2010-2011 football (soccer) thread - Page 185

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!

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.

On May 06 2011 08:19 Mandalor wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

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.

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.

On May 08 2011 03:08 Freaky[x] wrote:
gj gomez... from hero to zero in less than 30 seconds lol