EPT2010-2011 football (soccer) thread - Page 185
| Forum Index > General Games |
Liquid`Drone
Norway28850 Posts
| ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
 The concept of luck basically doesn't exist in my world, its not a part of my life philosophy. You might be able to pinpoint very rare occasions where you can say ''This came down to luck'', but they are extremely few IMO. Happy birthday! | ||
|
uberMatt
Canada659 Posts
On May 06 2011 00:45 Holgerius wrote: Guess we simply have different viewpoints. The concept of luck basically doesn't exist in my world, its not a part of my life philosophy. You might be able to pinpoint very rare occasions where you can say ''This came down to luck'', but they are extremely few IMO. Happy birthday! agreed weather, coin flips, etc are luck but to claim that people hitting a post instead of scoring is luck is silly why is it that any time someone starts another football thread on this forum outside of this thread, opinionated idiots with no understanding of the game flock to it and spout bullshit? what the hell | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28850 Posts
I think that say, when it comes to long shots (not just long shots - but it's a good example to explain my point of view from), something some players are considered skillful at and some players are considered bad at, what separates players is how frequently they hit within the area they aimed at. basically, every professional football player can shoot an amazing shot from 30 meters which the keeper is incapable of saving if they get enough tries. someone like gerrard succeeds far more frequently than someone like kuyt, thus he is the better shooter. Over the course of 50 shots, (which I think is a decent amount of shots total through a season, especially for a non-striker), statistical differences will usually be present, but they also be slightly "off". Now, in addition to this element, you have the element of accuracy. Very few shots end up going exactly where it was intended, the difference in skill is largely determined by how inaccurate shots on average are. sometimes a shot that misses the target by 30 cm still ends up being a goal, sometimes it can miss the target by 30 cm and end up missing. or, one player can shoot two shots where one misses by 25 cm and that ends up being a goal while he has another shot that misses by 60 cm and itmisses, whereas another player can have two shots that miss by 35 cm each and both miss the target - less inaccuracy total but one goal less. that's kind of a confusing attempt at explaing how I think, but to elaborate or clarify even further: I don't think 21 shots in the post vs 2 shots in the post proves bad luck. but it indicates it very strongly, because it shows that there was a much larger amount of slightly too inaccuate shots. because the inaccuracy is always varying, no player is constantly inaccurate by 20 cm per 5 meters, rather a better player has a higher frequency of less inaccuracy, it can be assumed to be governed by a combination of randomness and skill. shots in the post are shots that are presumably very close to their ideal location, thus they are shots that are quite accurate, yet they don't result in goals. when one team has 21 shots in the post and another team has 2 shots in the post, I'm left with the thought that one team's accurate shots scored more frequently than another team's accurate shots, but the teams made an almost equally good performance. Granted, this depends a lot on the shot - some shots that hit the post are less than 1 cm away from becoming a goal, while other shots that hit the post were at most capable of hitting the post, so it's not like I think 21 hits in the post qualifies as 21 unlucky situations.. but, this whole idea on probability in football or whatever, falls under my definition of luck - and I certainly think "luck" is a real thing, but maybe it'd be best to just describe it as postitive or negative coincidence. I hope that makes sense outside my head. | ||
|
TheMusiC
United States1054 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
I'm also curious what teams scoring % has been on shots that hit the post. ie, if team A hit the post 42 times and 21 times it went out, and team B hit the post 4 times and 2 times it went out, then neither is getting luckier bounces; team B is just more accurate. But if both teams hit the post 25 times and you still had team A with 21 misses and team B with just 2 misses, there's probably luck involved in that. While we're discussing this -- are there any good sabremetrics sites for soccer? Baseball has it down to an artform and there is decent statistical analysis of American football. | ||
|
Mandalor
Germany2362 Posts
On May 05 2011 20:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: ![[image loading]](http://gfx.dagbladet.no/labrador/164/164261/16426150/jpg/active/480x.jpg) pretty interesting, shows how big a part luck can play. this is how the premier league would currently look if every shot hitting the post or the bar ended up being a goal. pretty happy it's not as my sweet newcastle would be getting relegated. thanks for that statistic, really interesting. One thing bothers me, tho: ManU didn't hit the post or bar even once in 35 games? I find that hard to believe. | ||
|
TonyL2
England1953 Posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_prem/table/default.stm Goals for, away and differences are different For example, currently Man United are on 21W10D4L, so they've given the times that they've hit the post as well as teams shooting at their post | ||
|
Play
Australia608 Posts
On May 06 2011 08:19 Mandalor wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 05 2011 20:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: pretty interesting, shows how big a part luck can play. this is how the premier league would currently look if every shot hitting the post or the bar ended up being a goal. pretty happy it's not as my sweet newcastle would be getting relegated. thanks for that statistic, really interesting. One thing bothers me, tho: ManU didn't hit the post or bar even once in 35 games? I find that hard to believe. Hitting the post =/= more points. The fantasy table turns woodwork shots into goals (i think). So if man u won a game and hit the post and scored more times than the opposition, they would still only get 3 points. But if they drew a game and hit the post and scored more times in that match, 1pt turns into 3pts. really interested table btw if only RVP had 0.05% more composure in his finishing | ||
|
uberMatt
Canada659 Posts
On May 06 2011 07:20 Liquid`Drone wrote: ok I think that say, when it comes to long shots (not just long shots - but it's a good example to explain my point of view from), something some players are considered skillful at and some players are considered bad at, what separates players is how frequently they hit within the area they aimed at. basically, every professional football player can shoot an amazing shot from 30 meters which the keeper is incapable of saving if they get enough tries. someone like gerrard succeeds far more frequently than someone like kuyt, thus he is the better shooter. Over the course of 50 shots, (which I think is a decent amount of shots total through a season, especially for a non-striker), statistical differences will usually be present, but they also be slightly "off". Now, in addition to this element, you have the element of accuracy. Very few shots end up going exactly where it was intended, the difference in skill is largely determined by how inaccurate shots on average are. sometimes a shot that misses the target by 30 cm still ends up being a goal, sometimes it can miss the target by 30 cm and end up missing. or, one player can shoot two shots where one misses by 25 cm and that ends up being a goal while he has another shot that misses by 60 cm and itmisses, whereas another player can have two shots that miss by 35 cm each and both miss the target - less inaccuracy total but one goal less. that's kind of a confusing attempt at explaing how I think, but to elaborate or clarify even further: I don't think 21 shots in the post vs 2 shots in the post proves bad luck. but it indicates it very strongly, because it shows that there was a much larger amount of slightly too inaccuate shots. because the inaccuracy is always varying, no player is constantly inaccurate by 20 cm per 5 meters, rather a better player has a higher frequency of less inaccuracy, it can be assumed to be governed by a combination of randomness and skill. shots in the post are shots that are presumably very close to their ideal location, thus they are shots that are quite accurate, yet they don't result in goals. when one team has 21 shots in the post and another team has 2 shots in the post, I'm left with the thought that one team's accurate shots scored more frequently than another team's accurate shots, but the teams made an almost equally good performance. Granted, this depends a lot on the shot - some shots that hit the post are less than 1 cm away from becoming a goal, while other shots that hit the post were at most capable of hitting the post, so it's not like I think 21 hits in the post qualifies as 21 unlucky situations.. but, this whole idea on probability in football or whatever, falls under my definition of luck - and I certainly think "luck" is a real thing, but maybe it'd be best to just describe it as postitive or negative coincidence. I hope that makes sense outside my head. yeah i understand the basic argument, but i think it is an issue of semantics. i have always been taught that luck deals with only uncontrollable factors, and the difference between scoring and hitting the inside of the post may only be 5cm, but the player has the element of control over it, and therefore it is not unlucky. the fact that arsenal have hit the post so many times is a testament to their ability to create more goal scoring chances than any of the other top teams, however it also shows their lack of ability to finish as well as the other teams. being able to finish chances is a skill set that a team must develop just like any other, and i think that looking at the number of times that they hit the post and concluding that they are unlucky is simply incorrect. there is an annoying tendency for pundits to claim that the team that creates more chances deserves to win, and this ties into the same line of logic, and i think it is incorrect. | ||
|
Kangg
United States128 Posts
| ||
|
uberMatt
Canada659 Posts
| ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
 | ||
|
Holgerius
Sweden16951 Posts
| ||
|
Freaky[x]
Canada995 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
TranceStorm
1616 Posts
On May 08 2011 03:08 Freaky[x] wrote: gj gomez... from hero to zero in less than 30 seconds lol ehh. That's what he's been doing all season long - alternating between brilliant and mind boggling poor. It looks like Spurs have just given up on the Champions League spot and are just trying to avoid the Europa League spot haha. | ||
|
BeaTeR
Kazakhstan4130 Posts
On May 08 2011 03:08 Freaky[x] wrote: gj gomez... from hero to zero in less than 30 seconds lol haha i was laughing so hard at him gomes is fun to watch, in case you are not spurs fan | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
pyro19
6575 Posts
| ||
| ||
