Outside of the Box. We can't even blame the fact our shots are blocked a lot, percentage wise we're about average on that stat.

The Goal Conversion says it all for me:

1. Chelsea - 14.5%
2. Arsenal - 12.6%
3. Everton - 12%
4. Liverpool - 11.9%
5. Bournemouth - 11.8%
6. Tottenham Hotspur - 11.3%
7. Manchester City - 11.2%
8. West Brom - 11.1%
9. Leicester - 11%
10. Swansea - 10.5%
11. Crystal Palace - 10.5%
12. Burnley - 10%
13. West Ham - 9.3%
14. Hull - 9.3%
15. Watford - 9.2%
16. Manchester United - 9.1%
17. Stoke - 8.7%
18. Middlesbrough - 7.6%
19. Southampton - 7.6%
20. Sunderland - 7.5%

Stats taken from Whoscored

 

[#07]

Some other stats...

Manchester United:
Total Shots: 563 (4th)
Outside of Box: 234 (2nd)
Six Yard Box: 43 (2nd)
Penalty Area: 286 (5th)
Goals: 51 (7th)

Our percentage of Blocked Shots is pretty low (12th)
Our percentage of On Target is pretty high (4th)
Our percentage of Off Target is very low (16th)

What this does all show with the inclusion of the stats in my other post is that we're actually putting an impressive amount of shots on target, but not many of them actually result in goals. Not only that but we're very bad at finishing in the six yard box, average in the Penalty Area and Outside of the Box. We can't even blame the fact our shots are blocked a lot, percentage wise we're about average on that stat.

The Goal Conversion says it all for me:

1. Chelsea - 14.5%
2. Arsenal - 12.6%
3. Everton - 12%
4. Liverpool - 11.9%
5. Bournemouth - 11.8%
6. Tottenham Hotspur - 11.3%
7. Manchester City - 11.2%
8. West Brom - 11.1%
9. Leicester - 11%
10. Swansea - 10.5%
11. Crystal Palace - 10.5%
12. Burnley - 10%
13. West Ham - 9.3%
14. Hull - 9.3%
15. Watford - 9.2%
16. Manchester United - 9.1%
17. Stoke - 8.7%
18. Middlesbrough - 7.6%
19. Southampton - 7.6%
20. Sunderland - 7.5%

Stats taken from Whoscored

This is embarrassing but just proves what I could see with my own eyes: We are bottlers in front of goal. How can we be second for shots inside the six yard box and have scored so little?

I'm still p'd at that Rooney chance at the Emirates. If he scores that or squares it...

...and yet nobody could pretend it was the first time. We have f'd up so many easy chances this season. If I hadn't seen it I wouldn't believe it was possible.

That's why I don't blame the manager and I don't understand long threads about his tactics. We aren't having a shocking season cos he plays defensively in the big games. We are having a shocking season because we outplay the likes of Stoke, Burnley, Hull, Bournemouth etc. and sky golden opportunity to score. Does my head in!

 

[Akshay]

Some other stats...

Thanks for that comprehensive breakdown. So if our shots aren't being blocked and we're shooting on target, the only possible conclusion is that we're hitting the keeper a lot of the time, right? Some pretty depressing stats there tbh, as it seems to be a team-wide issue and not just 1 or 2 players.

 

[wolvored]

That " clear cut chance" that's repeated a lot here is very funny. So our amazing players can't score unless they are 1 vs 1 with the GK (ignore the fact that they aleardy missed multiple of these chances too). They can't score any creative goals or take hard shots like any top team in the world, as if Chelsea system put the players straight in front of the opposite GK to allow them to score.

If this proves anything it proves how limited our players are , that the only way for them to score is to be in 5 yards from a goal with no GK standing to score.

Lingard would still miss, but your right with the rest.

 

[el3mel]

Lingard would still miss, but your right with the rest.

 

[Liver_bird]

So we're actually pretty good finishers judging by those stats.
Although somewhat skewed by how utterly shit we've been in 2017.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Some other stats...

Manchester United:
Total Shots: 563 (4th)
Outside of Box: 234 (2nd)
Six Yard Box: 43 (2nd)
Penalty Area: 286 (5th)
Goals: 51 (7th)

Our percentage of Blocked Shots is pretty low (12th)
Our percentage of On Target is pretty high (4th)
Our percentage of Off Target is very low (16th)

What this does all show with the inclusion of the stats in my other post is that we're actually putting an impressive amount of shots on target, but not many of them actually result in goals. Not only that but we're very bad at finishing in the six yard box, average in the Penalty Area and Outside of the Box. We can't even blame the fact our shots are blocked a lot, percentage wise we're about average on that stat.

The Goal Conversion says it all for me:

1. Chelsea - 14.5%
2. Arsenal - 12.6%
3. Everton - 12%
4. Liverpool - 11.9%
5. Bournemouth - 11.8%
6. Tottenham Hotspur - 11.3%
7. Manchester City - 11.2%
8. West Brom - 11.1%
9. Leicester - 11%
10. Swansea - 10.5%
11. Crystal Palace - 10.5%
12. Burnley - 10%
13. West Ham - 9.3%
14. Hull - 9.3%
15. Watford - 9.2%
16. Manchester United - 9.1%
17. Stoke - 8.7%
18. Middlesbrough - 7.6%
19. Southampton - 7.6%
20. Sunderland - 7.5%

Stats taken from Whoscored

Nice. Love me some stats.

Tell you what, though. It's good to see some evidence to back up the idea that heroic goalkeeping is a factor in all our missed chances. We do seem to be hitting the target a lot. Admittedly we're obviously not picking out the corners but still, even without doing that you'd usually expect a better return so long as you get your shots on target.

 

[Lentwood]

Nice. Love me some stats.

Tell you what, though. It's good to see some evidence to back up the idea that heroic goalkeeping is a factor in all our missed chances. We do seem to be hitting the target a lot. Admittedly we're obviously not picking out the corners but still, even without doing that you'd usually expect a better return so long as you get your shots on target.

I also saw a stat from Opta recently (Sky Sports ran a piece on it) that said that based on the percentage of shots saved at certain trajectory, power, angles etc....Utd should have scored a total of 5 more goals than we actually have given "average" goalkeeping performances

Who knows where those 5 goals might have taken us given the nimber of draws we have had?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I also saw a stat from Opta recently (Sky Sports ran a piece on it) that said that based on the percentage of shots saved at certain trajectory, power, angles etc....Utd should have scored a total of 5 more goals than we actually have given "average" goalkeeping performances

Who knows where those 5 goals might have taken us given the nimber of draws we have had?

Well I guess that depends on how many more goals the teams around us would have been given using the same rationale.

 

[Lentwood]

Well I guess that depends on how many more goals the teams around us would have been given using the same rationale.

True - but the whole point of the article was to actually confirm that goalkeepers really are performing better against us than against other sides (I have a theory that this is because they are kept busier and therefore are more switched on/physically ready when the shots come in)

Therefore you would reasonably expect that since it's an average and we are on the right side of the average, our league position would improve. Especially given the sheer number of games where one more goal would have meant two more points

 

[frank lee madeer..]

There must be an explanation for this.

Last season we were clinical , but didn't create enough. We're the few chances we created last season better chances? I'd have to say yes , they must have been for similar players to be so clinical at times.

As for us creating more this season but being unlucky & a bit crap , yes , the stats & eyes confirm we create more , but I'm not convinced we miss them due to general bad luck & crapness. A team that was clinical becomes less clinical / positively wasteful because it creates more good chances? Hmmm?
Isn't it more likely that we just play a little bit too slowly & predictably & that that gives opposing teams that extra split second they require that allows them to be in a slightly better defensive position.
Fine margins maybe , lots of reactive movement can happen in that split second.

* personally I think we need to improve the balance between attack & defence , then things will improve goal wise. Commit more men into the final 3rd. We have no qualms about committing men to ourdefensive 3rd & that has made our defence solid, it's only logical that the reverse of this would help our attack..