Team Focus: The Correlation Between Shots Per Game and Goals Scored
One of the stranger conclusions of Charles Reep, the first man in Britain to take seriously the collation of football data was that, as teams scored, on average, with one in nine shots, they should shoot more, even if that meant taking almost indiscriminate pot-shots from 40 yards. Even if it didn’t go in, he theorised, a shot might win a corner or a block could create a chance for somebody else.
There is, obviously, a correlation between how many shots a team has and whether it wins any given match - teams who are on top will naturally tend to have more shots - but there remains a huge difference between the chances of a forward scoring if he’s five yards out or forty-five yards out.
This is born out by looking at shots per game this season. It’s no great surprise to see Manchester City (17.7) top - they are, after all, the league’s top scorers with 81 goals. Chelsea, the champions and the second top-scorers, are fourth (14.7) in the list - a reflection, perhaps, of their more reactive approach in big games. By drawing the opposition on to them and looking to strike on the counter, they play in a way that will yield fewer chances, but those chances are more likely to be one-on-ones than speculative efforts from range or players hurtling onto crosses in packed areas.
Nor is it any great shock to see the likes of Sunderland (10.7), West Brom and Aston Villa (both 10.8) at the bottom of the list. Sunderland struggle so badly with accuracy that their last two goals have come from shots that weren’t on target before taking one or more kindly deflections. Burnley, the lowest scorers in the division (27), are perhaps higher than might have been expected with the fifteenth highest shots per game (11.5), but their problem has been accuracy - only Aston Villa (3.2) are averaging fewer shots on target per game (3.3).
The big anomaly in the list is Queens Park Rangers, who are averaging the fifth most shots (14) of any side in the Premier League, but are bottom of the league and have scored the fourteenth most goals (41). The quirk is part-explained by a glance at shots on target: of the 14 shots QPR have on average each game, only four have been on target - the 10th highest figure. QPR, in other words, have a lot of shots, but either fewer of them are clear chances, or their forwards lack the precision required in the Premier League.
Charlie Austin is averaging 3.7 shots per game, the second highest figure in the league behind Sergio Agüero (4.4). He has scored 17 goals and seems likely to get a call-up into the England squad this week, suggesting the policy isn’t a bad one. 1.5 of his shots per game have been on target, which is roughly comparable to Agüero, who has 1.8 shots on target per game.
Of Austin’s efforts, 0.5 have been with his head as opposed to 0.3 of Aguero’s. That’s not a perfect measure, but the greater proportion of headed chances, the more a player is dealing with crosses, which offer a lower likelihood of scoring than shots when the ball is under control. Austin, then, hasn’t been the problem. The issue has been with the likes of Eduardo Vargas, Niko Kranjcar, Leroy Fer and Matt Phillips, whose goals return has not matched up to the number of shots taken.
Reep, of course, was right to point out a correlation between shots per game and goals per game, but it didn’t take his meticulous stat-taking to realise that. What’s apparent is that the conclusion he drew was far too simplistic: not all shots are equal, and while there is a correlation between shots and winning, it is neither so simple nor so direct as he made out.
What do you make of the correlation between the number of shots a team averages per game and the number of goals scored? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below
...and they change the question. And its quite funny because normally the question "defines" the answer (or at least the "range" an answer could occur), but here the answer(s) define the question!
do u think there's a correlation??? "correlation" isn't a matter of opinion!!! are you fking serious here on WhoScored?! wat a terribly depressing article to read on what is usually a great site
--> 3) A shot taken outside the 18-yard box is worth 0.03 goals (since 3% of shots taken outside the 18-yard box turn to goals). 4) attempts on target are 34% of total attempts. A better relation suggests a better prepared team/above average coach/greater accuracy etc. A worse (than 34%) relation suggests a not well worked team/below average coach/worse accuracy/"anarchic" style of play etc. The former also stands for teams that dont shoot a lot from outside the box, the latter also stands for teams that shoot a lot from outside the box etc. 5) You better research better before giving away numbers that are only numbers and ask "questions" that dont exist. Its better to try and answer the real questions.
@trequartista13 Where you get all these numbers?
@berneto several easy-to-find on web studies and research as well as personal research
1) The article is decentm yet simplistic. Fails to deal with the "substance" of the shots/shots on target/chances/goals issue/"equation". 2) The question in the end is childish. There cant be a "think" nor a "believe" when we talk about facts. The correlation between number of shots and goals scored is a proven fact. 3) According to several quantitative analyses and reasearch, teams dont score one goal for every nine attempts. They score one goal for every 9,65 attemts. 10.35% of all attempts turn to goals. In other words, a random goal attempt is "worth" 0,1035 goals. An attempt on target is "worth" 0.302 goals (since 30.2% of attempts on target turn to goals), a corner is "worth" 0.027 goals (since a random corner turns to a goal for the team taking the corner in 2.7% of cases), a penalty kick is "worth" 0.75 goals (since 75% of penalty kicks find the back of the net - and right-footed players have a better percentage than left-footed), a direct free kick is "worth" 0.05 goals.
Depends on the quality of the striker, I feel.
The correlation between shots on target and goals scored should be stronger. For a better conclusion, why not use a larger sample and include other leagues?
The matter isn't how many shots you take. It is where you take those shots. Goals from inside the box occur 4 times more often than shots outside the box. QPR scored a few goals because the half of their shots come outside the box (7 - 3rd most behind Liverpool and Tottenham).
Yeah obv. If you shoot a lot but don't succeed in scoring like you'd expect it means you play bad or your strikers are bad.