A Real Hammering Is On The Cards

But it isnt. If there were no shots then there would be no goals stats for you to look at.

The base stat is chances created, the more chances created the more you score, the more you score the higher up you tend to finish. And the opposite of course generally works the other way.

The key bit is the first one (chances) because of you didnt have the first one then you wouldnt have the 2nd (goals) or 3rd (wins).

It is that's correct, but you have changed your stance on this subject now. You claimed earlier that Norwich had more chances and possession so deserved to win, that is not the case as we know how football can be.

Where have I changed my tune, my opinion hasnt wavered.

The more chances you have the more likely you are to score. Norwich had more chances so were more likely to score. If you played it 100 times Norwich would win far more than they would lose on the premise we just bith agreed on.

Meaning you wont always lose, as you showed yesterday, however if you continue to give up that amount of chances and create as little then you will lose far more than win.

This is common sense is it not?

It is common sense as you put it now, but luckily football isn't based on number of shots, possession etc. it's based on converted attempts which we all know. It depends how good the defence also, if you have a good defence then you can withstand more goal scoring opportunities as a result. These facts you suggest fortunately mean nothing when the game is played. That's all I have to say on the matter as I'm repeating myself now.

The better the defence is generally means it will give up less chances, which then obviously reflects in the conceded goals column. its as linked defensively as it is attacking.

Although ive never claimed possession as a factor.

But it isnt. If there were no shots then there would be no goals stats for you to look at.

The base stat is chances created, the more chances created the more you score, the more you score the higher up you tend to finish. And the opposite of course generally works the other way.

The key bit is the first one (chances) because of you didnt have the first one then you wouldnt have the 2nd (goals) or 3rd (wins).

It is that's correct, but you have changed your stance on this subject now. You claimed earlier that Norwich had more chances and possession so deserved to win, that is not the case as we know how football can be.

Where have I changed my tune, my opinion hasnt wavered.

The more chances you have the more likely you are to score. Norwich had more chances so were more likely to score. If you played it 100 times Norwich would win far more than they would lose on the premise we just bith agreed on.

Meaning you wont always lose, as you showed yesterday, however if you continue to give up that amount of chances and create as little then you will lose far more than win.

This is common sense is it not?

It is common sense as you put it now, but luckily football isn't based on number of shots, possession etc. it's based on converted attempts which we all know. It depends how good the defence also, if you have a good defence then you can withstand more goal scoring opportunities as a result. These facts you suggest fortunately mean nothing when the game is played. That's all I have to say on the matter as I'm repeating myself now.

The better the defence is generally means it will give up less chances, which then obviously reflects in the conceded goals column. its as linked defensively as it is attacking.

Although ive never claimed possession as a factor.

I'm sure you have, but ill believe your word.

Never have. Posession means the other team has kess chance to score because they cant score if you have it. However more posession doesnt mean more shots and thus doesnt necesarily mean more goals. I see it as a defensive tactic more than an attacking one.