Have we been relying too much on screamers?

[NasPb]

We've recently been in a rut to say the least. Many times around here I've seen since February we've been on a poor run etc. How many of our goals have been absolute worldies though? Like Barnes this weekend or kelechi against palace. Of course there's no way to define screamers perfectly, but generally it's understood what they are. Maybe this shows that we're simply not getting to 100% our style lately, for example, in our 19-20 run most of our goals we're from our great buildup and passing. Not that screamers are bad they're great, but just curious how many of our goals have been due to our normal passages of play and how many from great strikes. All goals are goals of course and truthfully as long as we win I'm happy, but could it show something about our down turn in form!? 

[filbertway]

Something I've been pointing out for about 6 months. Were very similar to Man Utd in that we seem to be able to cover up a poor performance with individual quality.

 

Which feels mad to write, but shows where we currently are in terms of available ability in the squad.

 

We could do with sorting it out before we lose Youri thats for sure

 

[Kilworthfox]

Absolutely. Individual performances, have rescued poor team performances. 

[MPH]

Thought this was a post  about Bernie..

[coolhandfox]

I'm bored so decide to have a look at our PL goals this season only:

 

Of the 16 goals we have scored I would say 5 are screamers and 11 non screamers (A few depend on what you call a screamer, you could call some ether way) 

 

Wolves 1-0       Vardy (Yes)

West Ham 1-4  Tielemans (No)

Norwich 2-1     Vardy (No), Albrighton (Yes)

Brighton 1-2     Vardy (No) 

Burnley 2-2      Vardy (No) Vardy (No)

Palace 2-2         Vardy (No) Nacho (No)

Man U 4-2         Tielemans (Yes), Soy (No) Daka (No) Vardy (No) 

Brentford 2-1     Tielemans (Yes), Maddison (No)

Leed        1-1     Barnes (Yes) 

[HybridFox]

Get Wilf some shooting boots. Hasn't had a quality goal since "Yes N'Didi" !

[The_77]

1 hour ago, NasPb said:

We've recently been in a rut to say the least. Many times around here I've seen since February we've been on a poor run etc. How many of our goals have been absolute worldies though? Like Barnes this weekend or kelechi against palace. Of course there's no way to define screamers perfectly, but generally it's understood what they are. Maybe this shows that we're simply not getting to 100% our style lately, for example, in our 19-20 run most of our goals we're from our great buildup and passing. Not that screamers are bad they're great, but just curious how many of our goals have been due to our normal passages of play and how many from great strikes. All goals are goals of course and truthfully as long as we win I'm happy, but could it show something about our down turn in form!? 

Thomas Frank has subscribed to this thread. 

[Dan]

I think we've definitely been bailed out a bit by individual magic on occasion this season and probably a bit more than I'm comfortable with us sustaining in the long run.

[jaqo88]

1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

I'm bored so decide to have a look at our PL goals this season only:

 

Of the 16 goals we have scored I would say 5 are screamers and 11 non screamers (A few depend on what you call a screamer, you could call some ether way) 

 

Wolves 1-0       Vardy (Yes)

West Ham 1-4  Tielemans (No)

Norwich 2-1     Vardy (No), Albrighton (Yes)

Brighton 1-2     Vardy (No) 

Burnley 2-2      Vardy (No) Vardy (No)

Palace 2-2         Vardy (No) Nacho (No)

Man U 4-2         Tielemans (Yes), Soy (No) Daka (No) Vardy (No) 

Brentford 2-1     Tielemans (Yes), Maddison (No)

Leed        1-1     Barnes (Yes) 

This would imply all our wins in the league this season involve a  “screamer” which supports the point of OP

 

Even the FA Cup final was won this way - definitely a bit of a concern especially since it has been over a sustained period but positive way to spin it is that if we can get the team playing together again we have a proper proper team, big question is IF

 

This is also something we slaughter United and Ole for yet we are arguably a lite version 

Edited 10 November 2021 by jaqo88

[Ashley]

5 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

I'm bored so decide to have a look at our PL goals this season only:

 

Of the 16 goals we have scored I would say 5 are screamers and 11 non screamers (A few depend on what you call a screamer, you could call some ether way) 

 

Wolves 1-0       Vardy (Yes)

West Ham 1-4  Tielemans (No)

Norwich 2-1     Vardy (No), Albrighton (Yes)

Brighton 1-2     Vardy (No) 

Burnley 2-2      Vardy (No) Vardy (No)

Palace 2-2         Vardy (No) Nacho (No)

Man U 4-2         Tielemans (Yes), Soy (No) Daka (No) Vardy (No) 

Brentford 2-1     Tielemans (Yes), Maddison (No)

Leed        1-1     Barnes (Yes) 

 

Albrighton wasn't a screamer. You need to be hitting the target as a bare minimum as a professional from that range. 

[Aus Fox]

Is the argument here our goals are too good? The screamers mentioned Vardy v Wolves, Albrighton, Tielemans v Man Utd and Barnes were all as a result of great team play.

Tielemans vs Brentford was the only one who was a hit out of nowhere.

A bit of a strange thread in my eyes

[shailen]

We've got better players than a lot of teams who score better goals. This has been true for a lot of the top sides who don't always blow teams apart but show a moment or two of quality in a game to beat the opposition. That's not us relying on screamers but actually showing our quality. 

 

I get the argument that we've been lucky or fortunate to score some great goals when our general performance hasn't matched the standard, but games at this level are generally won on moments as there isn't too much between most teams in this league. The exception being Man City who literally dominate most games from start to finish and create dozens of chances for their players. As they phrased United's loss on Saturday as a death by a thousand punches, apart from them no team dominates every game. 

[fuchsntf]

We don't shoot from distance often enough, at least

not with forethought & finess.

Barnes is just refinding his feet, but he is the only guy, who's shown he has both that humpf &; leather it , & a subtle

Curving shot..

Maddison was showing he has a controlled longshot in him, but another who's refinding himself into the team .

[LCFCCHRIS]

Suppose it depends on xG, if we were massively overperforming it then we'd know we're relying on too many worldies 

[coolhandfox]

2 hours ago, Ashley said:

 

Albrighton wasn't a screamer. You need to be hitting the target as a bare minimum as a professional from that range. 

It was for Albrighton .

 

Fair point thou. 

[Arriba Los Zorros]

Surely it's good we're shooting from distance more, if a team defends deep, make them pay for it, we've got players with that ability. Goals count if the ball goes into the net even if you've not walked it in... 

[filbertway]

7 minutes ago, Arriba Los Zorros said:

Surely it's good we're shooting from distance more, if a team defends deep, make them pay for it, we've got players with that ability. Goals count if the ball goes into the net even if you've not walked it in... 

The point is that those shots tend to have less chance of going in, so in the long run, if you're relying on shots with a low chance of success, you'll start to hit bad form as the goals dry up.

Which I think we're seeing to a degree. Last week Wilf Zaha summed it up, he was asked what the difference was between Palace this season and last. He said the main difference is that it feels like the team are actively creating chances and openings, whereas previously they were just happening.

 

If you get into more good attacking positions, you'll create more chances and you'll score more goals.

 

It feels very much like chances and goals are just happening to us rather than us actively creating them. The major difference between the start of Rodgers tenure and how it has been for nearly a year.

[Hoopla10]

Is it a symptom of playing teams that bank up to defend against us? Unable to play through or finding it tough to have that clinical edge on goal we end up with these wonder-goals being highlighted. They're winning us points so I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. A better question is why aren't we more clinical in the final third (or at least the 18 yard box)? Fix that then the wonder goals look like cherries on the top. 

[Arriba Los Zorros]

52 minutes ago, filbertway said:

The point is that those shots tend to have less chance of going in, so in the long run, if you're relying on shots with a low chance of success, you'll start to hit bad form as the goals dry up.

Which I think we're seeing to a degree. Last week Wilf Zaha summed it up, he was asked what the difference was between Palace this season and last. He said the main difference is that it feels like the team are actively creating chances and openings, whereas previously they were just happening.

 

If you get into more good attacking positions, you'll create more chances and you'll score more goals.

 

It feels very much like chances and goals are just happening to us rather than us actively creating them. The major difference between the start of Rodgers tenure and how it has been for nearly a year.

I agree with this although....

 

27 minutes ago, Hoopla10 said:

Is it a symptom of playing teams that bank up to defend against us? Unable to play through or finding it tough to have that clinical edge on goal we end up with these wonder-goals being highlighted. They're winning us points so I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. A better question is why aren't we more clinical in the final third (or at least the 18 yard box)? Fix that then the wonder goals look like cherries on the top. 

This sums it up well when teams defend deep you can't always play through them (we're particularly bad at this) and so have to take some pot shots instead. or learn to bloody score from set pieces....

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, Arriba Los Zorros said:

I agree with this although....

 

This sums it up well when teams defend deep you can't always play through them (we're particularly bad at this) and so have to take some pot shots instead. or learn to bloody score from set pieces....

I'd agree with that for sure. Ideally we're scoring from different sources rather than relying on one method or player too heavily 

[Plastik Man]

Personally, I have a preference for squirters. 

[rachhere]

This is taking me back to the January when Claude was still her and our sole entry for goal of the month from the first team was a Vardy penalty…

 

I don’t think we are too reliant, but at the same time I think we are too reliant on crafting out the perfect opportunity. So many goals in the PL come from rebounds or deflections and we need to force those types of opportunities more often than we do. 

[StriderHiryu]

13 hours ago, filbertway said:

Something I've been pointing out for about 6 months. Were very similar to Man Utd in that we seem to be able to cover up a poor performance with individual quality.

 

Which feels mad to write, but shows where we currently are in terms of available ability in the squad.

 

We could do with sorting it out before we lose Youri thats for sure

 

Yep, we have progressed into a team that is probably "too good to do gown" because we genuinely have top class players that can do incredible things. I'd argue given our performances we are lucky to be 12th as it stands! We've been generally poor.

 

Compared to Man Untied though, we definitely have a clear structure of play. You can see what we are trying to do in every game we play, whereas Man United are just individuals. However, Man U have even better individuals than we do so have managed to get more points us, even though as a team they are much worse.

 

It is strange though. This is the best squad we've ever had, and many players are in good form. And yet through poor individual errors and a collective lack of synergy we have been poor. Rodgers isn't telling our players to go out and play shit, but they are not performing. I suspect it's because the players are too comfortable and the same message being repeated every day lacks it previous gravitas. We do still have many good moves in every game, but there aren't enough of them and we aren't as good as sustaining attacks or repelling the opposition forays.

 

Fergie would always sign marquee players, often when he didn't need them, just to keep players on their toes. I do wonder if we needed something like that; a proven big name player in the right position to lay into the team. It can be a big risk, but Zlatan Ibrahmovic as an example really pushed Man U and AC Milan up a gear. I think the team and squad needs a major system shock, though of course this carries many risks with it.

[David Hankey]

I do think we try and "walk the ball in" sometimes when all the players, not just our strikers, should always have in their minds to shoot on sight. If it's goal bound the keeper has to save it. It could also bring about a ricochet (he always been an invaluable player). Having said all that a goal is a goal whenever the ball fully crosses the line however it is achieved.

[CosbehFox]

I think people overstate set pieces as a source of goals. 

 

On average, it's something like 20 corners lead to a good chance. This season in the league we've had 57. That's about right considering the miminal decisions we've had go against us in that area disallowing three goals.