We're creating a lot of chances

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
Greaves_357

Greaves_357

According to this site

http://www.squawka.com/teams/tottenham-hotspur/stats

I've no idea of the validity of many of these stats, but it seems this site has plenty of them, so I like it anyway:thumbup: . Even if I suspect I may end up disagreeing with some of its analyses, if my first reading of the performance ratings is anything to go by.:)

Apparently the second most amongst all the major teams in Europe


http://blog.squawka.com/2013/02/18/...n-any-other-team-in-europe-spurs-are-second/?

Apparently more than Barcelona, which I find hard to believe, but hey what do I know?

http://www.squawka.com/teams/barcelona/stats

Though Barc have nearly twice as many goals from considerably less chances.

What I do know is IF these stats are correct, we're a lot more creative than many people, myself included, would have thought. Much will depend on what is meant by a 'chance', but at first sight these are shockingly good figures on the creative side.

Going back to the performance ratings, I'd love to know how we get 110 for winning at OT and 687 for winning at West Brom.

I guess it's just about the raw data, shots on target, pass completion, rather than who we're playing, the context of the game, previous histor, etc.
 
I haven't read the link yet, but if we create the second most chances in Europe, how far downtempo the list are we for scoring among European teams, and what does that mean? Just saying, this kind of stuff raises more questions than answers, for me
 
S.L.R said:
I haven't read the link yet, but if we create the second most chances in Europe, how far downtempo the list are we for scoring among European teams, and what does that mean? Just saying, this kind of stuff raises more questions than answers, for me
Click to expand...
I think the article raises many questions for me, which is why I like it so much IF the stats are reliable,

Asking questions is key to finding answers.

As RSpurs correctly says, one obvious implication is that we need another striker, and once more we have to wonder why we didn't get one.

But another is that we're a lot more creative than many give us credit for, including myself, who is one of the most positive about our form amongst Spurs fans.
 
What stats cannot show is how many are clear cut chances. Many of our chances or attempts are half-chances, which indicates a lack of ability to create simple chances. Barca may well have less chances, but then the ones they do are much better plus they have the likes of Messi to put them away.

Having said that, there are loads of chances we waste and that is due to the lack of a top class finisher.
 
Belgian Brownie said:
What stats cannot show is how many are clear cut chances. Many of our chances or attempts are half-chances, which indicates a lack of ability to create simple chances. Barca may well have less chances, but then the ones they do are much better plus they have the likes of Messi to put them away.

Having said that, there are loads of chances we waste and that is due to the lack of a top class finisher.
Click to expand...
Fair comments, as I say 'much will depend on what is meant by a 'chance'.
 
Éperons said:
I can't find it on Squawka, but according to Opta, they power the site. This means that the statistics are as "valid" as they'll get. This also means that Squawka's contribution isn't in data collection, but, rather in data presentation/visualisation.
[tweet]http://twitter.com/OptaSuit/status/240421263032598528[/tweet]
Click to expand...
Great info Eperon, this looks like a real goldmine of a site. If you're like me anyway, and love reading and 'debating' stats.

Time and again stats challenge commonly held views, and that is one one of their great beauties for me. I may not always agree with them, but they bring a fresh and fascinating perspective.
 
Greaves_357 said:
'much will depend on what is meant by a 'chance'.
Click to expand...
According to EPL Index (Opta notoriously, imo, have very, very little public-facing information about the data they have):
EPL Index said:
Opta do provide numbers for clear-cut chances created and converted. In their own words this is one of the “subjective stats” that they offer. Since the definition is not, er, clear-cut, we probably cannot form any definitive opinions but assuming consistency on the part of those recording the stats, maybe one can attempt to create an engrossing discussion on the subject.
Click to expand...
So I would tread lightly when trying to build arguments based on this statistic by itself. It's more useful to consider our conversion rate (shots on target vs. goals), or to look at our shots or goals as a function of the time we spend with the ball in the attacking third (compared to peer clubs). Finally, it'd be useful to look at pass completion rates in the attacking third compared both to our own average as well as the similar differences in peer clubs. I think our "chances created" can be sussed out of the penumbrae there.

Edit: Annnnnd, none of that data seems to sit on Squawka. I'm definitely not going to scrape my StatsZone app to collect it, either. Too bad. Who's willing to get a tattoo so TFC can raise the funds to have site-wide access to the Opta Suite?
 
Belgian Brownie said:
Yes, and what I am getting at is we need to create clearer chances put them away, meaning one AM and one striker needed. I am hoping Holtby can be the former and create chances that even Ade can put away.
Click to expand...
Fair comments. Do we tend to create more or less 'clear cut chances' than others in the top 10 of the Prem I wonder.

Are we creating more than last season?
 
Greaves_357 said:
All good points Eperons, well some of them I don't quite understand at first reading, but I think you know your stuff, so I reckon they're all good points. :)
Click to expand...
Well, the important thing is to normalise the data. Saying "Spurs have created 600 chances this year!" means absolutely nothing. So I'm trying to figure out ways to possibly suss out what a chance might be, and, subsequently, to put it into context—crucial steps before we wail about how useless Spurs are at scoring goals.

So here are the questions that data can answer:

1. How many shots, shots on target, and goals do we average per game? What percentage of shots on target become goals? What percentage of shots in general become goals? What percentage of shots are shots on target?

If we compare that to our peer clubs (top 8, let's say), we can get a sense of whether we're taking more useless shots, fewer shots, etc. There are, then, hypotheses: "not having a good striker would imply that we have fewer shots on target compared to clubs like Liverpool or Man U". I'm not saying that's true. But it's a testable hypothesis.

2. Take the counting stats above, but don't consider them "per game", but, rather, "per minute spent in the attacking third". Then compare that to peer clubs. Do we generate more or fewer shots for every minute we spend in the attacking third? More or fewer goals?

A common critique of Spurs is that we're completely useless in the box. That feels right. But this could help answer it. We seem to spend a ton of time in the attacking third with very, very few goals to show for it.

3. Then look at passing rates. We complete n% of our passes in general per game and m% of them in the box. m < n, I think in basically all circumstances, for all clubs. So how does our (n - m) compare across the season? And how does it, again, compare to peer clubs?

If, as we suspect, we're useless in the box, then our (n - m) would be much larger compared to other clubs (and will have been growing since Defoe's injury).

These aren't definitive, of course, but they might help shed some light on our seeming lack of goals. OTOH, if they were rather in line with our peer clubs, it would suggest that, for our anecdotal feelings about Spurs to be validated, we'd have to consider some other metric that's a bit less of a blunt instrument.
 
Greaves_357 said:
I disagree. I think there's plenty new here. I think the stats are massively interesting, not just about our chance conversion, especially given Eperon's info on their validity.
Click to expand...
The stats aren't new. I've seen the same statistics visualized in different manners by a number of site over the past couple of seasons, each time showing Spurs as creating among the highest number of chances throughout Europe, but having poor conversion.
 
VirginiaSpur said:
The stats aren't new. I've seen the same statistics visualized in different manners by a number of site over the past couple of seasons, each time showing Spurs as creating among the highest number of chances throughout Europe, but having poor conversion.
Click to expand...
Fine, they're new to me. And I would suggest they're new to a lot of people who complain about our creativity, I've been on here a while (first reading, then posting) and I haven't seen one person cite these stats in the relevant discussions.
 
Éperons said:
Well, the important thing is to normalise the data. Saying "Spurs have created 600 chances this year!" means absolutely nothing. So I'm trying to figure out ways to possibly suss out what a chance might be, and, subsequently, to put it into context—crucial steps before we wail about how useless Spurs are at scoring goals.

So here are the questions that data can answer:

1. How many shots, shots on target, and goals do we average per game? What percentage of shots on target become goals? What percentage of shots in general become goals? What percentage of shots are shots on target?

If we compare that to our peer clubs (top 8, let's say), we can get a sense of whether we're taking more useless shots, fewer shots, etc. There are, then, hypotheses: "not having a good striker would imply that we have fewer shots on target compared to clubs like Liverpool or Man U". I'm not saying that's true. But it's a testable hypothesis.

2. Take the counting stats above, but don't consider them "per game", but, rather, "per minute spent in the attacking third". Then compare that to peer clubs. Do we generate more or fewer shots for every minute we spend in the attacking third? More or fewer goals?

A common critique of Spurs is that we're completely useless in the box. That feels right. But this could help answer it. We seem to spend a ton of time in the attacking third with very, very few goals to show for it.

3. Then look at passing rates. We complete n% of our passes in general per game and m% of them in the box. m < n, I think in basically all circumstances, for all clubs. So how does our (n - m) compare across the season? And how does it, again, compare to peer clubs?

If, as we suspect, we're useless in the box, then our (n - m) would be much larger compared to other clubs (and will have been growing since Defoe's injury).

These aren't definitive, of course, but they might help shed some light on our seeming lack of goals. OTOH, if they were rather in line with our peer clubs, it would suggest that, for our anecdotal feelings about Spurs to be validated, we'd have to consider some other metric that's a bit less of a blunt instrument.
Click to expand...

I disagree to say that Spurs created 600 chances means nothing, if that's how many chances we've created that's a piece of valid data that is worth noting.

To me it is very noteworthy that we have created the second highest amount of chances amongst the major teams in Europe, and it's not something I would have picked up anecdotally from conversations on here, other Spurs forums and indeed down the pub etc.

I keep hearing the same lament that we're not creating many chances, that Parker and Dembele are holding us back creatively, etc etc.

As you say more sophisticated analysis is needed to unpack the numbers, I think the raw numbers are interesting in themselves.

But I shall certainly be quoting this stat quite a few times in the future I suspect when people are talking about our creativity.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom