These data appeared in my in box this morning.
Their arrival took me back to Charles Reep and Bernard Benjamin’s observation fifty years ago:
an excess of shots by one team does not mean that, by chance, the other side will not get more goals and thus win the match (1968:585)
The team that managed 13 shots on goal had an ELO Rating of 4 in Asia and 37 in the World (as of 4 September 2017). The team that had 1 shot on goal had an ELO Rating of 12 in Asia and 108 in the World (as of 4 September 2017).
The game ended as a 2v1 win for the higher ELO rated team.
Charles and Bernard concluded (shortly after the 1966 World Cup):
with rare exceptions (for example, the 1966 World Cup series) it takes 10 shots to score 1 goal. (1968:585)
Prior to the 2v1 result, the higher ELO rated team had scored 14 goals in 9 games, the lower ELO rated team had scored 5 goals (conceded 22) in 9 games.
The data come from a game played at home by the higher rated ELO team.
I am hopeful that these kind of data change our language in training environments. We might stop talking about shooting practice and start conversations about goal scoring practice, rehearsal, scenarios and consequences.