Goal scoring problems?

[Ian Royal]

You are still missing the point. This is a waste of my time.

I think you are missing the point and believe Hoop is saying something he isn't. And this whole argument between you is at crossed purposes.

[Ruud Van Kitson]

long scored tonight for Ireland!

[Millsy]

Aaaargh.

Much as I love Snowball (see my other posts) Ian was making a simple point. i.e. it looks like we don't have goalscorers but perhaps we do.

That's it.

Simple point, end of.

Yes of course GD is important, goals conceded is important, points won is important etc etc etc

But Ian's point is simple. The rest, whilst related, is not directly relevant to this simple point he was trying to make!

[Snowball]

I agree. Ian is simple.

[ZacNaloen]

You are still missing the point. This is a waste of my time.

I think you are missing the point and believe Hoop is saying something he isn't. And this whole argument between you is at crossed purposes.

Err actually no, Hoop thinks i'm saying something I'm not. That's why the argument is at crossed purposes.


He thinks I'm making judgement on why he's getting excited, when why he gets excited is completely irrelevant.

[Ian Royal]

Snowball was trying to argue that people get excited about corners because they think we're going to score. Which is nonsense in the main.

Then there is also the argument that stats are better than recall, which is totally dependent on the individual's ability to counter their own bias and desire + ability to maintain a rational detachment from their excitement in game. And of course the quality of stats being used. But stats on their own provide a fairly poor summary of a game because good play and performance is very subjective and there are far too many variables in a match for stats to give you a true reflection.

Those disagreements are completely separate, but you appear to be combining them.

[ZacNaloen]

Snowball was trying to argue that people get excited about corners because they think we're going to score. Which is nonsense in the main.

No, he's trying to argue that people get excited about corners because the emotion attached to the times when we score goals is over riding the knowledge that nothing will probably happen. Logically, you probably shouldn't back the team/cheer them on because you know there's a 1% (hyperbole, probably) chance of it going in. But you do it anyway, because hey... maybe it will help and we'll score. He's just doing a bad job of it.

Hoop Blah is trying to say that he merely gets excited because he's supporting the team and wants to get behind them. Fact is that's irrelevant, you are still getting excited against all logic, do you think that by cheering and shouting you'll help the corner takers concentration on his hit of the ball, be able to control the flight of it, prevent the opposition from blocking the run of the man the ball is intended for. Stop Kebe from fluffing his header onto the back post? But you do it because you are caught up in the atmosphere and you want entertainment. All these points raised by Hoop blah do nothing to counter snowballs position.

That argument then lead onto the points I raised about how that then affects your recall of the game and how if you want to make a subjective analysis of what happened on the pitch you need to use some sort of fact sheet, whether that be statistics, or in the case of managers notations of what happened at the time and especially in the case of managers watch the game again from a different location.

Have you never noticed the difference in opinion between the people who watched a game on TV in their living room vs down the pub vs at the game?

Then there is also the argument that stats are better than recall, which is totally dependent on the individual's ability to counter their own bias and desire + ability to maintain a rational detachment from their excitement in game. And of course the quality of stats being used. But stats on their own provide a fairly poor summary of a game because good play and performance is very subjective and there are far too many variables in a match for stats to give you a true reflection.

Prozone is a statistical analysis of the game, it's by no means poor or worthless in the eyes of modern managers who use it.

Those disagreements are completely separate, but you appear to be combining them.

I'm not combining them, I moved on from the first point a long time ago.

[Ian Royal]

This is pretty boring... maybe we should have just left it at you think we don't get the point and we don't think you get the point... because it's obvious we aren't going to come to much of an agreement.

[glass half full]

I am always excited when we gain a corner - deflated if nothing comes of it - but it is a fundamental part of rallying behind the team, nervously expectant as the taker prepares. Conversely, I always cross fingers and toes as the opposition have a corner. Hey! This is the fun of supporting our team!

[PEARCEY]

I'm getting confused.Please could Ian and Snowball repeat their respective opinions again for me as I'm deaf in one ear.

[Snowball]

I'm getting confused.Please could Ian and Snowball repeat their respective opinions again for me as I'm deaf in one ear.

PARDON?

[Maguire]

Not really folllowed this but it seems people are arguing that it's stupid to get excited at a corner because only a small % of them directly result in a goal. Kind of misses the point - the chances of scoring from it (or from pressure that follows it eg. ball being cleared then played back out to the wing again) are still way way higher than when the ball is on the half-way line, or at the keeper's feet, or hanging in the air over midfield etc.

It's not that people expect a direct goal as such (although sometimes it does happen) but more that it reflects a period of territorial domination, a chance to get bodies/the ball in and around the oppositions penalty area which is, after all, where most goals are scored.

So sorry, Zac et al, but i'm not buying that people "get excited over corners for no reason". Pressure is exciting. Attacking is exciting. If you're not going to get excited when your team has the opponents under the cosh then, well, I don't know why you'd watch football at all.

[Hoop Blah]

Don't be so illogical Maguire.

The odd thing is that it's statistically more likely to score from a corner than it is get a sensible post with some meaningful contribution to a discussion from snowball!

[Snowball]

It's not that people expect a direct goal as such (although sometimes it does happen)

Yeah, really often. Four times in the whole of last season

[Snowball]

Not really folllowed this but it seems people are arguing that it's stupid to get excited at a corner because only a small % of them directly result in a goal. Kind of misses the point - the chances of scoring from it (or from pressure that follows it eg. ball being cleared then played back out to the wing again) are still way way higher than when the ball is on the half-way line, or at the keeper's feet, or hanging in the air over midfield etc.

You KNOW that do you?

Based on Reading's inability to convert corners last season, it looks like deliberately conceding a corner
to Reading was almost like time-wasting by opponents. "Give em a corner lads, they won't score."

If you actually CHECK and see where a lot of our goals come from, you might be surprised. They are NOT
direct from corners (hardly at all), nor often from secondary play following a corner. You might need to check
how many goals resulted from a Federici kick-out (more than 4 a season) or from full-back to winger (more than 4 a season)
or from a deep ball into the channels from defence (more than 4 a season) or from a pass out of midfield (more than four a season)


You just made a statement (in italics above) with absolutely no "evidence" other than you say so.

[glass half full]

Keep winning those corners (and penalties!). I love it!

[Hoop Blah]

So how many goal kicks did Federici take snowball?

How many balls from a fullback to winger did we make? I'd hazard a guess that it's more than the number of corners we didn't score from.

[Maguire]

It's not that people expect a direct goal as such (although sometimes it does happen)

Yeah, really often. Four times in the whole of last season

Thank you for completely agreeing with me.

[Maguire]

Not really folllowed this but it seems people are arguing that it's stupid to get excited at a corner because only a small % of them directly result in a goal. Kind of misses the point - the chances of scoring from it (or from pressure that follows it eg. ball being cleared then played back out to the wing again) are still way way higher than when the ball is on the half-way line, or at the keeper's feet, or hanging in the air over midfield etc.

You KNOW that do you?

Based on Reading's inability to convert corners last season, it looks like deliberately conceding a corner
to Reading was almost like time-wasting by opponents. "Give em a corner lads, they won't score."

If you actually CHECK and see where a lot of our goals come from, you might be surprised. They are NOT
direct from corners (hardly at all), nor often from secondary play following a corner. You might need to check
how many goals resulted from a Federici kick-out (more than 4 a season) or from full-back to winger (more than 4 a season)
or from a deep ball into the channels from defence (more than 4 a season) or from a pass out of midfield (more than four a season)

You just made a statement (in italics above) with absolutely no "evidence" other than you say so.

The obvious counterpoint to this (and this might be a step too far for you) is that you need to compare not the TOTAL number of goals that come from each scenario but rather the PERCENTAGE of times that scenario results in a goal. That is the central tenet of your argument about getting excited at corners after all.

So, how many times does a full-back need to get possession before he assists a goal? How many times does Federici lump the ball down the pitch before we get a goal? And then compare that to the number of corners/second phases from corners that we need before we score a goal.

Then tell me whether I should get more excited when we have the opposition pinned back in their own box or whether the ball's with Sean Cummings 30yds from his own goal.

[Snowball]

Took a quick look at the first twenty league goals last season, almost a third of our goals

Clearly you're wrong. Here's how they were scored.

it is simply NOT TRUE that we don't get balls from midfield play,
or from deep positions, or from full-backs feeding wingers.

7 goals from general attacking, cross/chip
3 goals direct from midfield pass/through ball
3 goals from general attack, free-kick
2 goals from won tackle in MF dribble/pass or pass
1 goals from free-kick on half-way line
1 goals from full-back feeds winger who crosses
1 goals from midfield break, foul, free-kick
1 goals from fast break, gain thirty yards, then cross
1 goals from a corner

As far as I can remember, and according to the match-reports, just ONE goal in
20 resulted from a corner OR "secondary play" subsequent to a corner.


Mills.. Header from free-kick half-way line
Pearce Header from CORNER
Hunt.. Gunnarson pass over top from midfield, Kebe brought down
Hunt. Rosy fed Kebe from defence, cross, header.
Siggurdson Break from midfield. S brought down. 25 yard free-kick scored
Church Attack, then header from Sig free-kick wide left after foul
Rasiak Break from MF, Sig cross deflected, Rasiak scores
Church Gunnar wins tackle deep MF, through ball to Church who scores
Kebe Brian Howard thru' ball from own half, midfield.
Mills General attack, foul, free-kick wide left. Header
Howard Pass or cross from HRK
Rasiak Left wing play McAnuff cross, rasiak header
McAnuff Brian Howard cross from general attacking play
Rasiak Scores rebound after Long shot hits post ???
Church General attacking play, chip into box by Rasiak, Sig shot, Church scores
Siggurdson McAnuff break, sprint down line, cross, misses Church, Sig scores
Rasiak General attacking play. Marek deep cross, header
Siggurdson Tabb wins tackle just inside opps' half, beats 3 men, slips it to Sig
Rasiak General attacking play, great cross by McAnuff
Cisse.... But we quickly settled the nerves with a second goal of the game - and what a fantastic goal it was. Sub Brynjar Gunnarsson played a lovely crossfield ball for McAnuff, and he controlled it wonderfully. Matejovsky was on hand to play a one-two inside the full back, and McAnuff was clear down the right. Rather than just whipping it into the box first time he looked up and sidefooted a great pass to Cisse, who controlled a lovely finish low into the net. It was a brilliant team goal, and a fantastic way to double the advantage.