Robbie - you will love this: http://www.statsbomb.com/2013/08/shooooot-a-paradigm-shift-in-how-we-watch-football/ Shame on those of you who yell "shoooot!" at every available opportunity!
You're right JK, love it -- especially as a big Arsenal fan (as if you didn't know ). Just think of all the times you have heard Arsenal criticised for "trying to walk the ball into the net" when in fact what they are doing is trying to work a shooting opportunity in that optimum area. Great comment about Jamie Rednapp too .
I hope our lads take note of this fact, of all those chances we did/didn't have on Saturday I can only recall two (the headers from RVW and Fer) that were from inside the box.
It's a good article and he makes a fair point. BUT to say that shooting from outside the area is pointless just isn't true. I believe him when he says that only one in every 33 shots from 18 yards plus goes in. But the simple fact is that a Port Vale defender having a go and blazing it over from 30 yards is very different from Steven Gerrard or Gareth Bale having a pop from 20 yards when the ball has sat up perfectly for them. Teams shouldn't stop shooting from outside the box; it all depends on the situation. And if you've made it into the Premier League, I say your judgement is good enough to tell whether having a shot is a reasonable gamble.
Let's just agree that next time Tettey or Johnson get the ball 25 yards out and with space in front of them, we do not urge them to shoot.
Yes, but watching fans also need to take it on board! It may be better to keep trying to get into the optimal scoring zone than letting fly from anywhere just to placate people who complain about the paucity of shots at goal!
"Teams" is very different from "Gerrard or Bale" though. A reasonable rule of thumb might be that only players designated to take direct free kicks from a similar distance should try shots in open play.
Sorry, but if the ball's coming across van Wolfswinkel at a decent pace about 25 yards out from goal and he looks to meet the ball perfectly in stride then I'd be extremely pissed off if he didn't hit it, and he won't be taking free-kicks this season. What the article also doesn't take into account is assists made by these shots. I can think of numerous examples (Tettey vs. Arsenal last season is one) where a player has taken a shot, the 'keeper's parried, and then someone's tapped in the rebound. van Wolfswinkel also wouldn't have scored against Everton had Whittaker not tried a shot from outside the box, Giroud wouldn't have scored Arsenal's first against Fulham, dozens of penalites a season are given for handball from a long shot... The list is endless.
Yes. I don't watch every single game on the planet every weekend, but I'm sure there are almost literally an endless amount of examples of goals scored this way. I understand what the article is trying to say, but you can manipulate stats in any way you want and I seriously doubt the long shot will ever come close to dying out, or else teams would become far too predictable.
I know you are! If I were to also be pedantic I would say that yes, throughtout the course of time, there is almost literally an endless amount of goals that have been scored this way. If the system ain't broke, don't fix it!
Can something be almost literal? I'll stop now, this isn't like me at all! I don't know what's come over me!
I take your point that "success" for such shots shouldn't just be measured by goals but also assisted goals, but I'd like to see some stats for such assists (i.e. what percentage of shots from different zones turn into assists) because it might still be the case that it is not an effective strategy compared, say, to keeping possession from which a better chance is created. (Obviously there are occasions when having a pot shot from distance is the only course of action.) Re. the number of penalties from handball resulting from long shots, I doubt if it amounts to "dozens a season" (unless you mean worldwide). This sort of impressionistic frequency judgement is exactly the sort of belief that needs to be validated by stats.
Somewhat in the middle on this one. Though it's a lower percentage shot, the one from outside the box does have a place. Nine goals were scored last night, but the best was the last from about 35 yards. It's an important part of the game, though it's also often over-used. It can be successful though, and not only by the normal free-kick takers - think of Howson's superb shot against West Brom last year. Would you really rather he hadn't taken that?
I meant over the four football leagues, so Premier League to League 2. I think it's fair to say from your comment that we both agree that, although long shots can be over-used, they can, in certain situations, be extremely effective. I certainly do not believe they will ever die out and it would be a crying shame if they did; football would lose agreat deal of it's glorious spontaneity.
Your saying the last goal was "the best" raises a host of interesting -- and important -- issues. I think what you mean is something like "the most eye-catching", or "the most spectacular"? But in terms of the quality of play involved in creating and executing the goal, every single one of ours was far far "better". Those of us who witnessed Justin Fashanu's Goal of the Season against Liverpool (9th February 1980) will never forget it. But Liverpool won the game 4:3 and Fairclough's hat trick and Dalglish's brilliant tight control and clinical winner from close in in the dying moments were technically superior and in terms of winning Championships, rather than creating wonderful memories, far more significant. Generalising the dilemma, it's the old question of just how far people are prepared to take "I pay to be entertained". What most people tend to mean when they say that is yes, they want to be entertained -- by a winning team! And we will all agree that there's nothing more dire than watching a dreadful team playing dreadful football en route to defeat and relegation. If you are going to go down, better to go down gloriously and entertainingly. But ask Blackpool fans whether they would have preferred a bit less attacking flamboyance during their one PL season if it meant staying up; hand on heart most would say yes. Closer to home, what is the reaction going to be tea-time Saturday if at the end of a pulsating display of attacking football from City we have lost the game 3:5? Will the Hughton sceptics be quietened? No, because what they want is attacking football and a winning team. They want the magic formula of defensive solidity and attacking potency NOW (or at least by game 10 at the latest), not in two or three years time.
The Myth of the English Premium? http://www.soccerbythenumbers.com/2012/11/the-myth-of-english-premium.html "...when we put it all together, the numbers tell a clear story: British players go for less. Why, then, does the notion of a British premium still have legs?"
As regards shooting from 18 yards + I am guessing that most clued up managers and coaches are aware of the relatively low conversion rates from distance so they don't place a huge amount of emphasis on stopping the opposing teams players from getting into these positions and it is only when a player gets into the box that interception and preventing the shot becomes crucial. The corollary of this is that shooting opportunities from 25 yards will be much more plentiful but less likely to result in a goal.To score from further than that the shot needs to be hard and placed within a foot or so of either post.Presumably the more skillful teams are better at preventing opposition players getting into these positions.The follow on to that is that it might be better to shoot from distance against top teams because scoring will rely more on luck from distance and the top teams are just as likely to have bad luck as poorer ones.
