Are Long-Range Shots Worth Taking? What Expected Goals Data Shows About Shooting From Distance

A long-range shot is any attempt taken from outside the penalty area, usually more than 18 metres from goal. Expected goals models rate most of these shots as very unlikely to score, which has led many analysts to call them wasteful. Shot maps on RubiScore show how often teams still try them, and the question of whether they are worth taking has a more interesting answer than a simple yes or no.

This article sets out what the data captures, what it shows, and where the standard argument against shooting from distance is weaker than it looks. Shot locations, expected goals and match events for the leagues covered are available at https://rubiscore.com, so each step below can be checked against real matches.

The Question

The claim under test is simple: teams would score more goals over a season if they took fewer shots from outside the box and kept the ball until a better chance appeared.

To answer it fairly, the question has to be split in two:

• Is a long-range shot a good chance? In most cases, no. That part is not in dispute.
• Is taking it worse than the alternative? This is the real question, and it depends on what would have happened if the player had passed instead.

Most debates about long shots mix these two questions together. The first is about shot quality. The second is about decision-making.

What the Data Captures

Expected goals (xG) gives each shot a probability of becoming a goal, based on thousands of similar past shots. The main inputs are:

• Distance from goal. The further out, the lower the value.
• Angle to goal. Wide positions shrink the target.
• Body part. Headers and weaker-foot shots score less often.
• Type of assist. A cut-back, a through ball and a cross produce different chances.
• Situation. Open play, a direct free kick, a rebound or a counter-attack.

Under almost every public model, a typical shot from outside the box carries an xG value in the low single-digit percentages. In plain terms, a team would expect to score from only a few of every hundred such attempts. A clear chance from close range inside the box can be worth many times more.

Event data also records whether a shot was blocked, saved, missed or scored. That matters, because a large share of long-range attempts never reach the goalkeeper. They hit a defender first.

What the Data Shows

Three findings come up again and again when long-range shooting is studied.

First, the value per attempt is low. Because each shot is worth so little, even a team that takes many long-range shots will usually build up only a small expected goals total from them. A season of speculative efforts can add up to fewer expected goals than a handful of good chances inside the six-yard box.

Second, top teams have reduced them. Analysts have widely reported that the share of shots taken from outside the box fell across Europe's major leagues during the 2010s and beyond, as clubs began to use expected goals in coaching and recruitment. The change is visible in average shot distance, which has drifted closer to goal.

Third, conversion is noisy. Long-range goals are rare events. A player who scores three spectacular goals from distance in a month has not necessarily become a better shooter. Over a full season, actual goals from distance tend to stay close to the expected total unless the shooter is exceptional.

So far, the case against long shots looks strong. The next section is where it gets more complicated.

What Standard xG Leaves Out

A shot's xG only measures the chance of that shot going in. It ignores several things that can follow a long-range attempt:

• Rebounds. A powerful shot that the goalkeeper parries can fall to an attacker inside the box. The rebound is then recorded as a separate, higher-value shot.
• Deflections into corners. A blocked shot that goes behind gives the attacking team a corner, which is a set piece with its own scoring chance.
• Goalkeeper errors. Swerving shots on wet surfaces are harder to hold. Models built on average conditions do not fully capture this.
• Defensive adjustment. If a team never shoots from distance, defenders can sit deeper and pack the box. The threat of a long shot forces them to step out, which can open space for passes.

There are costs too. A shot usually ends the possession. A blocked shot can rebound into open space and start a counter-attack against a team that had pushed players forward. Possession-value models, which estimate how likely a team is to score from its current position on the ball, try to weigh these effects. Many of them suggest that in a typical situation, keeping the ball outside the box is worth more than a speculative shot. But in some situations, such as when the pass options are closed and the shooter has time, the gap becomes small.

The Confounders

Several factors make the raw numbers hard to read.

Game state. Teams that are losing tend to shoot from distance more often, especially late in matches, because they are running out of time against a defence that has dropped deep. If long-range shooting is linked with losing, that is partly because losing causes the shooting, not the reverse.

Opponent quality and style. Teams facing a low block see fewer chances inside the box. Their long-range share may be high because the opponent left them nothing else.

Shooter quality. A small number of players beat the expected value of their long shots over several seasons. For them, a shot from 25 metres is a better option than it would be for an average player.

Set pieces. Direct free kicks from outside the box are a separate situation, with a stationary ball and a specialist taker. They should be counted apart from open-play long shots.

Model blind spots. Many xG models do not know where the defenders and goalkeeper were standing at the moment of the shot. A long shot with a clear sight of goal and an out-of-position keeper may be valued the same as one through a crowd of bodies.

A Worked Example

Consider two hypothetical teams over the same set of matches.

Team A takes 16 shots per match, with half of them from outside the box. Team B takes 11 shots per match, with only two from distance. On the surface Team A looks more threatening, because it shoots more.

Now imagine that Team A's long shots average a few hundredths of a goal each, while its shots inside the box are of ordinary quality. Team B creates fewer chances but more of them come from central areas close to goal. Over a season, Team B can easily build up the higher expected goals total despite shooting less often.

Then add one more detail. Team A's long shots win it a steady stream of corners and second-ball shots. If those follow-up chances are counted, part of the gap closes. The fair comparison looks at the full sequence after each shot, not only the shot itself.

How to Read a Team's Long-Range Numbers

When judging whether a team or player shoots from distance too often, check these figures together:

• Share of shots from outside the box. Compare it with the league average rather than with an ideal.
• Expected goals per shot. A low average often signals heavy long-range shooting.
• Blocked-shot share. A high rate suggests shots are being forced through crowded areas.
• Game-state splits. Separate shots taken while level, ahead and behind.
• Multi-season conversion. Only long samples can show whether a player is a genuine long-range threat.
• What follows. Corners, rebounds and counter-attacks conceded after long shots complete the picture.

Shot maps on RubiScore make the first step quick, because they show at a glance whether a team's attempts cluster in the box or spread out towards the edge.

The Verdict

The data supports a narrower conclusion than the popular one. Long-range shots are, on average, poor chances, and teams that rely on them tend to create less than their shot totals suggest. Most sides have been right to take fewer of them.

But "fewer" does not mean "none". A long shot taken at the right moment, by the right player, against a defence that has given nothing else away, can be a reasonable decision. It also keeps defenders honest and can produce corners and rebounds that standard xG ignores. The better question is not whether a team shoots from distance, but whether it does so selectively.