Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rob W

Long range Goals

Recommended Posts

According to the "indie" this morning 31% of our goals have been scored from outside the Penalty Area - only Liverpool have scored more (33%) = crap strikers I guess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
Thats manc-mag territory tbh. Anything from 25-50 yards out and I'm in range. Top right hand corner a speciality. FACT.

65793[/snapback]

Pro-evo tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats manc-mag territory tbh. Anything from 25-50 yards out and I'm in range. Top right hand corner a speciality. FACT.

65793[/snapback]

Pro-evo tbh.

65796[/snapback]

 

Stockport and District Sunday League Division 2 tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

65795[/snapback]

 

 

No it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats manc-mag territory tbh. Anything from 25-50 yards out and I'm in range. Top right hand corner a speciality. FACT.

65793[/snapback]

Pro-evo tbh.

65796[/snapback]

 

Stockport and District Sunday League Division 2 tbh.

65797[/snapback]

 

Under 11's :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

65795[/snapback]

 

 

No it doesn't.

65805[/snapback]

 

pedantic tbh. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats manc-mag territory tbh. Anything from 25-50 yards out and I'm in range. Top right hand corner a speciality. FACT.

65793[/snapback]

Pro-evo tbh.

65796[/snapback]

 

Stockport and District Sunday League Division 2 tbh.

65797[/snapback]

 

Under 11's :lol:

65808[/snapback]

 

I only get a game when theres under 11 of us. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidentally, it's rumoured Gemmill cant kick a ball into an open goal from outside the box without it bouncing AT LEAST 3 TIMES!

65807[/snapback]

 

Toontastic Exclusive! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

65795[/snapback]

It shows that 31% of our goals were scored from outside the box. It doesn't show how many were free-kicks, it doesn't say how many of those score closer in were from just inside the box, how many of the other 69% were from headers from set-pieces, how many were tap-ins, how many were pens. So to slightly alter my initial statement, it's a pretty meaningless stat imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to think we didn't score nearly enough goals from outsied the area. One day we'll learn to do both and might win something.

65830[/snapback]

 

 

Most the goals we've scored from my memory this season have been close range efforts, I thought? I'm confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used to think we didn't score nearly enough goals from outsied the area. One day we'll learn to do both and might win something.

65830[/snapback]

 

 

Most the goals we've scored from my memory this season have been close range efforts, I thought? I'm confused.

65833[/snapback]

 

79% of stats are made up I think, so that probably explains it. It doesn't surprise me actually, as 31% isn't that much seeing as we haven't scored many goals. Haven't the mackems scored more league goals than us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

65795[/snapback]

 

 

No it doesn't.

65805[/snapback]

 

 

actually you are right - it means we're scoring a higher than PL average of our goals from a distance

 

Route 1 strikers in other words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

65795[/snapback]

It shows that 31% of our goals were scored from outside the box. It doesn't show how many were free-kicks, it doesn't say how many of those score closer in were from just inside the box, how many of the other 69% were from headers from set-pieces, how many were tap-ins, how many were pens. So to slightly alter my initial statement, it's a pretty meaningless stat imo.

65831[/snapback]

 

 

You've just proved my point - a simple stat and you've seen at least 5 posiible answers

 

Are you a research scientist perchance???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

65795[/snapback]

It shows that 31% of our goals were scored from outside the box. It doesn't show how many were free-kicks, it doesn't say how many of those score closer in were from just inside the box, how many of the other 69% were from headers from set-pieces, how many were tap-ins, how many were pens. So to slightly alter my initial statement, it's a pretty meaningless stat imo.

65831[/snapback]

 

 

You've just proved my point - a simple stat and you've seen at least 5 posiible answers

 

Are you a research scientist perchance???

65901[/snapback]

What I meant was the stat in itself isn't meaningful because it doesn't give enough info. So I've proved you wrong. Also, the point above about it meaning we have route one strikers is bollocks; it may well be the case but the stat you gave neither proves or disproves that. Nice try though :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

65795[/snapback]

It shows that 31% of our goals were scored from outside the box. It doesn't show how many were free-kicks, it doesn't say how many of those score closer in were from just inside the box, how many of the other 69% were from headers from set-pieces, how many were tap-ins, how many were pens. So to slightly alter my initial statement, it's a pretty meaningless stat imo.

65831[/snapback]

 

 

You've just proved my point - a simple stat and you've seen at least 5 posiible answers

 

Are you a research scientist perchance???

65901[/snapback]

What I meant was the stat in itself isn't meaningful because it doesn't give enough info. So I've proved you wrong. Also, the point above about it meaning we have route one strikers is bollocks; it may well be the case but the stat you gave neither proves or disproves that. Nice try though :lol:

65934[/snapback]

 

hey they're running a Dickens serial on radio 4 at 19:45 .......................... :lol:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goals from outside the box are just as valuable as those from inside the area. The most important stat related to our goals is that we aren't scoring enough of them.

65910[/snapback]

 

Here endeth the discussion. Top post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest alex
No stat is meaningless

 

 

This one shows we aren't scoring goals at close range - which is where the strikers (cough cough splutter) are supposed to be

65795[/snapback]

It shows that 31% of our goals were scored from outside the box. It doesn't show how many were free-kicks, it doesn't say how many of those score closer in were from just inside the box, how many of the other 69% were from headers from set-pieces, how many were tap-ins, how many were pens. So to slightly alter my initial statement, it's a pretty meaningless stat imo.

65831[/snapback]

 

 

You've just proved my point - a simple stat and you've seen at least 5 posiible answers

 

Are you a research scientist perchance???

65901[/snapback]

What I meant was the stat in itself isn't meaningful because it doesn't give enough info. So I've proved you wrong. Also, the point above about it meaning we have route one strikers is bollocks; it may well be the case but the stat you gave neither proves or disproves that. Nice try though :lol:

65934[/snapback]

 

hey they're running a Dickens serial on radio 4 at 19:45 .......................... ;);)

65940[/snapback]

Are you sure it isn't an adaptation of a novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

Recent tweets

Toontastic Facebook

Donate to Toontastic

Keeping the lights on since... well ages ago
TT-Staff


×