Aston Villa v Hull City post match thread.

[olaftab]

Yes score able chances wise
Gabby
Hogan x2
Lansbury x2
Green

Green was second half. Neither of Lansbury chances made the TV highlights so they can't have been that close.

Well they were .....so there🙃

[paul_e]

I think the 'if we scored our chances' argument is a misleading one.  There's a lot of stats been done around this and they all return a conversion rate of somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 6.  If you can think of 5-6 decent-good chances in a game then you'd expect to see 1-2 goals.  That's why I don't like the argument that if XX had scored his chance then... because it's just not realistic.  Sometimes teams will have 3 chances and score all of them, but other times they will have 20 and not score but it will always average out.

When we were relegated our conversion rate was about the same as anyone else in the league, we just had so few shots that we weren't playing the odds.  Last season we were, from what I remember, slightly low on chance conversion and near the 1 in 5-6 end of things so there is room for improvement but we also need to create more and get more people in the box.  Yesterday wasn't massively different.  When we scored we had 3 players in the box, other than set pieces I don't think that happened again all game.

[McGraths Dry Cleaning]

Ho hum.

We could have scored 2 or 3 in the first half but we didn't. We could have made a change at the start of the second half when Hull put the pressure on but we didn't. We could have subbed Bacuna earlier but we didn't. We could have scored late on to win it but we didn't. Kodjia might not be injured but he is. The start of the second half made me feel a little sad - an almost silent 31k VP expecting an equaliser. I'm really starting to worry that this is the new "normal" for Aston Villa.

Lots of football to play of course and if we can continue to create chances and improve our conversion then on this showing we should be in the mix I guess but I left feeling a bit flat to be honest.

[Toronto Villa]

Fucking hell that miss from Green is incredible

[brian green]

That miss of Andre's is on a par with Richards heading a Villa shot that was about to cross the line out for a goal kick.  Not that I am comparing my kinsman with the spaniel who chases a balloon.

[Chris Smith]

I think the 'if we scored our chances' argument is a misleading one.  There's a lot of stats been done around this and they all return a conversion rate of somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 6.  If you can think of 5-6 decent-good chances in a game then you'd expect to see 1-2 goals.  That's why I don't like the argument that if XX had scored his chance then... because it's just not realistic.  Sometimes teams will have 3 chances and score all of them, but other times they will have 20 and not score but it will always average out.

When we were relegated our conversion rate was about the same as anyone else in the league, we just had so few shots that we weren't playing the odds.  Last season we were, from what I remember, slightly low on chance conversion and near the 1 in 5-6 end of things so there is room for improvement but we also need to create more and get more people in the box.  Yesterday wasn't massively different.  When we scored we had 3 players in the box, other than set pieces I don't think that happened again all game.

You can quote all the stats in the world but none of them explain a player missing with a free header into an unguarded goal. I just had another look at it and it was an absolute sitter.

[WarszaVillan]

I thought we played well in general and I'm pretty positive about this season. One thing I did learn is that if during a match you search the word Aston Villa in You Tube, setting the filter to live video, you get some surprisingly good results.

[paul_e]

I think the 'if we scored our chances' argument is a misleading one.  There's a lot of stats been done around this and they all return a conversion rate of somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 6.  If you can think of 5-6 decent-good chances in a game then you'd expect to see 1-2 goals.  That's why I don't like the argument that if XX had scored his chance then... because it's just not realistic.  Sometimes teams will have 3 chances and score all of them, but other times they will have 20 and not score but it will always average out.

When we were relegated our conversion rate was about the same as anyone else in the league, we just had so few shots that we weren't playing the odds.  Last season we were, from what I remember, slightly low on chance conversion and near the 1 in 5-6 end of things so there is room for improvement but we also need to create more and get more people in the box.  Yesterday wasn't massively different.  When we scored we had 3 players in the box, other than set pieces I don't think that happened again all game.

You can quote all the stats in the world but none of them explain a player missing with a free header into an unguarded goal. I just had another look at it and it was an absolute sitter.

but that wasn't my point.  My point was that listing 4-5 chances that we could've taken to win it comfortably is pointless because almost every team could do that after almost every game.  The difference between the teams that win regularly and others is that they have more chances to score, not that they're better at taking them, it's an argument I've seen repeatedly over the last few years and it's just not true.

That we missed a sitter doesn't change that fact.

[Chris Smith]

I think the 'if we scored our chances' argument is a misleading one.  There's a lot of stats been done around this and they all return a conversion rate of somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 6.  If you can think of 5-6 decent-good chances in a game then you'd expect to see 1-2 goals.  That's why I don't like the argument that if XX had scored his chance then... because it's just not realistic.  Sometimes teams will have 3 chances and score all of them, but other times they will have 20 and not score but it will always average out.

When we were relegated our conversion rate was about the same as anyone else in the league, we just had so few shots that we weren't playing the odds.  Last season we were, from what I remember, slightly low on chance conversion and near the 1 in 5-6 end of things so there is room for improvement but we also need to create more and get more people in the box.  Yesterday wasn't massively different.  When we scored we had 3 players in the box, other than set pieces I don't think that happened again all game.

You can quote all the stats in the world but none of them explain a player missing with a free header into an unguarded goal. I just had another look at it and it was an absolute sitter.

but that wasn't my point.  My point was that listing 4-5 chances that we could've taken to win it comfortably is pointless because almost every team could do that after almost every game.  The difference between the teams that win regularly and others is that they have more chances to score, not that they're better at taking them, it's an argument I've seen repeatedly over the last few years and it's just not true.

That we missed a sitter doesn't change that fact.

You can post all the  stats you like but this is the post match thread to a game that took place yesterday and consequently that is what I was referring to.

[paul_e]

I think the 'if we scored our chances' argument is a misleading one.  There's a lot of stats been done around this and they all return a conversion rate of somewhere between 1 in 3 and 1 in 6.  If you can think of 5-6 decent-good chances in a game then you'd expect to see 1-2 goals.  That's why I don't like the argument that if XX had scored his chance then... because it's just not realistic.  Sometimes teams will have 3 chances and score all of them, but other times they will have 20 and not score but it will always average out.

When we were relegated our conversion rate was about the same as anyone else in the league, we just had so few shots that we weren't playing the odds.  Last season we were, from what I remember, slightly low on chance conversion and near the 1 in 5-6 end of things so there is room for improvement but we also need to create more and get more people in the box.  Yesterday wasn't massively different.  When we scored we had 3 players in the box, other than set pieces I don't think that happened again all game.

You can quote all the stats in the world but none of them explain a player missing with a free header into an unguarded goal. I just had another look at it and it was an absolute sitter.

but that wasn't my point.  My point was that listing 4-5 chances that we could've taken to win it comfortably is pointless because almost every team could do that after almost every game.  The difference between the teams that win regularly and others is that they have more chances to score, not that they're better at taking them, it's an argument I've seen repeatedly over the last few years and it's just not true.

That we missed a sitter doesn't change that fact.

You can post all the  stats you like but this is the post match thread to a game that took place yesterday and consequently that is what I was referring to.

As was I, we made enough decent chances to score 1-2 and so did Hull so it's no great shock that it finished 1-1.

Yes Green missed a very good chance but so did they when they were through late in the first half and both teams scored when a bit of iffy defending left someone free on the left of the box to put home a right wing cross.

This is the problem with a few posters after games like this, they seem to view every chance that we have as a goal we've missed but don't do the same for the opposition and the post I replied to is another that does that because it lists 5 other chances we had but doesn't say anything about the chances Hull created.  What if ... can be a valid discussion point if it's balanced but doing it as 'what if we took every chance we had and they missed all of theirs' is about as valuable to the discussion as 'what if Benteke never left' or 'what if we'd won the league in 92'.

[Ads]

Hull had two chances of note.

[Flamingo Lane]

I also don't get this "if only we could take the chances we create" theme.  Our problem is, we don't create enough chances.  The reason we don't create enough chances is because we lack players with imagination, pace, touch, and energy and we lack any semblance of a game plan. 

[Ads]

I don't think that's true of the last two league games.

[Mister E]

So many individuals faded badly in the second half it does make you wonder if we're still not fit enough.

My thought too.

[paul_e]

I don't think that's true of the last two league games.

We created less chances that the opposition in both.

Yesterday we missed 2 good chances, 1 was a gabby one-on-one which literally no one expected him to score and the other was the Green sitter.  They missed a couple of very decent chances as well (although none as easy as the Green one).

You make your own luck and when it comes to scoring goals that means creating more chances and getting more shots away.  In this league at least defences and keepers are average enough that they'll make mistakes if you put them under pressure but we aren't able to sustain any real pressure.