The Classic Metric
"They had 15 shots on target to their opponent's 2"—sounds dominant, right? Perhaps. But shots on target, while useful, has significant limitations that make it less reliable than it appears.
Understanding what this metric captures—and misses—is essential for proper match analysis.
What Counts as On Target
A shot is "on target" if it would enter the goal without any intervention. This includes:
- Shots saved by the goalkeeper
- Shots blocked on the line by defenders
- Goals
It excludes:
- Shots that hit the post or crossbar (technically "on target" but usually classified separately)
- Shots that miss the goal entirely
- Shots blocked before reaching the goal frame
The Information in Shots on Target
Volume of Opportunities
More shots on target generally means more chances to score. A team with 10 shots on target was in threatening positions more often than a team with 2.
Finishing Accuracy
The ratio of shots on target to total shots reveals finishing accuracy. A team with 10 shots on target from 12 total shots is hitting the frame frequently. A team with 3 from 15 is wayward.
Goalkeeper Workload
More shots on target means more saves required. This creates more opportunities for goals—even elite goalkeepers face greater error probability with increased workload.
The Limitations
Location Blindness
A shot on target from 35 yards counts the same as one from 6 yards. The former might be routine; the latter might be a miracle save. Shots on target doesn't distinguish.
This is why expected goals (xG) has become the preferred metric—it weights shots by probability of scoring based on position.
Quality Ignorance
The "quality" of shots on target varies enormously:
- Weak, central shots that goalkeepers save comfortably
- Powerful shots into corners requiring full-stretch saves
- Headers from close range that are essentially sitters
All count as one shot on target despite vastly different goal probabilities.
Defensive Context
Shots on target doesn't capture defensive pressure:
- A shot taken under pressure might be on target but easily saved
- A shot from open play might be more dangerous than one from congestion
The number alone doesn't reveal the circumstances.
Blocked Shots Exclusion
Shots blocked before they reach the goalkeeper don't count as "on target" even if they were well-struck and heading goalward. Teams that get in good positions but face shot-blocking defenders are undervalued by this metric.
Shots on Target vs xG
For most analytical purposes, expected goals (xG) has superseded shots on target:
| Shots on Target | xG | |-----------------|-----| | Counts all equally | Weights by probability | | Location ignored | Location central to calculation | | Quality irrelevant | Quality captured | | Simple to understand | Requires explanation |
Use shots on target for quick assessment; use xG for serious analysis.
When Shots on Target Still Helps
Despite limitations, the metric remains useful:
Quick Reference
During live matches, shots on target provides immediate sense of pressure. If one team has 8 and the other has 0, something is clearly happening.
Goalkeeper Assessment
Comparing shots faced to goals conceded helps evaluate goalkeeper performance. A keeper facing 6 shots on target and conceding 0 is performing; one conceding 3 from 4 might be struggling.
Historical Context
Older matches might not have xG data. Shots on target provides at least some measure of chance creation for historical analysis.
Complement to xG
When xG and shots on target align (high xG, many shots on target), confidence in dominance increases. When they diverge (high shots on target but low xG), the shots were probably low-quality.
Reading Match Reports
When match reports cite shots on target:
Ask about quality: Were these good chances or speculative efforts?
Check the scoreline: Did shots on target translate to goals? If not, why not?
Compare to xG: If available, does xG confirm what shots on target suggests?
Consider context: Game state affects shooting—trailing teams shoot more, leading teams protect more.
Practical Framework
Use shots on target as:
- A quick indicator, not final assessment
- A complement to xG, not replacement for it
- A flag for further investigation (why so many/few?)
- Historical baseline when better metrics unavailable
The team with more shots on target probably created more chances. Whether those chances were good chances requires deeper analysis.