Goal scoring problems?

[Hoop Blah]

And the stats to back that up? Or are you just relying on the already agreed dodgy human recall to draw those conclusions?

The stats are bare facts. We scored 64 goals last season in the league that were NOT corners.

If we define an attack as a shot or header attempted at goal, OR a clear attempt to create an opening
(cross into the box, through ball attempt to put a player in on goal) YOU decide how many attacks
reading have in an average game. You know the difference between us passing the ball around our defence,
a pass-back to Federici, midfield possession and/or probing and an actual move that tries to create a chance?

How many "attacks" then? 10? 20? 30? 40? 45? 45 attacks in 45 minutes of possession?

Isn't that very high? But say that's the number you settle on. Agreed, or do you think we average MORE than 45 attacks a game?


45 attacks a game = 1.5 non-corner goals = 1 in 30. Corners last season were 1 in THREE-HUNDRED and 30.


Geddit yet?

So, in short, you haven't got the stats to back that up, and you're still switching to this mythical 'attack' which wasn't what you were talking about at the outset of this 'passage of debate'.

[Snowball]

Who said corners were better than open play?

er, you?

You most certainly implied it.

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.

I showed quite a few goals scored from through balls out of midfield, deep crosses from midfield,
two from tackles won in midfield and then breaks/passes, etc


but according to you, the conversion-rate of 4 goals in 330 corners is WAY WAY higher than when we have the ball on half-way

[Snowball]

So, in short, you haven't got the stats to back that up, and you're still switching to this mythical 'attack' which wasn't what you were talking about at the outset of this 'passage of debate'.

Stop being a coward Hoop.

YOU decide, and stand by your estimate.

How many serious attacks do Reading average per game.

I have already given a reasonable definition of attack.

We have about 45 minutes possession. Do we have 4,500 attacks? 450 attacks? 45 attacks?

Pick a number. YOU decide.

[Snowball]

all-attacks-other-than-corners are CLEARLY more productive.

Well yes, but nobody was disputing this. Fans get excited at "attacks" as well, and rightly so. I've just illustrated why they get excited at corners too, somethign which you think is statistically unreasonable.

My God. You finally AGREE that general attacking play IS more productive than corners?

That is, we are more likely to core from attacking play NOT a corner?

[Hoop Blah]

Who said corners were better than open play?

er, you?

You most certainly implied it.

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.

I showed quite a few goals scored from through balls out of midfield, deep crosses from midfield,
two from tackles won in midfield and then breaks/passes, etc


but according to you, the conversion-rate of 4 goals in 330 corners is WAY WAY higher than when we have the ball on half-way

That (my point above) is still the case, although the open play you were talking about lately was this mythical attacks you'd switched to, which is different to my point above and different to the original discussion.

[Snowball]

I didn't dispute that they can come from this, but pointed out to you that you were misusing statistics again by basing your central argument around the PERCENTAGE of corners that result it goals (Image) and then attempting to refute my argument by comparing this with the TOTAL number of goals that come from eg. full-back possession or goal-kicks

You're being disingenuous and unfair. We have clear, documented statistics for corners.
Last season 330 corners, 3 goals by us, one fluffed clearance by Newcastle resulting in an OG.

We have clear, undisputed figures for goals scored that were NOT corners.
We do NOT have figures for failed attacks.

But we DO have common sense. 64 goals.

If 64 goals came from 064 non-corner attacks that would be incredible. Of course they didn't.
If 64 goals came from 330 non-corner attacks that would mean non-corner attacks were 16 times better than corners.

We don't KNOW how many real attacks there are per game, on average, but sensible estimates can be made.
One per every minute of possession, I contend, would be extremely high.

But, even so, at 45 attacks per game, 1.5 goals, a conversion rate of 1/30 is ELEVEN TIMES better than corners.

My estimate is 22.5 attacks per game and non-corner attacks being a full 20 times more productive than corners.

You decide a reasonable number of genuine attacks (corresponding to a corner delivering the ball into the box)

[Maguire]

all-attacks-other-than-corners are CLEARLY more productive.

Well yes, but nobody was disputing this. Fans get excited at "attacks" as well, and rightly so. I've just illustrated why they get excited at corners too, somethign which you think is statistically unreasonable.

My God. You finally AGREE that general attacking play IS more productive than corners?

That is, we are more likely to core from attacking play NOT a corner?

This was never the point of discussion and nor did anybody ever disagree with this. You can move the goalposts as many times as you like but you've lost this one i'm afraid.

How many goal-kicks have been taken this season and how many have we scored from? I reckon it's something like 400:0

The conversion rate from corners and second-phases thereof might be low, but it's higher than that.

WHICH IS WHY PEOPLE GET EXCITED WHEN WE HAVE A CORNER AND NOT WHEN WE HAVE A GOAL-KICK.

It's not about the chance of scoring, it's about the RELATIVE chance.

Your appalling mishandling of statistics doesn't render fans as simpletons i'm afraid.

[Snowball]

That (my point above) is still the case, although the open play you were talking about lately was this mythical attacks you'd switched to, which is different to my point above and different to the original discussion.

I disagree.

Are you going to make your own reasonable estimate of the number of Reading attacks per game?

[Hoop Blah]

So, in short, you haven't got the stats to back that up, and you're still switching to this mythical 'attack' which wasn't what you were talking about at the outset of this 'passage of debate'.

Stop being a coward Hoop.

YOU decide, and stand by your estimate.

How many serious attacks do Reading average per game.

I have already given a reasonable definition of attack.

We have about 45 minutes possession. Do we have 4,500 attacks? 450 attacks? 45 attacks?

Pick a number. YOU decide.

I wasn't the one saying it was a FACT that they were more productive I was just asking you for the information to back up your point as you always seem so keen to point out that human recall and perception is so notoriously bad at reflecting reality.

You've still asked me a question that doesn't relate to the point I was making though, ie the one before you made you definition of an attack.

How many serious attacks? Well for starters I don't think we have 45 minutes of posession during a game. I'm pretty sure the ball's usually only in play for about 65 minutes of the 90 but generally I think we probably have between 35 and 50 attacks during a game, depending on how we play etc etc, but seeing as that wasn't the discussion we were having then I'm not too fussed.

As I've said on numerous occassions, it doesn't matter how productive a corner, pass to winger or goal kick is. The excitment level, or in fact the vocal support, generated by a corner isn't a result of, or an indicator of, fans belief we will score from it. It's an excuse to enjoy yourself and an excuse to support the team in what is now a pretty structured 'set piece' way.

[Maguire]

I didn't dispute that they can come from this, but pointed out to you that you were misusing statistics again by basing your central argument around the PERCENTAGE of corners that result it goals (Image) and then attempting to refute my argument by comparing this with the TOTAL number of goals that come from eg. full-back possession or goal-kicks

You're being disingenuous and unfair

Blame science, don't blame me!

You decide a reasonable number of genuine attacks (corresponding to a corner delivering the ball into the box)

Who said anything about "genuine attacks"? You just shifted to that in the face of perfectly sensible comments.

[Vision]

Jeez this is painful.

Fans get excited at the prospect of action. We're not mind readers we dont know for certain that a goal will be scored but get excited at the prospect of something positive happening. A goal is merely the best case scenario not the only reason for fans to be excited. How many attempts at goal come from corners? Just because a goal isnt actually scored doesn't mean there isn't a chance created or a goalmouth incident.

We get excited pretty much every time Kebe touches the ball because we anticipate something positive will happen. How many touches does Kebe have a game? Statically how many of these touches actually lead to goals?

If the criteria for getting excited is merely a superior mathmatical probability that a goal will come then penalties aside fans would never get excited about anything in a game. Kebe beats 3 players and gets to the byline but lets not get excited because statistically theres a less than 20 % chance we'll score from this position.

That would make football as joyless as this thread.

[Maguire]

There's only one person you need to tell that ^^^ to.

[Snowball]

I get excited when Kebe gets the ball because of what he does, not the result.

It's exciting to watch him beat the man. The goals are a bonus.

[Snowball]

Fans get excited at the prospect of action. We're not mind readers we dont know for certain that a goal will be scored but get excited at the prospect of something positive happening.

If we were to apply reasonable logic we know that it's highly unlikely we will score.

The fact is we give greater importance to (and remember) those few corners from which
we have scored and subjectively alter the actual likelihood of a goal (very low)
to one which is far far higher. THAT's why we get excitied.

Psychologists have known of this effect (in many areas) for decades.


I for one would have guessed that we scored at least 1 in 10, because that's what my gut told me.

The gut is usually wrong.

[Snowball]

Well for starters I don't think we have 45 minutes of possession during a game. I'm pretty sure the ball's usually only in play for about 65 minutes of the 90 but generally I think we probably have between 35 and 50 attacks during a game, depending on how we play etc etc, but seeing as that wasn't the discussion we were having then I'm not too fussed.

Your point that the ball is in play for 65 minutes gives us 32 minutes to create all those attacks.

Wow the place must be red-hot, 45 attacks in 32 minutes, 3 attacks every two minutes (patently absurd)


Nevertheless, we'll "agree" on 45 attacks, that equates to a conversion rate (1.5 goals) of 1 in 30


1 goal in 330 = Corners
1 goal in 030 = Non-Corners. 11 times better

[Snowball]

We get excited pretty much every time Kebe touches the ball because we anticipate something positive will happen.
How many touches does Kebe have a game? Statically how many of these touches actually lead to goals?

Well as he has scored 4 goals and had two assists in 9 league starts... he has a BIG effect
and that doesn't include his disallowed goal, the time his volley hit the post, near-misses,
assists that don't result in a goal (eg the goal on a plate he gave Howard - who missed) etc


We SHOULD get excited by Kebe as he now genuinely has end-product. Unlike corners

[Vision]

We get excited pretty much every time Kebe touches the ball because we anticipate something positive will happen.
How many touches does Kebe have a game? Statically how many of these touches actually lead to goals?

Well as he has scored 4 goals and had two assists in 9 league starts... he has a BIG effect
and that doesn't include his disallowed goal, the time his volley hit the post, near-misses,
assists that don't result in a goal (eg the goal on a plate he gave Howard - who missed) etc


We SHOULD get excited by Kebe as he now genuinely has end-product. Unlike corners

Proving right pretty much what everyone has said about your selective stats.

As ever you're not comparing the same thing. Your assertion that fans shouldnt get excited about corners is based solely on goals scored. With regard to Kebe you're including a near miss or some excitement generated.

You're also using goals/corners taken as a % for that point yet not doing the same with kebe. As a % how many Kebe touches leads to a goal? It doesn't stop us getting excited about it.

If the criteria for getting excited at football is only a superior mathmatical chance of a goal resulting then we should only get excited for penalties or tap ins. Even 1 on 1's with the keeper are debateable when it comes to conversion rates.

I'm only glad i dont watch football through your eyes.

[Millsy]

I get excited by big tits.

Not sure how that's relevant but thought I'd share it.

Thanks.

[From Despair To Where?]

Snowball must REALLY excite you then.

[Snowball]

As ever you're not comparing the same thing. Your assertion that fans shouldnt get excited about corners is based solely on goals scored.

WE DON'T HAVE STATS, FOR SAVES FROM CORNERS, HEADERS OVER THE BAR, BLOCKED SHOTS.
THE STATS WE HAVE ARE TOTAL NUMBER OF CORNERS, AND GOALS SCORED THEREBY.



With regard to Kebe you're including a near miss or some excitement generated.

I'M INCLUDING SPECIFICS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN REPORTS, OR THAT I'VE SEEN.
DO YOU SERIOUSLY EXPECT THERE TO BE STATS/REPORTS FOR EVERY SAVE, BLOCK, MISS,
KEEPER-COMES-OUT AND COLLECTS, FOR 330 CORNERS?



You're also using goals/corners taken as a % for that point yet not doing the same with kebe.
As a % how many Kebe touches leads to a goal? It doesn't stop us getting excited about it.


WE DON'T HAVE THOSE STATS. BECAUSE THE STATS AREN'T AVAILABLE, DOES THAT MEAN I CANNOT COMMENT?



ONLY A CLOWN WOULD SUGGEST KEBE, IN HIS CURRENT FORM, ISN'T BOTH HIGHLY ACTIVE AND PRODUCTIVE.