Goals Myth

[sirpiechucker]

As I said last week I'm not interested in getting involved in endless debates so I apologise for starting a new thread (which will probably get ignored) and point out some FACTS. Not stats that can be twisted but facts.

The reason for writing this is because I've seen the stat being used at the moment about how many goals we've scored in the last 10 games and the arguments around it. Does scoring goals really mean that much when you have such a tight defence? Is our goal scoring record really that bad when compared to others? Does scoring the most goals always bring success?

Birmingham City: Matches 23-32 - 2008/09 Season
P10, W3, D4, L3, F8, A9, PTS 13

Goals per Game: 0.8
Points Per Match: 1.3
League Position that Season: 2nd

QPR: Matches 23-32 - 2008/09 Season
P10, W4, D5, L1, F11, A6, PTS 17

Goals per Game: 1.1
Points Per Match: 1.7

I actually could have picked a 10 game period throughout that year and Birmingham would have probably still would have had a poor return from 10 matches.

Birmingham City: Matches 33-46 - 2008/09 Season
P14, W6, D5, L3, F14, A9, PTS 23

Goals per Game: 1.0
Points Per Match: 1.64

I've said this a couple of times already on this board, Birmingham finished the season with just 54 goals and were promoted in 2nd place. Norwich that season scored 57 goals and were relegated. Birmingham scored 11 fewer than Cardiff that year who finished 7th. In 2007/08, Colchester scored 62 league goals (joint 6th highest in the division) and were relegated.

In 2006/07, WBA finished the season as top scorers but came 4th and failed to win promotion. In fact they scored 22 more than Wolves and conceded one goal fewer than Wolves but still managed to end with an identical record of 22 wins, 10 draws and 14 defeats. In 05/06, Crewe who finished 1 place below us and were relegated scored 7 goals more than us. In 03/04 and 04/05, Ipswich were the leagues top scorers but failed to win promotion both times. In 02/03, Ipswich scored 7 goals more than Leicester but finished 22 points behind them. Leicester were promoted in 2nd and Ipswich missed out on the play offs.

I've used the case of Birmingham a number of times but as the above shows they aren't the only team who either scored goals and didn't go up or not score many and did go up. Last year all of the bottom 3 scored more goals than Swansea (who finished 7th) but were all more than 20 points behind them.

The most important stat is the points in the league table. It currently has us with 61 which is 5 more than any other team in the division. As I showed above Birmingham scored just 22 goals in their last 24 matches and finished 3 points above Sheffield United with 83 points or 1.80 points per game. Forest currently have 56 from 31 matches which is 1.80 points per game. Clearly if they continue to average this until the end of the season they'll end on the same points total as Birmingham (and thats a team who has scored 9 fewer than us this season).

[paulmason]

I really want to comment because you are talking about the 0.9 goals a game average we have scored over the last 10 games, but I cant as I have read what you have said 3 times and although your stats look great, that is all they are and you lost me. Also, if you think the 0.9 goal average over the last 10 games is a twisted stat, have a look at http://www.qpr.co.uk/page/Fixtures/0,,10373,00.html for clarification.

[The White City General]

I really want to comment because you are talking about the 0.9 goals a game average we have scored over the last 10 games, but I cant as I have read what you have said 3 times and although your stats look great, that is all they are and you lost me. Also, if you think the 0.9 goal average over the last 10 games is a twisted stat, have a look at http://www.qpr.co.uk/page/Fixtures/0,,10373,00.html for clarification.

It is a twisted stat because you have chosen to use the FA Cup match against Blackburn to give strength to your argument. You have to be just about the only person who would include this match in your form guide when what we are discussing is the league. All it does it demonstrate what a sad individual you can be. Its amazing how you seem to cherry pick what information you can and can't understand as well, your only showing yourself up yet again.

[paulmason]

Use 1.1 then

[sirpiechucker]

Why are you including the FA Cup? If we had drawn Harrow Borough in the Cup and hammered 7 past them and I then came on and produced a stat including goals from that game you would have said that it shouldn’t be included to because it’s just the cup. But when you want to use a stat to strengthen your argument you include a game which has nothing to do with our league form or how we will fare in the league.

As for the stuff that is lost on you I’ll try again. In 2008/09, which is just two seasons ago Birmingham City finished 2nd in this division scoring just 54 goals all season. Three fewer than the relegated Norwich City scored that season. In their final 24 league matches they scored just 22 goals or 0.9 goals a game.

[paulmason]

Why are you including the FA Cup? If we had drawn Harrow Borough in the Cup and hammered 7 past them and I then came on and produced a stat including goals from that game you would have said that it shouldn’t be included to because it’s just the cup. But when you want to use a stat to strengthen your argument you include a game which has nothing to do with our league form or how we will fare in the league.

As for the stuff that is lost on you I’ll try again. In 2008/09, which is just two seasons ago Birmingham City finished 2nd in this division scoring just 54 goals all season. Three fewer than the relegated Norwich City scored that season. In their final 24 league matches they scored just 22 goals or 0.9 goals a game.

I dont have an argument, I just posted yesterday how many goals we scored in the last 10 games to highlight where I think we are not doing well at the moment and all hell has broken loose. I really don't give a flying **** if it is 0.9 over the last 10 games of 1.1 over the last 10 league games as it is not great either way.

[sirpiechucker]

I dont have an argument, I just posted yesterday how many goals we scored in the last 10 games to highlight where I think we are not doing well at the moment and all hell has broken loose. I really don't give a flying **** if it is 0.9 over the last 10 games of 1.1 over the last 10 league games as it is not great either way.

But why does it matter if we're 5 points clear of the top? Why does it matter if we've lost just three games this season? Why does it matter if a team like Birmingham have proven you don't need to score 100 goals a season to win promotion?

[paulmason]

But why does it matter if we're 5 points clear of the top? Why does it matter if we've lost just three games this season? Why does it matter if a team like Birmingham have proven you don't need to score 100 goals a season to win promotion?

Life is too short and you wonder why people dont bother posting on here anymore.

[sirpiechucker]

Life is too short and you wonder why people dont bother posting on here anymore.

I've never wondered that at all. This site is still more popular than any other QPR forum. Just look at how many views and responses to GTP's vomit thread.

You were the one who brought the 11 goals in 10 matches stat up so why do it if life is too short? You obviously think there is a problem? Remind me how many goals Forest have scored? Remind me even if they do win their game in hand how many points they managed to get from the same amount of games as we did? Our record is better than everyone elses in the division.

[Nik29]

Paul, that last comment shows you have run out of arguments and have been proved wrong.

[sirpiechucker]

Paul, that last comment shows you have run out of arguments and have been proved wrong.

He's now deleted his post because "he can't be arsed" - why repeatedly bang on about a stat and then try to argue that you don't actually care?

I've no problem with Paul Mason or anyone else on here but some people do themselves absolutely no favours. Why make a point if you aren't either prepared to defend it or prove it.

As I said, I see little point in getting involved in these types of debates especially when the facts talk for themselves.

[Ric-Roc]

To be fair arguing with SPC about stats is like arguing with Simon Cowell about music.... You just aint gonna win!

[The White City General]

He's now deleted his post because "he can't be arsed" - why repeatedly bang on about a stat and then try to argue that you don't actually care?

I've no problem with Paul Mason or anyone else on here but some people do themselves absolutely no favours. Why make a point if you aren't either prepared to defend it or prove it.

As I said, I see little point in getting involved in these types of debates especially when the facts talk for themselves.

I think its absolutely hilarious a few have really tried to bring everyone down to their own miserable levels this weekend and it has failed. Paul knew what he was doing when he produced that stat and has been losing the argument ever since. By looking at the statistics of the last 10 matches a little more closely it is plain to see that things are not as bad as some would have you think. My own opinion is that starting Hulse has proven to be part of the problem, I hope to see us scoring more with Helguson up front due to us getting the ball into his feet more so than Hulse. Scoring 1.1 goals on average in the past 10 matches is not great but when you concede 0.6 goals per game over that duration it really is not a big a deal.

I wonder if those who have been complaining would be making the same point if we still got the same results but our goals per game figures changed from 1.1 to 2.2 and 0.6 to 1.2?

[sirpiechucker]

I think its absolutely hilarious a few have really tried to bring everyone down to their own miserable levels this weekend and it has failed. Paul knew what he was doing when he produced that stat and has been losing the argument ever since. By looking at the statistics of the last 10 matches a little more closely it is plain to see that things are not as bad as some would have you think. My own opinion is that starting Hulse has proven to be part of the problem, I hope to see us scoring more with Helguson up front due to us getting the ball into his feet more so than Hulse. Scoring 1.1 goals on average in the past 10 matches is not great but when you concede 0.6 goals per game over that duration it really is not a big a deal.

I wonder if those who have been complaining would be making the same point if we still got the same results but our goals per game figures changed from 1.1 to 2.2 and 0.6 to 1.2?

As I said the only stat that will matter in the end is the league table after every team has played 46 matches. If between now and the end of the season we don't finish in the top 2 it won't be because of the previous 10 matches it will be as a result of the next 14 matches. Simply put that if we win all 14 (or even just 13) we are promoted. If we don't and we've let the likes of Cardiff and Forest overtake us then come May we won't be talking about matches 23-32 but matches 33-46. We're top after 32 matches and nobody else is or can be at the same stage. If we aren't after 46 matches then Paul or anyone else can bring out the stats then.

The only other stat of any importance right now is you, me, Paul and everyone else on this board = zero years of football league management and Neil Warnock = 31 years. His experience and knowledge is something which of course can be debated about but can't be argued or knocked.

[JonDoeman]