Ahead of the busy festive schedule, I thought that it was a good time to take another look at how each of the League 2 clubs are performing using my scatter graphics. These are explained here if you haven’t seen them before.

Shot dominance

First of all, here is how the number of shots taken by each club compares with those they face in return. The average number of shots taken per match is on the horizontal and the average number faced is on the vertical, so bottom right (take plenty, allow few in return) is good while top left (take few, allow plenty) is bad:

Accrington may not have appeared on many betting slips as a promotion contender at the start of the season, but they look like the real deal here. Interestingly Wimbledon have been similarly dominant but are stuck in the bottom half of the table.

Despite being second only on goal difference, Northampton have had a pretty quiet season, taking fewer shots than everyone except the current bottom three.

The division’s most prolific shooters are Notts County, although the Magpies have allowed a relatively average number in return.

Attacking effectiveness

Now let’s look at attacking alone. The horizontal axis stays the same as in the graphic above, but now the vertical shows the average number of shots needed to score each league goal. Therefore bottom right is good (taking lots of shots and needing fewer efforts to convert) and top left is bad:

Here we can see that Northampton are making the most of their modest shot tally: they’re the division’s most clinical team with around five attempts needed to score each goal. Morecambe and Luton have been similarly clinical from a relatively low number of chances.

The most wasteful finishers have been Hartlepool with over nine shots taken per goal scored, although the spread is relatively narrow at the moment. Some of the division’s leading sides are in the top right quadrant with a similar conversion rate, although they are obviously carving out far more chances.

Top scorers Carlisle seem to have the most powerful combination of chance creation and clinical finishing, being over a shot above average by both measures.

Defensive effectiveness

Next let’s look at the defensive situation – basically take the above chart and replace the word “taken” for “faced” on both axes. Now top left is good – facing fewer shots and able to soak up more per goal conceded – and bottom right is bad:

Portsmouth and Plymouth are the two outliers here: the former allow very few efforts at their goal but deal with those that get through relatively averagely, while the latter allow an average amount but have been exceptional at keeping them out.

Despite allowing relatively few attempts at their goal, Barnet have the division’s most porous defence so far. It’s taken fewer shots on average to score against them than anyone else, although Wimbledon come a close second.

York‘s defence looks to be in the most trouble, with the most shots allowed and only three sides soaking up fewer attempts for each goal conceded.

Expected goals

Finally here’s an attempt at correcting the first graphic for the quality of chances created and allowed, using the same “expected goals” values that power my shot timelines (explained here). The reason for doing this is that the results tend to correlate more strongly with performance than when we treat all shots equally:

Interestingly the current top two of Plymouth and Northampton look pretty average compared to the cluster of teams in the bottom right, so unless they’re doing something special then they could find themselves overtaken in the promotion race.

The opposite looks to be the case for Wimbledon, who sit 14th despite consistently out-creating their opponents on the same scale as Portsmouth, so it will be interesting to see if their fortunes improve.

The current bottom three of York, Yeovil and Dag & Red look to have put in the worst attacking performances so far, but Stevenage and Crawley have been more permissive defensively.