Set Pieces versus Open Play

[Ian Royal]

And you'll still be massively out, because every other game we've counted it's been several times that many, which when you average out over a season is a lot more than one a game.

Donny for example it was at least 7. Swansea was at least 5. I think I counted 4 for Burnley but forgot to pay attention the entire game. That means for your estimate to have a hope of being accurate we'd need to go at least 13 games without getting a single attacking freekick.

That's why you were ridiculed, it shows an amazing lack of intelligent thought before you made your estimate. I didn't caount, or even watch all 90 minutes, but with an educated guess I'd say we had to have had around three against QPR, meaning you now need 15 without a single attacking freekick.

Just from that sample the average is 4 a game. Four times your estimate.

[Snowball]

And you'll still be massively out, because every other game we've counted it's been several times that many, which when you average out over a season is a lot more than one a game. Donny for example it was at least 7. Swansea was at least 5. I think I counted 4 for Burnley but forgot to pay attention the entire game. That means for your estimate to have a hope of being accurate we'd need to go at least 13 games without getting a single attacking freekick. That's why you were ridiculed, it shows an amazing lack of intelligent thought before you made your estimate. I didn't caount, or even watch all 90 minutes, but with an educated guess I'd say we had to have had around three against QPR, meaning you now need 15 without a single attacking freekick. Just from that sample the average is 4 a game. Four times your estimate.

MY estimate? Check what was written. Point to the phrase where I say, "My estimate is."

Look at your statements

"at least" 5
"at least" 7
"I think I counted 4"

Notice anything in there about PRECISION, Ian?

What should be done is to ACCURATELY count ALL attacking free kicks for RFC, for a minimum of ten games (what I am doing), making sure that any so-called AFCs actually ARE AFCs by the criteria posted. Add 'em all up divide by ten, and then you have a (moderately) realistic number. We had ONE v Cardiff. What if we had had one the first game we counted, and the second one, and THEN had a 5-6-7?

It's quite farcical to be talking the numbers, as Hoop was, after ONE game, it's silly after two, three and four. Even five games is hardly a lot. Ten has to be the minimum.

[Ian Royal]

"At least" means it is definitely greater than 1. And in all those three games I did actually count out by at least 400%. At least I'm willing to entertain the possibility of missing some when I've counted them and that the stats I post might not be foolproof.

Frankly, a sample of zero games was sufficient to know your estimate of one a game was way out. As everyone pointed out to you and as is now being proved. Suck it up, just because it happens in one game does not make it a reasonable estimate. It was bloody awful and you'd have a lot more credibility if you just accepted that and gave it up.

In your scenario, you'd still be way out with an estimate of one, because there would have to be a string of games with none to counter balance the ones with more. Unless you want to play shift the goal posts and claim you were using mode. Which would of course be totally in character. And still quite obviously way out.

[Snowball]

"At least" means it is definitely greater than 1. And in all those three games I did actually count out by at least 400%. At least I'm willing to entertain the possibility of missing some when I've counted them and that the stats I post might not be foolproof.

Frankly, a sample of zero games was sufficient to know your estimate of one a game was way out. As everyone pointed out to you and as is now being proved. Suck it up, just because it happens in one game does not make it a reasonable estimate. It was bloody awful and you'd have a lot more credibility if you just accepted that and gave it up.

In your scenario, you'd still be way out with an estimate of one, because there would have to be a string of games with none to counter balance the ones with more. Unless you want to play shift the goal posts and claim you were using mode. Which would of course be totally in character. And still quite obviously way out.

Here was the exchange of words

IF (NOTE BOLD AND CAPITALISED WORD “IF”) we presume that the match reports report all goal attempts from free-kicks ie shots or crosses into the box...

(We can't know that they do. They might overlook some)


Very next post (HOOP) “You think we've only had 8 attacking free kicks all season?”



My reply was

DID I SAY THAT? I SAID I DIDN'T KNOW AND CAN ONLY REPORT WHAT THE CLUB SITE REPORTS.



To which Hoop says (almost immediately) “Basically you did say it yes! (NOPE)
You based a whole post and the stats within it on the basis of the stats that say we only had 8 attacking free kicks.


Just a few posts later, I replied to his "There is no way we've only had 8 of those all season."

You may be right, but how can we settle that?

[Snowball]

Here is a comparison of the efficacy of corners (they are crap)
versus attacking free kicks (pretty good)



3.21% = 1 Goal every 31 Corners!
8.33% = 1 Goal every 12 Attacking Free Kicks

(Your estimated 4 AFCs per game average)


156 Corners (Average of 9 per game)
002 "Clean" (Direct) Goals from Corners (Mills, Leicester
001 Scramble after corner (Kebe, Portsmouth)
002 Shots when corner half cleared (Church deflects Karacan shot, Ipswich: Karacan at Preston)

1.28% = 1 Goal every 78 Corners! Old Fashioned Clean Headed Goal
3.21% = 1 Goal every 31 Corners! All goals resulting from corners or partially cleared corners

Estimating Attacking Free Kicks @ 4 per game (Ian Royal's Estimate) Total AFCs = 72

002 Goals Direct from Free-Kick (Harte, Barnsley, Doncaster)
001 Goals Volley direct from Free Kick (Mills, Northampton)
001 Goals Secondary shot after Header from Free-Kick (Mills, Doncaster)
001 Goals after partial clearance of free-Kick (McAnuff, Burnley
001 Goals Scramble after Free-Kick (Rasiak, Torquay)

2.77% = 1 Goal every 36 Attacking Free Kicks (Classic Direct Free Kick)
8.33% = 1 Goal every 12 Attacking Free Kicks (Goals clearly resulting from an attacking free-kick.)

[Snowball]

FYI

Including those two goals we scored from clearances from corners (as I have done)

To make Attacking Free Kicks as equally bad as corners would require that we had had 187 of them


Here's the goals

Open Play, cut-in 22 Yarder Scunthorpe Gylfi
Free-Kick, Scramble after Torquay Rasiak
Scramble after Corner Portsmouth Kebe
Open Play, Long Assist Forest Pearce Long
Free-Kick, Volley from FC Northampton Mills Howard
Open Play Scramble Northampton HRK
Header from Corner Northampton Mills Howard
Open Play, Worked Move Leicester Gyfli Long-Kebe
Header from Corner Leicester Mills Howard
Penalty Palace Long Won by Long
Penalty Palace Harte Won by Long
Open Play, Break, shot Palace Kebe
Open Play, Dribble Boro Kebe Howard
Open Play Header Barnsley Kebe HRK
Direct from Free Kick Barnsley Harte Won by Kebe
Open Play, Break, Shot Barnsley HRK Karacan Assist
Deflected Shot from Corner Ipswich Church Harte, Karacan shot
Volley after Corner half-cleared Preston Karacan Harte Corner
Penalty Burnley Long Pen won by Long
Shot after Free Kick Burnley McAnuff Harte
Open Play, cut-back, tap-in Burnley Antonio Long
Open Play, thru, shot Burnley Church Howard
Free Kick, header, tap-in Doncaster Mills HRK, Howard
Open Play, cross, Header Doncaster Karacan Hunt
Direct from Free Kick Doncaster Harte
Open Play, thru, cross, volley Doncaster Church Antonio-Howard
Open Play, 25 Yard Shot QPR Long Church
Open Play, cross, shot at far-post Cardiff Hunt Church

[Snowball]

Here's Possession-Corners-ON TARGET/OFF TARGET- Goals- Opponents

53% 09 05 12 1 Scunthorpe
47% 14 06 03 1 Torquay
56% 05 03 08 1 Pompey
45% 08 06 04 1 Forest
51% 08 07 07 3 Northampton
55% 05 05 06 2 Leicester
52% 09 04 09 3 Palace
50% 07 04 06 0 Millwall
43% 06 02 03 1 Middlesbro
58% 22 14 07 3 Barnsley
47% 06 06 03 1 Ipswich
45% 11 07 03 1 Preston
51% 14 03 06 0 Swansea
51% 10 11 04 0 Bristol
50% 05 10 06 4 Burnley
45% 03 04 04 4 Doncaster
48% 07 05 02 1 QPR
52% 07 06 08 1 Cardiff


TOTALS are

49.94% Possession 156 Corners - 108 On Target Shots - 101 Off Target Shots 28 Goals

[Snowball]

As a team we have

52% Shots On Target 48% Off Target 13.40% of shots become goals 108 ON 101 Off 28 Goals (TEAM)

52% Shots on Target 48% Off Target 12.00% of shots become goals 013 ON 012 Off 03 Goals (Shane)

[Ian Royal]

And that's why so many people have you on ignore. A totally over the top reaction and a load of dross posted that I have no intention of reading and can be almost certain would tell me virtually nothing if I did bother.

[Snowball]

You have no idea how hurt I am, Ian. Shattered, heart-broken would not tell the tale.

Suffice to say, even if we have 4 AFC's a game
they are so much more effective than corners
we'd probably be better off refusing corners
and giving the opposition a goal-kick

[Snowball]

Corners are rubbish

Attacking free kicks are three times better
(plus we rarely get done on the break from AFCs



3.21% = 1 Goal every 31 Corners!
8.33% = 1 Goal every 12 Attacking Free Kicks

(Ian Royal's estimated 4 AFCs per game average)

[Ian Royal]

What utterly ridiculous things to say. Though at least this time you are concise.

Of course it is better to have a corner than the opposition have a goal kick. There is practically zero chance of scoring from an opposition goal kick. There is a definite, if small chance of scoring from a corner.

And it's hardly a shock to anyone with a braincell or two to rub together, that a type of set piece from which you can often take a direct shot and which is likely to be taken from a more benficial angle than a corner has a better goal conversion rate.

[Snowball]

Prove it

How many goals a season do we score from a corner?

How many do we concede when opps break and our defenders are upfield?

How many goals do we get from pops goal-kicks, within say 45 seconds?

[Snowball]

If it can be shown that AFCs are 3 times more likely to produce a goal, think how much better it is to keep the ball on the pitch.

You may cut a chance and score

You may win an AFC

And if you don't you still have a good shape to defend when the opps get the ball

[koran]

And that's why so many people have you on ignore. A totally over the top reaction and a load of dross posted that I have no intention of reading and can be almost certain would tell me virtually nothing if I did bother.

I am one who is grateful to Snowball for the statistical work he does. My credentials are an Honours degree in Pure Mathematics and many years (and currently) marking 'A' level scripts in Statistics. Of course statistics can be misused and there are times when they are meaningless but - generally - Snowball does try to compare like with like. And his samples are nearly always large enough (in the context of a season of around 50 matches) to be meaningful. His precision may annoy some posters because they prefer to use their gut feelings - far less reliable - and resent being shown to be wrong.

OK - if you don't like this sort of analysis then use the ignore option. But I say - carry on with the good work, Snowball. It is appreciated.

[Snowball]

Cheers, Koran!



I use stats to try to OVERCOME my gut feelings, sometimes "CERTAINTIES"

like "Mills foolishly giving away the pen at QPR"

[Snowball]

There seems to be no real relationship between number corners and result

Our two big scores 4-3 and 4-0 had our LOWEST corner count (3 + 5)

Our win at Leicester? Just 5


Conversely we had

14 v Swansea LOST
10 v Bristol LOST
09 v Scunthorpe LOST
07 v QPR LOST
06 v Boro LOST

[Hoop Blah]

And that's why so many people have you on ignore. A totally over the top reaction and a load of dross posted that I have no intention of reading and can be almost certain would tell me virtually nothing if I did bother.

I am one who is grateful to Snowball for the statistical work he does. My credentials are an Honours degree in Pure Mathematics and many years (and currently) marking 'A' level scripts in Statistics. Of course statistics can be misused and there are times when they are meaningless but - generally - Snowball does try to compare like with like. And his samples are nearly always large enough (in the context of a season of around 50 matches) to be meaningful. His precision may annoy some posters because they prefer to use their gut feelings - far less reliable - and resent being shown to be wrong.

OK - if you don't like this sort of analysis then use the ignore option. But I say - carry on with the good work, Snowball. It is appreciated.

Hi snowball

...just one question though, when have his stats ever actually shown anyone to be wrong?

[Snowball]

This person is on your ignore list