I'm not entirely convinced that most coaches truly leverage their quantitative video data in a way that drives meaningful improvement. Too often, stats like circle entries (CEs) are used more as a shield or a justification, either to defend poor performance or to validate a particular playing style. But not all CEs are created equal. Merely entering the circle and being easily dispossessed isn’t the same as entering with intent, making decisions under pressure, and generating real outcomes like a penalty corner, a shot, or—ideally—a goal.
Circle entries in isolation tell you very little. It’s the quality of the outcome that matters. Unless a CE leads to a threatening opportunity, it shouldn't be counted as success. Numbers alone don’t paint the full picture. The focus should shift from volume to value, what happens once you're in the circle is what really counts.
I don't know about "most coaches", but yes... of course. The goal is to create (and finish) opportunities which is more than just getting in the circle. As mentioned by Alyson Annan in the post above. And for example as mentioned by Darren Cheesman in the masterclass on GOT metrics (the value you mention in your comment): https://my.thehockeysite.com/p/got-metrics .
Another interesting one to consider is this one from Simon Blanford: https://my.thehockeysite.com/p/beyond-shot-count-how-data-analysis where stats show we need to do better with our circle entries because a desired outcome is even a better result than a threatening opportunity :)
I'm not entirely convinced that most coaches truly leverage their quantitative video data in a way that drives meaningful improvement. Too often, stats like circle entries (CEs) are used more as a shield or a justification, either to defend poor performance or to validate a particular playing style. But not all CEs are created equal. Merely entering the circle and being easily dispossessed isn’t the same as entering with intent, making decisions under pressure, and generating real outcomes like a penalty corner, a shot, or—ideally—a goal.
Circle entries in isolation tell you very little. It’s the quality of the outcome that matters. Unless a CE leads to a threatening opportunity, it shouldn't be counted as success. Numbers alone don’t paint the full picture. The focus should shift from volume to value, what happens once you're in the circle is what really counts.
I don't know about "most coaches", but yes... of course. The goal is to create (and finish) opportunities which is more than just getting in the circle. As mentioned by Alyson Annan in the post above. And for example as mentioned by Darren Cheesman in the masterclass on GOT metrics (the value you mention in your comment): https://my.thehockeysite.com/p/got-metrics .
Another interesting one to consider is this one from Simon Blanford: https://my.thehockeysite.com/p/beyond-shot-count-how-data-analysis where stats show we need to do better with our circle entries because a desired outcome is even a better result than a threatening opportunity :)