luck... did I hear someone say ?

[david in sweden]

Everytime this question comes up people say you make your own luck.

 

Well.. after yesterday......a penalty saved, then hitting the post TWICE

had more shots on target than City ......but then the flukey second goal .

 

Does anyone out there believe in luck.....either good or bad ?

[Whitey Grandad]

Perhaps they should aim for the goal instead of the posts.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Rule No 1 in Football...

 

If you're ****ing good enough you don't need luck.

[aintforever]

We've had our share of good and bad luck, just like every other team in the league.

 

Bristol's second goal wasn't luck. They scored because our keeper ran the lenth of the pitch and got nowhere near the ball and Lloyd James runs like he is holding in a crap.

[pilsburydoughboy]

Its all in the mindset.Our players are probaly sick to death of the ******s that run the club and so are feeling very negative.How would you feel if the chairman of the club you played for was the laughing stock of football.

[The Milkybarkid]

You make your own luck surely? Had we got a striker at the club capapble of putting those chances between the sticks rather than against them/wide of them, we'd be sat here smugly looking forward to Preston and three points nearer safety. That's not a luck thing, that's just incompetence....

[Ponty]

Luck is involved, no doubt about it.

[um pahars]

Does anyone out there believe in luck.....either good or bad ?

 

It's a total irrational train of thought.

 

For me, luck simply does not exist.

[pilsburydoughboy]

It's a total irrational train of thought.

 

For me, luck simply does not exist.

 

 

Are you c3po?

[St Paul]

It's just our luck to have the games worst Chairman at the Club......

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Luck is involved, no doubt about it.

 

 

You never learn Ponty

[Thedelldays]

of course luck plays a part...but not every week..

[SaintRobbie]

Luck is involved, no doubt about it.

 

Yes but not consistently game after game...

 

Sorry our problems have nothing to do with luck everything to do with gross mis-management.

[eurosaint]

Wolves were lucky to beat us recently!

Now they have 63 points and we have 28 points so I suppose we must be unlucky ??

At least (for the moment) Charlton are unluckier than us !!

[Ponty]

Yes but not consistently game after game...

Oh God no.

 

Sorry our problems have nothing to do with luck everything to do with gross mis-management.

I agree, to a high degree. Luck definitely plays a part from time to time though.

[Ponty]

In fact, some of the people who are suggesting luck has nothing to do with it, are exactly the people who've said we got lucky ourselves when we have snatched a point, or even a win.

 

Can't have it both ways guys.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Everytime this question comes up people say you make your own luck.

 

Well.. after yesterday......a penalty saved, then hitting the post TWICE

had more shots on target than City ......but then the flukey second goal .

 

Does anyone out there believe in luck.....either good or bad ?

 

 

You might be unlucky in a game but over a 46 match season ? - nonsense :smt048 . Remember Dave it was the Mad Professor who started this and no sane person takes any notice of him

[St Marco]

The thing is having watched most of our games i actually think we have in most cases been the more lucky team. So many times this season i have seen world class saves by Davis that i think hmmm how the fook did he get that? I wonder if he has been taking something!

Not just once in a match sometimes 3-4 times a match. We really really could of had some right tonkings this year and if Davis was not in the form of any keepers career we would of lost by so much more. In contrast at the other end very few if any games this season can i recall us dominating a game and pepering the opponents goal. Only 1 game i can honestly hold my hand up and say we deserved to win and that was the Reading away game. In so many other games we have been fortunate. The Doncaster game where we got a own goal and a penalty. The Derby game where we were getting destroyed and we had 1 shot and it went in. The Norwich game where we got that penalty. The Preston game when we had i think 5 shots and scored 3 with our winner being prety much the last kick of the game. There has been a lot of luck in other games where we failed to take advantage to i.e the Sheff game when they went 1 player down.

 

If we look at it and try to not be biased i have to say we deserve to be where we are not because of luck but because of ability. The team is very very poor and the results show that. Question is that simply the because the players are playing to their level or because the coach/manager isn't getting them to their level?

[Whitey Grandad]

I agree, to a high degree. Luck definitely plays a part from time to time though.

But not in the long run. It's called 'the central limit theorem'. There's a very good chapter by M. J. Moroney in 'Facts from Figures' called 'goals, floods and horse kicks' about the Poisson distribution, and as we all know, all distributions tend toward the Gaussian (or 'Normal') distribution no matter what the shape of the underlying distribution as the number of samples increases. Basically, the more shots on goal that you have, the more goals you score. Simple really, isn't it?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The longer Lowe stays, the more unluckier we seem to get.

[SaintRobbie]

Oh God no.

 

 

I agree, to a high degree. Luck definitely plays a part from time to time though.

 

From time to time. Yes.

 

But then, it also goes in our favour too... for example when we won at Preston. So all in all it balances over a season.

[saintwarwick]

Perhaps they should aim for the goal instead of the posts.

 

Absolutely, if you aim for the posts you will hit them, best aim for the big gap between them.

[SaintRobbie]

Absolutely, if you aim for the posts you will hit them, best aim for the big gap between them.

 

Fwd to...DaveMcGoaldraught@sfc.co.uk

[saintwarwick]

The thing is having watched most of our games i actually think we have in most cases been the more lucky team. So many times this season i have seen world class saves by Davis that i think hmmm how the fook did he get that? I wonder if he has been taking something!

Not just once in a match sometimes 3-4 times a match. We really really could of had some right tonkings this year and if Davis was not in the form of any keepers career we would of lost by so much more. In contrast at the other end very few if any games this season can i recall us dominating a game and pepering the opponents goal. Only 1 game i can honestly hold my hand up and say we deserved to win and that was the Reading away game. In so many other games we have been fortunate. The Doncaster game where we got a own goal and a penalty. The Derby game where we were getting destroyed and we had 1 shot and it went in. The Norwich game where we got that penalty. The Preston game when we had i think 5 shots and scored 3 with our winner being prety much the last kick of the game. There has been a lot of luck in other games where we failed to take advantage to i.e the Sheff game when they went 1 player down.

 

If we look at it and try to not be biased i have to say we deserve to be where we are not because of luck but because of ability. The team is very very poor and the results show that. Question is that simply the because the players are playing to their level or because the coach/manager isn't getting them to their level?

 

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/ClubShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

Guess being top of the stats disproves your highlighted theory. As for that Derby game I don't know what game you were watching but we destroyed them, fact. We have had our fair share of luck this season but we have been equally unlucky in games.

[Ponty]

Nice stat find SW.

[dubai_phil]

The more you practice the luckier you get

 

(With apologies to that famous golfer chappie)

 

In other words Staplewood is the problem and what they do there, not luck

[Greenridge]

The more you practice the luckier you get

 

(With apologies to that famous golfer chappie)

 

In other words Staplewood is the problem and what they do there, not luck

 

...Gary Player I think...anyway, any luck involved has to even itself out over the course of a season....hence we are 23rd. Or, assuming we've been horrifically unlucky as JP and Wotte would have us beleive and that we are due a whole load of luck in the remaining 14 games then we will probably finish 8th

[sperm_john]

I agree luck is involved

[SaintSparky]

Luck has nothing what so ever to do with it; we have not been good enough - end of story.

[MongoNeil]

We've had our share of good and bad luck, just like every other team in the league.

 

Bristol's second goal wasn't luck. They scored because our keeper ran the lenth of the pitch and got nowhere near the ball and Lloyd James runs like he is holding in a crap.

 

Proper laughed at that, it's so true as well...

[hypochondriac]

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/ClubShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

Guess being top of the stats disproves your highlighted theory. As for that Derby game I don't know what game you were watching but we destroyed them, fact. We have had our fair share of luck this season but we have been equally unlucky in games.

 

You are exagerrating if you thought we destroyed Derby. We deserved to win certainly but I distinctly remember Davis making a couple of really good saves to deny them.

[Saint Matty 76]

I think we're currently being offered luck, but we're too **** to take advantage.

[saintwarwick]

You are exagerrating if you thought we destroyed Derby. We deserved to win certainly but I distinctly remember Davis making a couple of really good saves to deny them.

 

I used destroyed to counter balance St Marco's post where he claimed Derby destroyed us and claimed we only had one shot at goal and that was the goal we scored. I remember Davis making a couple of good saves as well but I also remember Carroll making some good saves from McGoldrick (he also hit the bar), Holmes and Lallana to keep Derby in the game. We had 19 shots at goal of which 10 were on target. I think you'll find St Marco was the one exagerrating.

[St Marco]

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/ClubShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

Guess being top of the stats disproves your highlighted theory. As for that Derby game I don't know what game you were watching but we destroyed them, fact. We have had our fair share of luck this season but we have been equally unlucky in games.

 

Sorry SW but i will call Bull**** on those stats. Anyone who has been to watch us this season knows we are not shooting at goal with any conviction/class. Aimless non-threatening shots which softly fall into the hands of the goal keeper.

 

The table you should be looking at is this one

http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/glsfor.html

 

The one that says we are 3rd to bottom in goals.

 

Just to show how laughable the stats are

They say we have had 419 shots from our 33 games. That means our average for shots is 12 a game. Of those shots 227 were on target. Meaning 54% of our teams shots are on target.

Now if we have the highest amount of shots with minimum of 12 shots a game why do we find ourselves 3rd to bottom with a massive 0.9 goals per game average or to put it better just 29 goals?

So then if we look at the stats a little more closely. If we have 227 (54%) of our shots on target that means for every 7 shots on target we score 1 goal.

 

So then we then look at the player shooting stats.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/DivisionalShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

At the top of the list is DMG with 93. So of our 419 shots DMG has contributed to 22% of our shots total. So because there is an additional 326 shots un accounted for you would assume there to be more Saints players in the top 20 right?

And indeed there is. The next Saints player comes in at number 18 and is Adam Lallana with 55 shots, meaning Lallana has taken 13% of our shots total.

So then Lallana and DMG combined have taken 148 shots between them, which is 35%. For these stats to ring true must mean that for the clubs shot to goal ratio of 12 shots to every goal must mean combined these 2 players have scored 12 goals (148 shots divided by 12 shots per goal ratio = 12 goals). So lets look at the goals totals!

 

DMG 7 goals

Lallana 1 goal

Total = 8 goals

4 goals less or 33% out.

Which means for every shot those 2 have had (148 shots) they must shoot 18.5 times before they score a goal (148 shots divided by 8 goals).

Which means their goals to shot ratios do not match, it is 33% over what your link says it should be.

 

 

So then now that we know that, that means that the rest of the teams contribution must be 65% of the shots (271 shots).

So lets look at the rest of the goal contributers

Surman = 6 goals

Saga = 4 goals

BWP = 4 goals

Pearce = 2 goals

Peckhart = 1 goal

Skacel = 1 goal

Perry = 1 goal

Robertson = 1 goal

Mclaggon = 1 goal

Total = 21 goals

 

So for the shots per team per goal ratio of 12 shots to a goal to be true must mean that they have combined scored 22 goals (271 shots divided by 12 shots before a goal = 22 goals from 271 shots).

Which as you can see is a goal out. Thus meaning 5 goals are missing for the links stats to be true.

 

 

So then we then look at the whole teams shot record (everyone who has played this season)

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/Shooting/0,,10794~200810280~7,00.html

 

Add up their league shots on and off and you get a total of.......395 shots.

24 shots (6%) LESS then what it says in the table.

 

Of those 395 shots 217 were on target and 178 off target.

So then if we take out DMG and Lallana's shots (148 shots) the rest of the team account for 123 shots on target and 135 off target = 258 shots.

Combine those shots with DMG and Lallana's = 406 total team shots. Meaning 13 shots LESS then in the table.

 

Soooo those who have been paying attention will see that not only do our goals to ratio % not fall in place with the stats provided in the table; you find that the shot table total does not match the club player shot total. Meaning they have given 2 sets of data that do not match.

 

Thus meaning the stats have to be wrong

 

But then again anyone who has been to the games could see we haven't been having 12 shots a game anyway.....

 

 

Now i just hope all that makes sense and doesn't come across like some mad scientist or something

[Wiltshire Saint]

But not in the long run. It's called 'the central limit theorem'. There's a very good chapter by M. J. Moroney in 'Facts from Figures' called 'goals, floods and horse kicks' about the Poisson distribution, and as we all know, all distributions tend toward the Gaussian (or 'Normal') distribution no matter what the shape of the underlying distribution as the number of samples increases. Basically, the more shots on goal that you have, the more goals you score. Simple really, isn't it?

 

Oh really. I didn't know that all distributions tend toward the Normal. I thought it was only where there is a finite variance and even then only when the underlying random variables are independent and identically distributed. You learn something new.

 

The Central Limit Theorem also does not imply the more shots you have on goal, the more goals you will score. That is just common sense. The CLT just says over the long run the proportion of shots will tend towards the mean of the underlying distibution. That doesn't even imply it will necessarily increase, it could just as well decrease.

 

Also, you are confusing the issue here with the Poisson distribution - it's not really needed. The Poisson gives the expected number of occurences in a given time of a random variable with waiting times independently exponentially distributed. It can be used to approximate binomials with a large sample size, but then you've already further approximated it to a Normal with the CLT, so I'm not sure of it's use.

 

I think the implication of what people have been saying is that our long term goals to shots ratio is woeful, and this is due to the skill and adequacy of our strikers over the season. Luck plays a part as to whether each individual shot goes in or not, but the one part of your post which does raise a valid point is that over the course of, say, a season you tend to be about where you deserve to be.

 

[Alain Perrin]

Sorry SW but i will call Bull**** on those stats. Anyone who has been to watch us this season knows we are not shooting at goal with any conviction/class. Aimless non-threatening shots which softly fall into the hands of the goal keeper.

 

The table you should be looking at is this one

http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/glsfor.html

 

The one that says we are 3rd to bottom in goals.

 

Just to show how laughable the stats are

They say we have had 419 shots from our 33 games. That means our average for shots is 12 a game. Of those shots 227 were on target. Meaning 54% of our teams shots are on target.

Now if we have the highest amount of shots with minimum of 12 shots a game why do we find ourselves 3rd to bottom with a massive 0.9 goals per game average or to put it better just 29 goals?

So then if we look at the stats a little more closely. If we have 227 (54%) of our shots on target that means for every 7 shots on target we score 1 goal.

 

So then we then look at the player shooting stats.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/DivisionalShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

At the top of the list is DMG with 93. So of our 419 shots DMG has contributed to 22% of our shots total. So because there is an additional 326 shots un accounted for you would assume there to be more Saints players in the top 20 right?

And indeed there is. The next Saints player comes in at number 18 and is Adam Lallana with 55 shots, meaning Lallana has taken 13% of our shots total.

So then Lallana and DMG combined have taken 148 shots between them, which is 35%. For these stats to ring true must mean that for the clubs shot to goal ratio of 12 shots to every goal must mean combined these 2 players have scored 12 goals (148 shots divided by 12 shots per goal ratio = 12 goals). So lets look at the goals totals!

 

DMG 7 goals

Lallana 1 goal

Total = 8 goals

4 goals less or 33% out.

Which means for every shot those 2 have had (148 shots) they must shoot 18.5 times before they score a goal (148 shots divided by 8 goals).

Which means their goals to shot ratios do not match, it is 33% over what your link says it should be.

 

 

So then now that we know that, that means that the rest of the teams contribution must be 65% of the shots (271 shots).

So lets look at the rest of the goal contributers

Surman = 6 goals

Saga = 4 goals

BWP = 4 goals

Pearce = 2 goals

Peckhart = 1 goal

Skacel = 1 goal

Perry = 1 goal

Robertson = 1 goal

Mclaggon = 1 goal

Total = 21 goals

 

So for the shots per team per goal ratio of 12 shots to a goal to be true must mean that they have combined scored 22 goals (271 shots divided by 12 shots before a goal = 22 goals from 271 shots).

Which as you can see is a goal out. Thus meaning 5 goals are missing for the links stats to be true.

 

 

So then we then look at the whole teams shot record (everyone who has played this season)

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/Shooting/0,,10794~200810280~7,00.html

 

Add up their league shots on and off and you get a total of.......395 shots.

24 shots (6%) LESS then what it says in the table.

 

Of those 395 shots 217 were on target and 178 off target.

So then if we take out DMG and Lallana's shots (148 shots) the rest of the team account for 123 shots on target and 135 off target = 258 shots.

Combine those shots with DMG and Lallana's = 406 total team shots. Meaning 13 shots LESS then in the table.

 

Soooo those who have been paying attention will see that not only do our goals to ratio % not fall in place with the stats provided in the table; you find that the shot table total does not match the club player shot total. Meaning they have given 2 sets of data that do not match.

 

Thus meaning the stats have to be wrong

 

But then again anyone who has been to the games could see we haven't been having 12 shots a game anyway.....

 

 

Now i just hope all that makes sense and doesn't come across like some mad scientist or something

 

I suspect penalties may account for your missing goals.

 

Biggest problem is not the NUMBER of shots, but the QUALITY. Too often McGoldrick's end product is a trickling scuff my gran could save (and she's been dead for 28 years)

Edited 15 February, 2009 by Alain Perrin

[saintstr1]

Sorry SW but i will call Bull**** on those stats. Anyone who has been to watch us this season knows we are not shooting at goal with any conviction/class. Aimless non-threatening shots which softly fall into the hands of the goal keeper.

 

The table you should be looking at is this one

http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/glsfor.html

 

The one that says we are 3rd to bottom in goals.

 

Just to show how laughable the stats are

They say we have had 419 shots from our 33 games. That means our average for shots is 12 a game. Of those shots 227 were on target. Meaning 54% of our teams shots are on target.

Now if we have the highest amount of shots with minimum of 12 shots a game why do we find ourselves 3rd to bottom with a massive 0.9 goals per game average or to put it better just 29 goals?

So then if we look at the stats a little more closely. If we have 227 (54%) of our shots on target that means for every 7 shots on target we score 1 goal.

 

So then we then look at the player shooting stats.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/DivisionalShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

At the top of the list is DMG with 93. So of our 419 shots DMG has contributed to 22% of our shots total. So because there is an additional 326 shots un accounted for you would assume there to be more Saints players in the top 20 right?

And indeed there is. The next Saints player comes in at number 18 and is Adam Lallana with 55 shots, meaning Lallana has taken 13% of our shots total.

So then Lallana and DMG combined have taken 148 shots between them, which is 35%. For these stats to ring true must mean that for the clubs shot to goal ratio of 12 shots to every goal must mean combined these 2 players have scored 12 goals (148 shots divided by 12 shots per goal ratio = 12 goals). So lets look at the goals totals!

 

DMG 7 goals

Lallana 1 goal

Total = 8 goals

4 goals less or 33% out.

Which means for every shot those 2 have had (148 shots) they must shoot 18.5 times before they score a goal (148 shots divided by 8 goals).

Which means their goals to shot ratios do not match, it is 33% over what your link says it should be.

 

 

So then now that we know that, that means that the rest of the teams contribution must be 65% of the shots (271 shots).

So lets look at the rest of the goal contributers

Surman = 6 goals

Saga = 4 goals

BWP = 4 goals

Pearce = 2 goals

Peckhart = 1 goal

Skacel = 1 goal

Perry = 1 goal

Robertson = 1 goal

Mclaggon = 1 goal

Total = 21 goals

 

So for the shots per team per goal ratio of 12 shots to a goal to be true must mean that they have combined scored 22 goals (271 shots divided by 12 shots before a goal = 22 goals from 271 shots).

Which as you can see is a goal out. Thus meaning 5 goals are missing for the links stats to be true.

 

 

So then we then look at the whole teams shot record (everyone who has played this season)

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/Shooting/0,,10794~200810280~7,00.html

 

Add up their league shots on and off and you get a total of.......395 shots.

24 shots (6%) LESS then what it says in the table.

 

Of those 395 shots 217 were on target and 178 off target.

So then if we take out DMG and Lallana's shots (148 shots) the rest of the team account for 123 shots on target and 135 off target = 258 shots.

Combine those shots with DMG and Lallana's = 406 total team shots. Meaning 13 shots LESS then in the table.

 

Soooo those who have been paying attention will see that not only do our goals to ratio % not fall in place with the stats provided in the table; you find that the shot table total does not match the club player shot total. Meaning they have given 2 sets of data that do not match.

 

Thus meaning the stats have to be wrong

 

But then again anyone who has been to the games could see we haven't been having 12 shots a game anyway.....

 

 

Now i just hope all that makes sense and doesn't come across like some mad scientist or something

 

so what are you saying..........we are just unlucky

[Whitey Grandad]

Oh really. I didn't know that all distributions tend toward the Normal. I thought it was only where there is a finite variance and even then only when the underlying random variables are independent and identically distributed. You learn something new.

 

The Central Limit Theorem also does not imply the more shots you have on goal, the more goals you will score. That is just common sense. The CLT just says over the long run the proportion of shots will tend towards the mean of the underlying distibution. That doesn't even imply it will necessarily increase, it could just as well decrease.

 

Also, you are confusing the issue here with the Poisson distribution - it's not really needed. The Poisson gives the expected number of occurences in a given time of a random variable with waiting times independently exponentially distributed. It can be used to approximate binomials with a large sample size, but then you've already further approximated it to a Normal with the CLT, so I'm not sure of it's use.

 

I think the implication of what people have been saying is that our long term goals to shots ratio is woeful, and this is due to the skill and adequacy of our strikers over the season. Luck plays a part as to whether each individual shot goes in or not, but the one part of your post which does raise a valid point is that over the course of, say, a season you tend to be about where you deserve to be.

 

The Poisson distribution describes 'a large number of events, each with a small probability of success' and is a limiting case of the binomial distribution. Every time that you smoke a cigarette you have a very small but finite chance of starting a cancer so if you smoke for long enough you will die. Another examples is the number of deaths from horsekicks in the Prussian army, many soldiers were kicked but only a few died. So if you look at the probabilities of a team getting 0,1,2,3 goals and so-on in a game the pattern is a Poisson distribution. For goals in a football match the accepted ratio is one goal for every six chances but this is an average across the leagues and Saints are less than average. My view is that our lot are not hitting the ball hard enough, or accurately enough. I have a 50-year old coaching book that says 'always shoot hard and low on sight of goal'. Perhaps I should lend it to our lads (if they can read, that is).:smt048

Edited 15 February, 2009 by Whitey Grandad
a silly mistake well spotted by Ponty

[Ludwig]

Sorry SW but i will call Bull**** on those stats. Anyone who has been to watch us this season knows we are not shooting at goal with any conviction/class. Aimless non-threatening shots which softly fall into the hands of the goal keeper.

 

The table you should be looking at is this one

http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/glsfor.html

 

The one that says we are 3rd to bottom in goals.

 

Just to show how laughable the stats are

They say we have had 419 shots from our 33 games. That means our average for shots is 12 a game. Of those shots 227 were on target. Meaning 54% of our teams shots are on target.

Now if we have the highest amount of shots with minimum of 12 shots a game why do we find ourselves 3rd to bottom with a massive 0.9 goals per game average or to put it better just 29 goals?

So then if we look at the stats a little more closely. If we have 227 (54%) of our shots on target that means for every 7 shots on target we score 1 goal.

 

So then we then look at the player shooting stats.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/DivisionalShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

At the top of the list is DMG with 93. So of our 419 shots DMG has contributed to 22% of our shots total. So because there is an additional 326 shots un accounted for you would assume there to be more Saints players in the top 20 right?

And indeed there is. The next Saints player comes in at number 18 and is Adam Lallana with 55 shots, meaning Lallana has taken 13% of our shots total.

So then Lallana and DMG combined have taken 148 shots between them, which is 35%. For these stats to ring true must mean that for the clubs shot to goal ratio of 12 shots to every goal must mean combined these 2 players have scored 12 goals (148 shots divided by 12 shots per goal ratio = 12 goals). So lets look at the goals totals!

 

DMG 7 goals

Lallana 1 goal

Total = 8 goals

4 goals less or 33% out.

Which means for every shot those 2 have had (148 shots) they must shoot 18.5 times before they score a goal (148 shots divided by 8 goals).

Which means their goals to shot ratios do not match, it is 33% over what your link says it should be.

 

 

So then now that we know that, that means that the rest of the teams contribution must be 65% of the shots (271 shots).

So lets look at the rest of the goal contributers

Surman = 6 goals

Saga = 4 goals

BWP = 4 goals

Pearce = 2 goals

Peckhart = 1 goal

Skacel = 1 goal

Perry = 1 goal

Robertson = 1 goal

Mclaggon = 1 goal

Total = 21 goals

 

So for the shots per team per goal ratio of 12 shots to a goal to be true must mean that they have combined scored 22 goals (271 shots divided by 12 shots before a goal = 22 goals from 271 shots).

Which as you can see is a goal out. Thus meaning 5 goals are missing for the links stats to be true.

 

 

So then we then look at the whole teams shot record (everyone who has played this season)

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/Shooting/0,,10794~200810280~7,00.html

 

Add up their league shots on and off and you get a total of.......395 shots.

24 shots (6%) LESS then what it says in the table.

 

Of those 395 shots 217 were on target and 178 off target.

So then if we take out DMG and Lallana's shots (148 shots) the rest of the team account for 123 shots on target and 135 off target = 258 shots.

Combine those shots with DMG and Lallana's = 406 total team shots. Meaning 13 shots LESS then in the table.

 

Soooo those who have been paying attention will see that not only do our goals to ratio % not fall in place with the stats provided in the table; you find that the shot table total does not match the club player shot total. Meaning they have given 2 sets of data that do not match.

 

Thus meaning the stats have to be wrong

 

But then again anyone who has been to the games could see we haven't been having 12 shots a game anyway.....

 

 

Now i just hope all that makes sense and doesn't come across like some mad scientist or something

 

Even if we did accept your classification of shots (in which case everyone else's figures should probably be reduced downwards too) and reduce Saints' total by 13, they'd still be 3rd in the list.

 

You're making a complete non-point.

[Whitey Grandad]

Even if we did accept your classification of shots (in which case everyone else's figures should probably be reduced downwards too) and reduce Saints' total by 13, they'd still be 3rd in the list.

 

You're making a complete non-point.

I think that what we are saying is: We need quality, not quantity.

[Ponty]

The Poisson distribution describes 'a large number of events, each with a small probability of success' and is a limiting case of the binomial distribution. Every time that you smoke a cigarette you have a very small but finite chance of starting a cancer so if you smoke for long enough you will die. Another examples is the number of deaths from horsekicks in the Prussian army, many soldiers were kicked but only a few died. So if you look at the probabilities of a team getting 0,1,2,3 goals and so-on in a game the pattern is a Poisson distribution. For goals in a football match the accepted ratio is one goal for every good chance but this is an average across the leagues and Saints are less than average. My view is that our lot are not hitting the ball hard enough, or accurately enough. I have a 50-year old coaching book that says 'always shoot hard and low on sight of goal'. Perhaps I should lend it to our lads (if they can read, that is).:smt048

 

As you can't score more than 1 goal per chance this states that every good chance equals a goal. That's patently not true.

[Ludwig]

The Poisson distribution describes 'a large number of events, each with a small probability of success' and is a limiting case of the binomial distribution. Every time that you smoke a cigarette you have a very small but finite chance of starting a cancer so if you smoke for long enough you will die. Another examples is the number of deaths from horsekicks in the Prussian army, many soldiers were kicked but only a few died. So if you look at the probabilities of a team getting 0,1,2,3 goals and so-on in a game the pattern is a Poisson distribution. For goals in a football match the accepted ratio is one goal for every good chance but this is an average across the leagues and Saints are less than average. My view is that our lot are not hitting the ball hard enough, or accurately enough. I have a 50-year old coaching book that says 'always shoot hard and low on sight of goal'. Perhaps I should lend it to our lads (if they can read, that is).:smt048

 

An average of one goal per good chance across the leagues, yet Saints are rubbish and miss some. Thus there must be cases where teams score more than one goal for every good chance. :roll:

 

Also - why have you given another definition of the Poisson distribution (rather irrelevantly), when the one Wiltshire Saint gave would suffice?

[Ponty]

Buzzin's is an even better description of why that "fact" is wrong.

[saintwarwick]

Sorry SW but i will call Bull**** on those stats. Anyone who has been to watch us this season knows we are not shooting at goal with any conviction/class. Aimless non-threatening shots which softly fall into the hands of the goal keeper.

 

The table you should be looking at is this one

http://stats.football365.com/dom/ENG/D1/glsfor.html

 

The one that says we are 3rd to bottom in goals.

 

Just to show how laughable the stats are

They say we have had 419 shots from our 33 games. That means our average for shots is 12 a game. Of those shots 227 were on target. Meaning 54% of our teams shots are on target.

Now if we have the highest amount of shots with minimum of 12 shots a game why do we find ourselves 3rd to bottom with a massive 0.9 goals per game average or to put it better just 29 goals?

So then if we look at the stats a little more closely. If we have 227 (54%) of our shots on target that means for every 7 shots on target we score 1 goal.

 

So then we then look at the player shooting stats.

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/DivisionalShooting/0,,10794~20087,00.html

 

At the top of the list is DMG with 93. So of our 419 shots DMG has contributed to 22% of our shots total. So because there is an additional 326 shots un accounted for you would assume there to be more Saints players in the top 20 right?

And indeed there is. The next Saints player comes in at number 18 and is Adam Lallana with 55 shots, meaning Lallana has taken 13% of our shots total.

So then Lallana and DMG combined have taken 148 shots between them, which is 35%. For these stats to ring true must mean that for the clubs shot to goal ratio of 12 shots to every goal must mean combined these 2 players have scored 12 goals (148 shots divided by 12 shots per goal ratio = 12 goals). So lets look at the goals totals!

 

DMG 7 goals

Lallana 1 goal

Total = 8 goals

4 goals less or 33% out.

Which means for every shot those 2 have had (148 shots) they must shoot 18.5 times before they score a goal (148 shots divided by 8 goals).

Which means their goals to shot ratios do not match, it is 33% over what your link says it should be.

 

 

So then now that we know that, that means that the rest of the teams contribution must be 65% of the shots (271 shots).

So lets look at the rest of the goal contributers

Surman = 6 goals

Saga = 4 goals

BWP = 4 goals

Pearce = 2 goals

Peckhart = 1 goal

Skacel = 1 goal

Perry = 1 goal

Robertson = 1 goal

Mclaggon = 1 goal

Total = 21 goals

 

So for the shots per team per goal ratio of 12 shots to a goal to be true must mean that they have combined scored 22 goals (271 shots divided by 12 shots before a goal = 22 goals from 271 shots).

Which as you can see is a goal out. Thus meaning 5 goals are missing for the links stats to be true.

 

 

So then we then look at the whole teams shot record (everyone who has played this season)

http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/Shooting/0,,10794~200810280~7,00.html

 

Add up their league shots on and off and you get a total of.......395 shots.

24 shots (6%) LESS then what it says in the table.

 

Of those 395 shots 217 were on target and 178 off target.

So then if we take out DMG and Lallana's shots (148 shots) the rest of the team account for 123 shots on target and 135 off target = 258 shots.

Combine those shots with DMG and Lallana's = 406 total team shots. Meaning 13 shots LESS then in the table.

 

Soooo those who have been paying attention will see that not only do our goals to ratio % not fall in place with the stats provided in the table; you find that the shot table total does not match the club player shot total. Meaning they have given 2 sets of data that do not match.

 

Thus meaning the stats have to be wrong

 

But then again anyone who has been to the games could see we haven't been having 12 shots a game anyway.....

 

 

Now i just hope all that makes sense and doesn't come across like some mad scientist or something

 

Sorry to p1ss on your fire but if you look CLOSELY at the stats you will find it can only give the top 20 player stats and NOT every player that has appeared in the team (check EVERY team in the stats and it's the same for all, top 20 only). Players who have between them over 50 starts or 20 sub appearances outside of the top 20 include: Dyer, Gasmi, Lancashire, McLaggon, Mills, Molyneux, Size, Smith, Svensson, Thomson, White and Pearce. So you see it has not shown every player that has started or played this season just the top twenty, the remaining 24 missing shots are amongst those not featured because two of those NOT featured in the top 20 have actually scored One last thing, I have been to quite a few games where we have had at least 12 shots at goal if not more (most recent Bristol City where we had 9 on target and 7 off target = 16 shots at goal) and to games where we have had less than twelve shots at goal.

Edited 15 February, 2009 by saintwarwick
Wasn't at the game but took the stats from the City website report

[Whitey Grandad]

As you can't score more than 1 goal per chance this states that every good chance equals a goal. That's patently not true.

Sorry, that should have read 'one goal for every 6 chances'

 

Well spotted, and thanks for reading it. I shall correct it now!

[Whitey Grandad]

An average of one goal per good chance across the leagues, yet Saints are rubbish and miss some. Thus there must be cases where teams score more than one goal for every good chance. :roll:

 

Also - why have you given another definition of the Poisson distribution (rather irrelevantly), when the one Wiltshire Saint gave would suffice?

Sorry, I should have said 'one goal for every 6 chances.

Some people talk about 'luck' when what we are really discussing is 'probability'. Basically, luck only applies in the short term. Over more than a few games, and certainly over a season, luck doesn't apply and you get what you deserve.

[Ponty]

Sorry, that should have read 'one goal for every 6 chances'

 

Well spotted, and thanks for reading it. I shall correct it now!

 

Fair dos.

[St Marco]

Sorry to p1ss on your fire but if you look CLOSELY at the stats you will find it can only give the top 20 player stats and NOT every player that has appeared in the team (check EVERY team in the stats and it's the same for all, top 20 only). Players who have between them over 50 starts or 20 sub appearances outside of the top 20 include: Dyer, Gasmi, Lancashire, McLaggon, Mills, Molyneux, Size, Smith, Svensson, Thomson, White and Pearce. So you see it has not shown every player that has started or played this season just the top twenty, the remaining 24 missing shots are amongst those not featured because two of those NOT featured in the top 20 have actually scored One last thing, I have been to quite a few games where we have had at least 12 shots at goal if not more (most recent Bristol City where we had 9 on target and 7 off target = 16 shots at goal) and to games where we have had less than twelve shots at goal.

 

 

I don't think you quite grasp what it means SW. It does not matter how many people are in the team to take shots. What it means is that the club should score once every 12 shots for their stats to be correct. The total of shots divided by goals = 12. If we are having 12 shots a game as their stats suggest we should be scoring at least once a game. We are not. We are scoring 10% less then what they suggest as we have a 0.9 score ratio. To kill it off all together we have failed to score in 12 of our 33 games which means 36% of our games we have not scored. Thus proving the stats are wrong as it would mean an additional 3.3 goals would of needed to be scored, so as i said before the stats are wrong.

[St Marco]

Here you go SW

http://www.footstats.co.uk/index.cfm?task=Teams

 

They have us at 216 shots on target and 185 off target. 401 shots. Just like i said.

We have a scoring record of 7% of our shots, meaning 1 goal every 13 shots.

 

Of course they are just some wierd site, could just make it up

[Whitey Grandad]

Here you go SW

http://www.footstats.co.uk/index.cfm?task=Teams

 

They have us at 216 shots on target and 185 off target. 401 shots. Just like i said.

We have a scoring record of 7% of our shots, meaning 1 goal every 13 shots.

 

Of course they are just some wierd site, could just make it up

I think it just means... we aren't very good...