By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Because the keeper is behind the defender who blocked the ball - it's doesn't matter if the keeper couldn't have saved the ball had it not been blocked, it's about whether the person doing the blocking is effectively the "last man"
Just one small problem; sell their houses to who, Ben? Fcking Aquaman?
Why is this not a 'shot on target' on 16:23 - Nov 27 by Ewan_Oozami
Because the keeper is behind the defender who blocked the ball - it's doesn't matter if the keeper couldn't have saved the ball had it not been blocked, it's about whether the person doing the blocking is effectively the "last man"
So to be 'on target' as shot has to be heading towards the goal and stopped by the last person it is possible to stop it? Or go in of course.
It makes the whole 'shots on target' stat even more meaningless since it is not actually all shots on target. Just some of them.
Why is this not a 'shot on target' on 16:25 - Nov 27 by GeoffSentence
So to be 'on target' as shot has to be heading towards the goal and stopped by the last person it is possible to stop it? Or go in of course.
It makes the whole 'shots on target' stat even more meaningless since it is not actually all shots on target. Just some of them.
Yep, definitely a degree of subjectivity there, but these are the official Opta definitions that count towards the stats:
Shot on target A shot on target is defined as any goal attempt that: - Goes into the net regardless of intent. - Is a clear attempt to score that would have gone into the net but for being saved by the goalkeeper or is stopped by a player who is the last-man with the goalkeeper having no chance of preventing the goal (last line block). Shots directly hitting the frame of the goal are not counted as shots on target, unless the ball goes in and is awarded as a goal. Shots blocked by another player, who is not the last-man, are not counted as shots on target.
Just one small problem; sell their houses to who, Ben? Fcking Aquaman?
Why is this not a 'shot on target' on 17:01 - Nov 27 by Ewan_Oozami
Yep, definitely a degree of subjectivity there, but these are the official Opta definitions that count towards the stats:
Shot on target A shot on target is defined as any goal attempt that: - Goes into the net regardless of intent. - Is a clear attempt to score that would have gone into the net but for being saved by the goalkeeper or is stopped by a player who is the last-man with the goalkeeper having no chance of preventing the goal (last line block). Shots directly hitting the frame of the goal are not counted as shots on target, unless the ball goes in and is awarded as a goal. Shots blocked by another player, who is not the last-man, are not counted as shots on target.
That's ridiculous. Shots on target should be shots on target!
Why is this not a 'shot on target' on 17:01 - Nov 27 by Ewan_Oozami
Yep, definitely a degree of subjectivity there, but these are the official Opta definitions that count towards the stats:
Shot on target A shot on target is defined as any goal attempt that: - Goes into the net regardless of intent. - Is a clear attempt to score that would have gone into the net but for being saved by the goalkeeper or is stopped by a player who is the last-man with the goalkeeper having no chance of preventing the goal (last line block). Shots directly hitting the frame of the goal are not counted as shots on target, unless the ball goes in and is awarded as a goal. Shots blocked by another player, who is not the last-man, are not counted as shots on target.
Huh, you learn summit new every day on here.
I'm pretty sure shots have been counted in the past when,a 25 or 30 yard speculative effort has been blocked in a crowded penaly area when there would have been plenty of cover. But maybe not, I'll pay more attention from now on.
This was a lot easier to ework out in MM's day, as there's only ever be a few shots on target or otherwise in the whole game!
Goalie has to make a save from it to be a shot on target, so the ball has to get to the keeper not just be in the general direction toward the goal but never get there, so no that doesnt count
And seriously if that did count and that was our best effort on goal no wonder we drew 0-0
.... some bound for goal but stopped by a defender, off the line in the case you point out, and by a very clear looking arm on another....
OPTA state - "Shots blocked by another player, who is not the last-man, are not counted as shots on target", now I don't think the keeper would have actually go to those 2 and maybe more.
The 17 shots off target is a narrative for those on the board who have their minds set against this season, this league and Lambert.
Yes room for improvement, but we're playing OK, we're in a good position in the table, and the majority of fans are enjoying it, that's why we're getting 19k fans
Because we had 17 shots and 7 (SEVEN) were blocked.... on 22:18 - Nov 27 by unstableblue
.... some bound for goal but stopped by a defender, off the line in the case you point out, and by a very clear looking arm on another....
OPTA state - "Shots blocked by another player, who is not the last-man, are not counted as shots on target", now I don't think the keeper would have actually go to those 2 and maybe more.
The 17 shots off target is a narrative for those on the board who have their minds set against this season, this league and Lambert.
Yes room for improvement, but we're playing OK, we're in a good position in the table, and the majority of fans are enjoying it, that's why we're getting 19k fans
Its quite simple
[Post edited 27 Nov 2019 22:21]
Did we have 17 shots? I thought one reaction said we didn't create anything.
OK statistics, damn lies and statistics, but 17 shots (plus one that should have been a goal but for a wrong refereeing decision) doesn't sound bad against a side with Wycombe's defensive record.
Because we had 17 shots and 7 (SEVEN) were blocked.... on 22:28 - Nov 27 by Nthsuffolkblue
Did we have 17 shots? I thought one reaction said we didn't create anything.
OK statistics, damn lies and statistics, but 17 shots (plus one that should have been a goal but for a wrong refereeing decision) doesn't sound bad against a side with Wycombe's defensive record.
... remember the narrative is we were sh!t and it was a terrible game.
Ignore the 65% possession as well!
Oh and the fact our average home attendance thus far is 20k!
Now the Rotherham game this season - that was a terrible terrible performance - where, drum roll - we had 3 shots, perhaps these stats are onto something
Because we had 17 shots and 7 (SEVEN) were blocked.... on 22:28 - Nov 27 by Nthsuffolkblue
Did we have 17 shots? I thought one reaction said we didn't create anything.
OK statistics, damn lies and statistics, but 17 shots (plus one that should have been a goal but for a wrong refereeing decision) doesn't sound bad against a side with Wycombe's defensive record.
The flouncers say we didn't create anything. The sane people see that we were the better side.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
