Sign in to follow this  
Pat McGroin

Zander

Recommended Posts

Aye, looks like they're only using shots on target, despite claiming they count blocked shots.

Season totals are 47 shots faced (on target), 24 goals conceded, 23 saves.

xG conceded us 17.53

Edited by RandomGuy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mainstand said:

Not saying he is having a good season, you are obviously a politician if you are taking what I am saying as meaning that. 

What I am saying is that looking at stats in isolation means nothing.  You have to consider it in full, how many blocks how many shots are from inside the box, is it that shots from outside are being blocked and the majority of shots he is facing is form inside box. How many are from headers at set pieces, how many are deflected.

I could go on.  

As I said previously you can make stats show what ever you want. yesterday was a prime example one commentator saints have not won in 11, another saints are looking to go 4 unbeaten. 

 

Do you like a challenge.. if you’re right, that you can make statistics show “what ever you want” I challenge you to find me a statistic that tell me that I am wrong about Zander Clark’s poor form costing us football matches. Genuinely, I’d be delighted to be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, R.B.B:- Adz said:

Do you like a challenge.. if you’re right, that you can make statistics show “what ever you want” I challenge you to find me a statistic that tell me that I am wrong about Zander Clark’s poor form costing us football matches. Genuinely, I’d be delighted to be proven wrong.

One that comes to mind immediately which was in a tweet from the Saints historian  is that yesterday was Zanders 50th clean sheet in his 150th game in a Saints strips. 

You could also look at the stats that Random mentioned above in last 6 games saints have had 50 shots against us and list 8 goals. So his shots to goal ratio is 6.3 not 1.9 :razz:

Really don't have the inclination  or time to go and rake through stats to come up with others.  

 

Edited by mainstand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, mainstand said:

One that comes to mind immediately which was in a tweet from the Saints historian  is that yesterday was Zanders 50th clean sheet in his 150th game in a Saints strips. 

You could also look at the stats that Random mentioned above in last 6 games saints have had 50 shots against us and list 8 goals. So his shots to goal ratio is 6.3 not 1.9 :razz:

Really don't have the inclination  or time to go and rake through stats to come up with others.  

 

Congratulations to Zander on his 50th clean sheet but how many were like yesterday where the defence limited the opposition to no shots on goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mainstand said:

One that comes to mind immediately which was in a tweet from the Saints historian  is that yesterday was Zanders 50th clean sheet in his 150th game in a Saints strips. 

You could also look at the stats that Random mentioned above in last 6 games saints have had 50 shots against us and list 8 goals. So his shots to goal ratio is 6.3 not 1.9 :razz:

Really don't have the inclination  or time to go and rake through stats to come up with others.  

 

50 shots on target or 50 shots on goal? 
 

I’m just thinking, the last 2 games he has conceded 100% of shots on target 

Edited by Pat McGroin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty doubtful regarding Zander. Recent goalies, Main, Rhodes, Hamilton, Mannus etc were better goalies. We've had crap ones as well. Could we get better? He's under a decent contract. But certainly does not instill any confidence. He's in the average basket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cagey said:

Congratulations to Zander on his 50th clean sheet but how many were like yesterday where the defence limited the opposition to no shots on goal.

No idea, but if you want to look at like that what about the 100 games how many goals resulted from the defensive errors? 

9 hours ago, Pat McGroin said:

50 shots on target or 50 shots on goal? 
 

I’m just thinking, the last 2 games he has conceded 100% of shots on target 

Shots on Target.

Yes that would be the case. If you look at Aberdeen goalie his would be 80% on Saturday 5 shots on target and conceded 4 goals my point is that whilst stats are great they can be made adjusted to show anything you like and fail to take into account the other work that the goalie would have done in stopping goals.  

 

Edited by mainstand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Melbourne Saint said:

I'm pretty doubtful regarding Zander. Recent goalies, Main, Rhodes, Hamilton, Mannus etc were better goalies. We've had crap ones as well. Could we get better? He's under a decent contract. But certainly does not instill any confidence. He's in the average basket.

The annoying thing is 3 seasons ago I would have said he was as good as most of those & better than some.

I don't know what has happened but it has been a gradual deterioration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always think it's interesting the way goalkeepers are treated differently ... pretty much every other player in our squad has been in and out of the team this season and no one really raises an eyebrow when it happens, but if Parish was to come in for Clark for a few games it would be seen as a massive statement. Personally I thought Parish looked OK when he played at the start of the season, and given Clark's ropey form I wouldn't object to seeing Parish given some more game time. Doesn't have to mean Clark's Saints career is over forever. Just means Clark's getting a break and someone else is getting to show what they can do. It happened with Mannus when Clark came in for a spell, and didn't seem to do him any harm.

As it stands I think probably CD is in a situation where he has two goalkeepers under contract, doesn't feel his budget will allow him to go out and get a new one (or, at least, not a new one that is any better than he already has), and has maybe just decided that the only choice he has at the moment is to stick with Clark, try to work with him and avoid denting his confidence, and hope his form will pick up again.

I actually thought Clark had a good game on Saturday, albeit without having a huge amount to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mainstand said:

No idea, but if you want to look at like that what about the 100 games how many goals resulted from the defensive errors? 

Shots on Target.

Yes that would be the case. If you look at Aberdeen goalie his would be 80% on Saturday 5 shots on target and conceded 4 goals my point is that whilst stats are great they can be made adjusted to show anything you like and fail to take into account the other work that the goalie would have done in stopping goals.  

 

Yes, and I’m sure he had a howler by his own standards, but we aren’t judging Clark over one game here. He’s been poor for 18 months. 

You may or may not rate the metric, but every keeper is being graded on the same scale and Clark is at the bottom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Real Saints said:

I was diagnosed with high blood pressure recently, and I have no doubt that it has mainly been caused by reading posts from Cagey and mainstand on We Are Perth. If they could inform me that it's purely satirical (even if that's untrue), it would be the kindest thing to do for the sake of my health.

Watching Clark flap about is a more likely cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pat McGroin said:

Thank you for confirming my suspicions! Mainstand plucking numbers out of thin air. 

Mainstand is not plucking figures out of thin air.  Random was claiming that Zander conceded a goal for every 1.96 shots by opponents at our goal - not just shots on target!  To someone who learned to count using a chalk board and a duster that seemed nonsense.

A simple check of the BBC stats for our last 6 games showed 50 shots at our goal which resulted in 8 goals.  Random has since accepted that his source (something called WyScout) was incorrect.

See the top of this page and the end of page 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, south inch said:

Mainstand is not plucking figures out of thin air.  Random was claiming that Zander conceded a goal for every 1.96 shots by opponents at our goal - not just shots on target!  To someone who learned to count using a chalk board and a duster that seemed nonsense.

A simple check of the BBC stats for our last 6 games showed 50 shots at our goal which resulted in 8 goals.  Random has since accepted that his source (something called WyScout) was incorrect.

See the top of this page and the end of page 8.

Can anyone confirm that they actually use shots on goal for this stat. Surely it’s shots on target as shots off target are irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Pat McGroin said:

Can anyone confirm that they actually use shots on goal for this stat. Surely it’s shots on target as shots off target are irrelevant. 

Dunno about that. Wasn't there a game against Motherwell when he chucked a an off target shot into the net?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, south inch said:

In our last 6 games, according to the BBC, our opponents have taken 50 shots at our goal and Zander has conceded 8 goals.  Your statement above is either wrong or your information source uses a different measurement system.

@Pat McGroin this is where the 50 came from. Read posts!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pat McGroin said:

Can anyone confirm that they actually use shots on goal for this stat. Surely it’s shots on target as shots off target are irrelevant. 

Can you not do us the courtesy of reading the posts which are at the source of this discussion?  They are at the top of this page and the bottom of page 8.  The guy who started the hare running has had the courtesy to concede he was mislead by his source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RandomGuy said:

Yeah I got it wrong.

Wyscout claim they count blocked shots as shots, but clearly only use Shots on target for goalkeepers.

Clark is conceding every ~2 shots on target

And those shots on target are limited as it is, thus his conceded ratio to shots on target is the worst in the league. It’s not hard. As Pat said, this deterioration is over 18 months and every other keeper is measured the same way and Zander is, indisputably, bottom. The stats are not interpreted or made up. Just simple :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a matter of interest, how would Kane’s effort (that the keeper touched over but did not result in a corner) be judged, on or off target?  I thought it was going over anyway, so off target and would not count in this strange metric.

does hitting the post count as on or off target?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dunblanemike said:

As a matter of interest, how would Kane’s effort (that the keeper touched over but did not result in a corner) be judged, on or off target?  I thought it was going over anyway, so off target and would not count in this strange metric.

does hitting the post count as on or off target?

I used to have the job of counting stats at Saints games (albeit a long time ago now, so things may well have changed). Hitting the woodwork was always counted as off target when I did it (because you're not aiming for the woodwork), unless it hit the woodwork and went into the goal of course. Really not sure about your first question - officially I'd say it should go down as off target because no corner was awarded, but if I was doing the counting and felt it was obviously a save then I'd probably have put it down as on target.

To add to the grey areas - it's also true that a shot isn't necessarily on target just because the goalkeeper saves it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this