Lack of goals

[michael]

(useless stats dept )

 

Whilst my own principles start at not conceding and if you do happen to score-well thats quite useful;i'm the first to concede that our lack of goalscoring prowess did ultimately result in our lowly position.

 

In an idle moment, i thought i'd see if any player scored more trhan one goal in any game;and low and behold-in just one game-when Lloyd Blackman got a brace at Avery-did any player score more than one goal a game.Sort of says it all.

 

Understand that you can go a whole season without anyone getting a hat trick-but it must be quite rare in any season that only once does any player score more than one goal in any game.

[Boney Crisp]

You worry too much over nothing tbh, if we were a team who missed on a play-off place with plans to keep the same team on without bringing anyone else in then yes this is worrying, but it's been and gone now the season is over and it's all behind us. Any strikers we had have gone, giving O'Connell the chance to buy new strikers who will get us goals. If this carries on well into next season then i think we should be concerned (depending on how we are doing as a whole), but dwelling on things from last season imo is not a good way of moving forward.

[michael]

'true communication is the response that we get',so thanks for the reply.

 

Not too sure i was similarly losing too much sleep over this topic (although our continured premiership status does 'worry me-is it thursday when we will know our status for definate ? )

 

The topic was simply there inviting debate in what is a quiet time on the forum

[Guernsey Tom]

Whatever your views about defending the 0 michael, goals win matches, and yes we didnt score that many and that is the reason we finished where we did ultimately.

[Cookie]

I have to side with Michael on this.The defence let us down last season moreso than us not scoring goals.Let us look at some statistics from the season just gone.

Goals conceded.

In 42 matches we managed a clean sheet on only 6 occasions.Not good enough i.m.o. Conceding 71 goals in those matches we were 3rd worst defence only to Ashford & Waltham Abbey.

Goals for

Having scored 49 we averaged about 1 a game which in my book isnt that bad though improvement would have been better naturally.

We scored a goal or more in 28 out of 42 games & again I think thats quite good really though again with some improvement our position would indeed have been bettered.

When you consider that Boreham Wood got into the play-offs & then subsequently went on to win the play off & get promoted having only scored 5 more goals than us throughout the season must tell you something. Goals for are of course vital but not letting them in is much more important surely.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cookie

[michael]

My initial point was simply that it must be unusual for a team to go the whole season with just one player scoring two goals in anyone game.

 

Despite my advocacy for a strong defence-i am the first to say that last season,it was equally the lack of goals that caused our demise.

 

That given-whilst GT is correct that strikers/goals win you matches, it is defences that overall win you championships and the key to success (or lack of failure and avoiding relegation) is not conceding.

 

If you look at any stats of league position correlated with either goals conceded-or goals scored-the closet correlation is consistently-the higher the league postion-the fewer goals conceded.

 

As they say-'do the math'

 

http://www.footballwebpages.co.uk/league.jsp?comp=11

Edited May 11, 2010 by michael

[Cookie]

I get your gist Michael but I am taking this a step further & maybe sidestepping the the point of your thread somewhat so apologies for that.

There are arguments for both not conceding & for scoring goals.

Having looked up Dartfords tally they acumulated 101 goals its true but conceded only 45.

Kingstonian on the other hand also scored a whopping 73 but DID concede 69 (only 2 less than us so maybe in their case scoring more,for them,(well it turned out that way) was the better result in the long run.But just imagine where they would have been had they not conceded so many, especially early on in the season.

Overall though & this is just my opinion but preventing scores against gives a oppsition side that can only score an average of only one a game a much better chance of securing the full 3 points.We drew 6 games 1-1,2-2 or 3-3 (4 of which occured during our purple patch last 13 games of the season) & if clean sheets were made in those games we would have accumulated another 12 points.(But then again having scored more than the opposition in those games also gives weight to the scoring more goals issue too).Add those points to 4 losses at 1-0 & again with clean sheets we would have added another 4 points having not scored ourselves.Those 16 points alone would have had us up into 10th spot & just outside the play-offs & well away from a nervous wait for confirmation of any reprieve.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cookie

[michael]

Spot on.

 

cookies last paragraph says it all very succintly i believe.

 

Why do Billericay have the best defence every season-phenominal ?

[Cookie]

It has to be said also about Billericay Michael (something I see you have noticed too) that their tally of goals for,for the season wasnt that good compared to their goals against column. Only 44 goals for.Only Maidstone were worse than they were at not scoring goals & even WE were better than Billericay as for goals scored. BUT only 42 against (the best in the league overall). Billericays respectable 10th finishing position was surely by way of a defence rather than their attack. But on the other hand you could also say "Where could they be in the league had they had a decent strike-force". Yes, reasons for beliving either are equally as important but I personally sway with the defensive results first & foremost as priority. A good point you make regarding Billericay.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cookie

[Cookie]

Spot on.

 

cookies last paragraph says it all very succintly i believe.

 

Why do Billericay have the best defence every season-phenominal ?

Oh Im still quietly confident of the reprieve Michael as KP would NOT have mentioned his 100% belief in it coming about without having done his homework first & that is something that he does very well. BUT regardless of that I,like others,like yourself, will still have a smidgeon of nervousness in them until that confirmation has finally confirmed that KP was spot on.The only thing I believe could make him look silly is if things had changed dramatically since he spoke or since he did his homework.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cookie

[Franny]

You worry too much over nothing tbh, if we were a team who missed on a play-off place with plans to keep the same team on without bringing anyone else in then yes this is worrying, but it's been and gone now the season is over and it's all behind us. Any strikers we had have gone, giving O'Connell the chance to buy new strikers who will get us goals. If this carries on well into next season then i think we should be concerned (depending on how we are doing as a whole), but dwelling on things from last season imo is not a good way of moving forward.

I think that O'CConnel HAS had the chance to bring new strikers in, he bought Pinnock and Huggins in didnt he ? And I think that between them they played about 27 games with a total return of 7 goals. Lets hope that this isnt an indication of his ability to spot a striker. Dont get me wrong I like Pinnock but he was never going to come in and score shed loads of goals. Oh and lets not forget the super sub of a striker we had in Grant....

[Broadstairs Dave]

Just read all your posts Tony........Going for a lie down ...wake me up for the psf's please. AAAArrrrggggghhhhhh

[Cookie]

Edited May 11, 2010 by Cookie