To Shoot Or Not To Shoot

That is the question....

TLDR (Too Long; Didn’t Read)

If you’re an experienced field hockey coach, ask yourself: Are your training sessions overly focused on shooting, while neglecting what the statistics and top coaches suggest is a better bet for scoring—winning penalty corners? Drawing on Simon Blanford’s data-driven analysis, plus the competitive philosophies of Mike McCann and Alyson Annan, this article advocates a strategic rethink. We’ll examine the data, the psychology, and the practice habits behind our in-circle obsession and walk through actionable changes every coach can make. Along the way, we’ll return to an analogy every competitor will appreciate—the archer’s dilemma—in concluding where your coaching aim should really fall.

McCann - Blanford - Annan

Table of Contents

1. Introduction: The Archer’s Dilemma

2. The Status Quo: Shooting Drills as the Holy Grail

3. The Data Doesn't Lie: What Analysis Tells Us About Circle Outcomes

4. The Underappreciated Art of Winning Penalty Corners

5. Integrating McCann’s Principles: Near-Goal Phenomena and Decision Making

6. Alyson Annan’s Circle Behaviour: Efficiency, Mindset, and Movement

7. Challenging the Paradigm: When, Why, and How Should We Shift Training Time?

8. Practical Takeaways for Coaches

9. Conclusion: Hitting the Bullseye—What Are We Really Aiming For?

---

Introduction: The Archer’s Dilemma

Picture the scene: an archer stands in an arena packed with tension, bow in hand, arrows at the ready. This archer faces two choices: nock arrows and fire rapidly at every opportunity, running the risk of missing and scattering shots, or hold their nerve, wait for the opportune moment, and unleash a single, carefully set shot—one highly likely to strike the bullseye. Likewise, in field hockey, the “circle” is an arena of decision-making under immense pressure. For years, the prevailing wisdom has been to snap off as many shots as possible, betting that sheer volume will yield goals. But is this really the wisest approach, or have we undervalued the alternative—creating and capitalising on high-probability penalty corners?

This article begins from a provocative premise articulated by Simon Blanford in his masterclass on in-circle analysis: that elite coaches and teams devote disproportionate training time to open-play shooting, neglecting the art and science of winning penalty corners—opportunities that account for a significant chunk of top-level goal scoring and offer much greater statistical reward. Analysing insights from Simon Blanford's analytics-heavy investigation, Mike McCann’s principle-driven focus on nine-yard scoring, and Alyson Annan’s behavioral models for circle efficiency, we’ll shine a bright light on what actually produces outcomes on the scoreboard. Should you keep your coaching focus on open-play shots, or is it time for a radical refocus?

The consequences of your answer echo through every element of training culture, from youth programs to international competition. Are you training athletes to be rapid-fire archers, happily loosing arrows but rarely hitting gold? Or should you lead them to become snipers of opportunity, shaping play to set up the highest-value chance? As we move through the data, the strategies, and the voices of world-class minds, you’ll discover both the theory and the actionable tools to re-calibrate your aim. At article’s end, we’ll return to the archer—this time with an answer forged in data, coaching wisdom, and practical realities.

---

The Status Quo: Shooting Drills as the Holy Grail

Walk past most hockey pitches midweek and you’ll see the familiar scene: groups of players lining up for “cage time,” coaches feeding ball after ball, and attackers converting stickwork into shots with mechanical repetition. For generations of field hockey coaches, the shooting drill has been a staple bordering on ritual. The lust for open-play, “field” goals is legit—they captivate the crowd, galvanise a team, and are often associated with individual brilliance. There’s an artistry to a perfectly timed finish or an audacious shot from the top of the circle, and for players themselves, putting the ball in the net is the single purest adrenaline hit the game can offer.

But there’s a shadow side to this aesthetic temptation. Culturally, both coaches and players have absorbed a kind of “field goal fetish,” where the only truly noble way to score is through an open-play shot, ideally after a sweeping team move or a moment of individual magic. Even at elite levels, as Alyson Annan acknowledged in her masterclass, there’s a deep-rooted hope that the future of the game isn’t just penalty corner after penalty corner. Coaches feel audience pressure, player expectations, and even personal pride in crafting beautiful, open-play goals. The result: in the vast majority of team trainings, any drill that doesn’t end with a shot on target feels like a missed opportunity.

This value system bleeds into session planning, game reviews, and athlete development pathways. Young attackers are rewarded for hitting the net, not for their guile in drawing fouls or their technical efficiency in “winning” the circle. And the coach’s clipboard fills with statistics about shots taken, not always about chances created—or decisions made, or, crucially, corners won. By the time players reach senior or international level, these routines are cemented. We end up training the art of archery, but sometimes neglect to teach the wisdom of when not to shoot.

---

The Data Doesn't Lie: What Analysis Tells Us About Circle Outcomes

Simon Blanford’s forensic dive into Olympic-level match data pulls the rug out from the shooting-centric approach. In his review of every shot in the women's Olympic tournament, he revealed that a vast majority of shots taken from within the circle have very low probabilities of resulting in goals. The median shot value? Just 8%—and most common shot value was a paltry 5%. Statistically, then, for every glamorous shot from the edge of the D, there are nineteen that miss, are saved, or dribble out into irrelevance.

This low-probability reality matters, because it challenges the assumption that more shooting practice equals more goals. While the average coach may believe that most in-circle shots are at least meaningful threats, Blanford’s modeling proves otherwise: 60% of shots were 10% or less likely to score, and 80% had a 20% or smaller likelihood. These are not the odds you’d stake your season on. Contrast this with penalty corner conversion rates, which, as Blanford highlighted, chug along at a consistent—if not spectacular—clip of 18–25% in top women’s hockey (with penalty strokes, of course, being even higher). In terms of “bang for your buck,” a well-executed corner is three to five times more likely to generate a goal than the average open-play shot.

Even when you account for “added value” (rebounds, follow-up shots, or corners won from the original effort), the open-play shot tends to be “one and done.” Only about 13% of low-value shots create a follow-up opportunity, and of those, only a fraction result in a significantly higher probability of scoring. Blanford’s analysis concluded that as beautiful as it feels, the field goal hunt in women’s hockey (and indeed, the numbers are similar in many men’s competitions) is inefficient—and often outperformed, in hard numbers, by the “boring” penalty corner.

---

The Underappreciated Art of Winning Penalty Corners

So why, if corners are so potent, do they get so little dedicated practice time—especially sessions focused specifically on how to win them? The answer lies partly in psychology, and partly in the technical-tactical challenge of teaching players not just to finish corners but to “win” them inside the D. Penalty corners are the “third way” of scoring in hockey, sitting between the field goal and the penalty stroke. Unlike in football or basketball, where set pieces are fleeting, corners in hockey occupy a unique place as both reward and opportunity—a structured, repeatable scenario where skill and preparation can decisively trump chaos.

Psychologically, however, winning a corner lacks glamour. Forwards and midfielders often dream of highlight-reel finishes, not of dragging a ball onto a defender’s foot or manufacturing a blocking foul. Coaches too are influenced by the drama and aesthetic purity of open-play finishing. Yet the data from recent major tournaments shows us a clear trend: teams that thrive (notably China in the last Olympics) deliberately train and execute sequences with the intent to generate corners, often shifting defensive focus and forcing mistakes in the process. Simon Blanford’s breakdown of penalty corners at the last Olympics found that a full third were “won” by attackers through deliberate skill and strategy—a number that could be even higher with other teams following suit.

Despite these numbers, the majority of teams reserve most of their “corner practice” for goal execution—the phase after the corner is awarded—ignoring the skills, movements, and decision-making required to win them in open play. Only about 10% of in-circle actions during the Olympics reflected an intent to win a corner. The untapped potential is enormous. If field goals are the archer’s rapid-fire shots, then corner-winning is the equivalent of maneuvering to the perfect spot, waiting for the easiest target, and then firing with intent—almost always a higher-percentage play.

---

Integrating McCann’s Principles: Near-Goal Phenomena and Decision Making

Mike McCann, a former Australia striker and now a highly influential coach in Germany and beyond, brings a different but key angle to this debate. His approach is principle-driven: divide the challenges of scoring into technical, decision-making, and physical categories, and train with relentless attention to tactical basics. Around the nine-yard area, where most field goals are scored, McCann focuses on shooting at speed with both feet, efficient footwork, rebound positioning, and the critical art of “getting to goal.” In his words, “world class goal scoring in these areas will come from... some natural instinct, but we can actually train it.”

McCann’s session plans blend technical progression with match-realistic scenarios: starting with one vs. one contests, then building in complexity to two vs. two and three vs. three. His reasoning? To ingrain the core circle behaviours that produce not just shots, but outcomes. Principles like post work, setting up on the inside of the post, scanning for passing angles, and “never stop until the ball is in the net” are drilled over and over—constantly tied to real match dynamics. Most importantly, McCann prizes decision-making: when does a player stay on the post versus coming to the ball, and how do they time their runs for rebounds?

What’s striking, given Blanford’s critique, is how these same principles can easily be adapted to corner-winning. Getting low, keeping the stick down, anticipating rebounds, and beating your marker to the spot aren’t just for scoring—they’re exactly the types of micro-skills needed to turn a half-chance into a penalty corner under pressure. For example, McCann’s practice of training finishing actions until the ball leaves the circle echoes the demand for persistence in corner-winning: players must believe that every effort is a potential investment, and the habit of fighting for loose balls can just as easily win a corner as produce a rebound goal.

---

Alyson Annan’s Circle Behaviour: Efficiency, Mindset, and Movement

In her presentation on “circle behavior,” legendary coach Alyson Annan shifted the conversation from technique to intent—questioning not just how her athletes shot, but why, from where, and with what awareness. Annan emphasises three critical areas: before entering the circle (gathering information, positioning), behavior inside the circle (stay, reposition, occupy scoring zones), and in-possession decision-making (shot selection, using your body, communication, and clarity). She is explicit about creating clarity in roles: “Here we pass, and here we shoot. That means that the communication and clarity for the whole team is... the pre-agreed positioning as well.”

What makes Annan’s approach so relevant to our discussion is her extended definition of efficiency. Efficient circle play isn’t just the glamorous goal; it’s the smart pass, the positional occupation of a rebound spot, the creation of a scoring pass, and the art of standing still—staying patient to create and exploit space. She explicitly distinguishes shooting zones (between the third stripe and the back line to top of circle) from passing zones, and urges her attackers to be present, make eye contact, and be “standing still, ready to receive.” This mindset, which drives up the number of quality opportunities, naturally includes the pursuit of corners. Indeed, Annan’s training culture celebrated not just the final shot but the scoring pass, successful pre-agreed movement, and any scenario that created a significant chance—even if it was (or became) a corner.

Translating Annan’s philosophy into more corner-winning means clarifying to players how valuable “efficiency” is—whether by a field goal, a corner, or a pass that forces the defender into error. She challenges coaches to reward the ‘right action,’ not just the outcome. Her excellent use of video analysis is another step: repeated, detailed review of player actions in real in-circle scenarios, not just for the final goal but also for buildup and corner-winning, can tremendously improve awareness and buy-in. The result is a “killer instinct” where the player, standing still and ready, adapts in real time: if a shot is on, take it; if the higher-value reward is a corner, win it!

---

Challenging the Paradigm: When, Why, and How Should We Shift Training Time?

Given the weight of evidence and the wisdom of high-level coaching, should every coach now pivot the practice schedule away from shooting and toward corner-winning (and by extension, other high-probability outcomes)? It is not a simple “either/or,” but the evidence is clear: a rebalancing is overdue. There’s real risk in raising a generation of archers who can shoot all day but rarely hit the gold—especially if they’re not also trained to re-set, out-think, and out-manoeuvre for a set-piece opportunity.

One argument against shifting focus is the “culture of beauty”—the belief, strongly voiced by Annan and echoed by many, that field goals are the soul of the game, and over-reliance on penalty corners (or their pursuit) is both boring and aesthetically unsatisfying. Coaches fear that incentivising corners might drain the creative instinct, discourage risk-taking, or yield negative play (as in football’s notorious “diving” for penalties). Yet, as Blanford noted, penalty corners are not only more efficient but are culturally unique to hockey, representing a tactical resource as fundamental as pressing or counter-attacks. The data suggests that smartly “trading” low-value shots for corners—especially given a conversion rate near 1 in 5—could double a team’s meaningful scoring opportunities.

The key may be found in athlete and team culture. As McCann described, buy-in is easier when players see the rationale, understand the “why,” and have fun with the competition of winning corners. Annan’s session plans, full of scoring games, video highlights, and competitive mini-tournaments, show that you can ignite desire for efficiency—not just artistry. And Blanford’s challenge to trainers (“if winning a corner 45% of the time becomes the norm, why settle for 8% shots?”) is a call to apply new metrics for success. As coaches, we need to ask not only which shots to take but what outcomes we value, and how to structure training accordingly—preparing archers not just to shoot, but to win.

---

Practical Takeaways for Coaches

So how can you translate these new priorities into better practice, week after week? First: introduce explicit corner-winning scenarios into every circle session. Allocate progressive blocks within the session—not just for drag-flickers and injectors, but for the creation phase. For example, in small-sided games or shooting circuits, award points for winning effective corners as well as for goals scored. Make corner-winning a competitive, celebrated outcome: in McCann’s style, keep “the ball alive” until a shot, a corner, or an obvious defensive clearance.

Second: use video analysis, as Annan recommends, to tune your players’ circle behaviour. Break down not just goals, but also the build-up to corners won—highlighting how patience, scanning, and clever physical play create outcomes. Reward and praise not only the shooter but the player who draws the stick tackle, anticipates the defensive block, or positions smartly on the inside of the post. This develops a team-wide understanding of efficiency, reinforcing the message that “winning the play” is just as valuable as “winning the shot.”

Third: constantly measure and review. Borrowing from Blanford’s analytical framework, track how many corners are won as a percentage of circle entries and compare these to shot conversion. Look for predictable situations where teams win corners (vs. when they squander shots). Experiment with training variables: if your corners produce double the outcomes of your best-on-field shooters, it’s time to make allocation changes. Practical example: Run a tracked five-minute game in which only corners and rebounds “count” as points for attackers, challenging your players’ willingness to adapt.

---

Conclusion: Hitting the Bullseye—What Are We Really Aiming For?

Returning to our opening analogy, imagine the archer now with both the confidence to shoot freely and the wisdom to know when to hold back, bide time, and set up the perfect shot. The field hockey coach’s aim is not just to create shooters, but thinkers: players whose instinct for exploitation of the highest-probability outcome—be it a field goal or a penalty corner—wins matches and trophies. Blanford’s numbers remind us that scattergun tactics rarely hit gold, but neither does the rigid, “corner-only” mindset breed champions.

The smart coach, then, leads with principle and with data, blending McCann’s technical doggedness and Annan’s behavioral clarity. We should move beyond fetishising the field goal and start normalising the efficiency of a well-won corner. We must design training where all outcomes—shots, corners, rebounds—are valued in balance, and players thrive in whichever scenario emerges. This doesn’t mean abandoning shooting, but it does mean questioning the ratio: are our archers equipped, or just eager?

To hit the coaching bullseye, recalibrate your sessions. Reclaim some of the time spent on endless cage time for purposeful, scenario-based drills that elevate the art of corner-winning. Develop recognition and appreciation of this skill throughout your team, from juniors to seniors. Because in the end, games are won not by who shoots most, but by who crafts the surest path to goal—be it by arrow, by artistry, or by corner earned and converted.

---

Sources: