Danny Graham vs. Brady's penalty

[tigerscanada]

I think this is a better point. It's whether he's performing well taking the penalties in training. I'm not sure how much some clubs practice dead ball situations given the disasters we see with free kicks and corners.

I mentioned the "Brady tap". I agree that the Brady penalty against West Ham was hit powerfully yet not far from the goalkeeper but the penalty against Norwich was a tap and wasn't very far from the goalkeeper. Brady telegraphed where the penalty was going yet the goalkeeper still dived the wrong way.

To all those who say that Brady shouldn't reconsider his penalty taking because he's scored two in two I would point out that the low statistical population means you shouldn't rely on the data. However you can effectively consider Brady's technique because there are less variables. Brady is left footed. This means it is easier to disguise a shot to the right than it is a shot to the left. Maybe the classic to remember was the Proschwitz penalty against Cardiff. He took a right footed penalty to the right and telegraphed it and placed it a comfortable height for the goalkeeper. Even more amazingly it was Bruce's decision that Proschwitz should take the penalty!

Some people swear by ProZone statistics but just look at players tapping the ball to each other when they are a yard apart. This is for the benefit of ProZone.

Dead ball situations can mean the difference between relegation and safety quite easily and I think a lot of thought and practice should go into them. It's certainly better than only using statistics such as "wait until he misses three on the trot" without considering the actual technique of taking a penalty.

Amazing logic. You try to point out that a small statistical sampling population (Brady's 2 penalties) is erroneous analysis, yet use an even smaller sampling (Proschwitz's SINGLE penalty) as a counter argument. Unbelievable.

A preferred penalty taker is usually designated by a coach/manager as a result of observing his success rate in training, whatever the technique(s) & variations he uses. That means he's watching the penalty-taker candidates practicing their art. They will practice a lot - primary taker, secondary etc etc. Only when a preferred PK taker starts to fail or lose his bottle will a coach make a change. You, or any supporter, haven't a clue what goes on in training on this front. The acid test is how successful is the coach in assessing his primary PK takers and in turn how successful is that choice in real game situations.
I don't think anyone suggested a "wait until he's missed 3 on the trot" situation in isolation, myself included, without considering other factors e.g. lost bottle, previous history/success rate etc. The technique used is secondary to success rate or observed changes in confidence/demeanour of the player in question.

As OLM suggested in an earlier post, this is a meaningless debate. Practice - yes, success stats at point of delivery - yes. Re-evaluate in negative change in the success pattern - yes. Change it because it looks like a bad penalty or technique when goals are resulting - not a bloody chance. Any coach/manager who did that would be nuts.

 

[tigerscanada]

I think this is a better point. It's whether he's performing well taking the penalties in training. I'm not sure how much some clubs practice dead ball situations given the disasters we see with free kicks and corners.

I mentioned the "Brady tap". I agree that the Brady penalty against West Ham was hit powerfully yet not far from the goalkeeper but the penalty against Norwich was a tap and wasn't very far from the goalkeeper. Brady telegraphed where the penalty was going yet the goalkeeper still dived the wrong way.

To all those who say that Brady shouldn't reconsider his penalty taking because he's scored two in two I would point out that the low statistical population means you shouldn't rely on the data. However you can effectively consider Brady's technique because there are less variables. Brady is left footed. This means it is easier to disguise a shot to the right than it is a shot to the left. Maybe the classic to remember was the Proschwitz penalty against Cardiff. He took a right footed penalty to the right and telegraphed it and placed it a comfortable height for the goalkeeper. Even more amazingly it was Bruce's decision that Proschwitz should take the penalty!

Some people swear by ProZone statistics but just look at players tapping the ball to each other when they are a yard apart. This is for the benefit of ProZone.

Dead ball situations can mean the difference between relegation and safety quite easily and I think a lot of thought and practice should go into them. It's certainly better than only using statistics such as "wait until he misses three on the trot" without considering the actual technique of taking a penalty.

Amazing logic. You try to point out that a small statistical sampling population (Brady's 2 penalties) is erroneous analysis, yet use an even smaller sampling (Proschwitz's SINGLE penalty) as a counter argument. Unbelievable.

A preferred penalty taker is usually designated by a coach/manager as a result of observing his success rate in training, whatever the technique(s) & variations he uses. That means he's watching the penalty-taker candidates practicing their art. They will practice a lot - primary taker, secondary etc etc. Only when a preferred PK taker starts to fail or lose his bottle will a coach make a change. You, or any supporter, haven't a clue what goes on in training on this front. The acid test is how successful is the coach in assessing his primary PK takers and in turn how successful is that choice in real game situations.
I don't think anyone suggested a "wait until he's missed 3 on the trot" situation in isolation, myself included, without considering other factors e.g. lost bottle, previous history/success rate etc. The technique used is secondary to success rate or observed changes in confidence/demeanour of the player in question.

As OLM suggested in an earlier post, this is a meaningless debate. Practice - yes, success stats at point of delivery - yes. Re-evaluate in negative change in the success pattern - yes. Change it because it looks like a bad penalty or technique when goals are resulting - not a bloody chance. Any coach/manager who did that would be nuts.

 

[Summerof69]

I suppose it's like flooding. In a high risk area some people prefer to wait until the water causes a lot of damage before regretting not doing anything whereas other people anticipate the flooding and take measures to minimise the damage.

So now you're comparing Brady's so far successful penalty taking with a high risk flood area? I give up!

 

[Fez]

Pretty much any player could place the ball gently into one side under no pressure. Part of the problem is of course taking the penalty under pressure and that must increase massively in shoot-outs at a major tournament. Any player should be able to score roughly 50% of his penalties simply by placing it to one side and not missing; the keeper will go the wrong way about half the time. If you want to increase that percentage, like the aforementioned experts of the penalty kick did/do, you need to be accurate and/or powerful to the extent that the keeper can't save it even if he guesses right.

As I've already said, Brady is either doing something right in terms of knowing where the keeper will go or reacting to his initial movements or he's scoring through luck, he certainly isn't beating the keeper through the strike itself. Both of those penalties would have been absolutely piss-easy saves if the keeper went the right way. Brady will continue to take penalties if we get any more and I'm happy for him to do so and give him the benefit of the doubt. I'll be the first one to complain though if he eventually misses one as a result of a keeper reacting to his soft shot just slightly to one side. I believe in a team of 11 players you should have one capable of beating a keeper from 12 yards. Not relying on the keeper going the wrong way (any of the 11 could do that) but actually beating him.

Wow, do you really believe all of that? Let's all hope Brady stays lucky, eh?

 

[Fez]

The 3 or 4 yards was nonsense! It was about 2 yards to the keepers left.

It was, but it was your nonsense!

 

[tigerscanada]

He was moving away from the ball when the ball crossed the line. What's the relevance of that bit of information?

Brady's technique was therefore successful. Something you seem to be questioning, either through lack of practice on his part, or you are worried about his technique despite his success.

Please don't attempt to question my logic, as in your earlier post ( today # 56):

"I would point out that the low statistical population means you shouldn't rely on the data" coupled with " Maybe the classic to remember was the Proschwitz penalty against Cardiff" you seem to be using as a argument that a small statistical sampling (Brady's 2 P.K.s) as a reason to not use stats, yet in the same breath use an even smaller statistical sampling ( Prozzy's single PK) as a counter argument. Bizarre to say the least from a logical argument point of view, something you are inclined to discredit others for.

 

[Fez]

Peter, it's not even a wind-up, it's just plain. bloody daft.

 

[ellewoods]

This is the silliest thread that we have had in a long time.

 

[tigerscanada]

This is the silliest thread that we have had in a long time.

Right, and now for something completely different....

[video=youtube;IqhlQfXUk7w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w[/video]

 

[petersaxton]

Amazing logic. You try to point out that a small statistical sampling population (Brady's 2 penalties) is erroneous analysis, yet use an even smaller sampling (Proschwitz's SINGLE penalty) as a counter argument. Unbelievable.

A preferred penalty taker is usually designated by a coach/manager as a result of observing his success rate in training, whatever the technique(s) & variations he uses. That means he's watching the penalty-taker candidates practicing their art. They will practice a lot - primary taker, secondary etc etc. Only when a preferred PK taker starts to fail or lose his bottle will a coach make a change. You, or any supporter, haven't a clue what goes on in training on this front. The acid test is how successful is the coach in assessing his primary PK takers and in turn how successful is that choice in real game situations.
I don't think anyone suggested a "wait until he's missed 3 on the trot" situation in isolation, myself included, without considering other factors e.g. lost bottle, previous history/success rate etc. The technique used is secondary to success rate or observed changes in confidence/demeanour of the player in question.

As OLM suggested in an earlier post, this is a meaningless debate. Practice - yes, success stats at point of delivery - yes. Re-evaluate in negative change in the success pattern - yes. Change it because it looks like a bad penalty or technique when goals are resulting - not a bloody chance. Any coach/manager who did that would be nuts.

I think your logic is flawed. People were trying to use statistics to say there's nothing wrong with Brady's technique because it resulted in two goals from two attempts. They didn't even care about his technique because it went in the net.

I was giving an example of poor technique in the Proschwitz case. I wouldn't decide whether he should take penalties or not based on one attempt. What I would do in both cases - whether they score or not - is to attempt to remedy deficiencies. Your approach seems to be let people do things patently wrong because they are achieving results.

 

[petersaxton]

Amazing logic. You try to point out that a small statistical sampling population (Brady's 2 penalties) is erroneous analysis, yet use an even smaller sampling (Proschwitz's SINGLE penalty) as a counter argument. Unbelievable.

A preferred penalty taker is usually designated by a coach/manager as a result of observing his success rate in training, whatever the technique(s) & variations he uses. That means he's watching the penalty-taker candidates practicing their art. They will practice a lot - primary taker, secondary etc etc. Only when a preferred PK taker starts to fail or lose his bottle will a coach make a change. You, or any supporter, haven't a clue what goes on in training on this front. The acid test is how successful is the coach in assessing his primary PK takers and in turn how successful is that choice in real game situations.
I don't think anyone suggested a "wait until he's missed 3 on the trot" situation in isolation, myself included, without considering other factors e.g. lost bottle, previous history/success rate etc. The technique used is secondary to success rate or observed changes in confidence/demeanour of the player in question.

As OLM suggested in an earlier post, this is a meaningless debate. Practice - yes, success stats at point of delivery - yes. Re-evaluate in negative change in the success pattern - yes. Change it because it looks like a bad penalty or technique when goals are resulting - not a bloody chance. Any coach/manager who did that would be nuts.

I think your logic is flawed. People were trying to use statistics to say there's nothing wrong with Brady's technique because it resulted in two goals from two attempts. They didn't even care about his technique because it went in the net.

I was giving an example of poor technique in the Proschwitz case. I wouldn't decide whether he should take penalties or not based on one attempt. What I would do in both cases - whether they score or not - is to attempt to remedy deficiencies. Your approach seems to be let people do things patently wrong because they are achieving results.

 

[petersaxton]

Brady's technique was therefore successful. Something you seem to be questioning, either through lack of practice on his part, or you are worried about his technique despite his success.

Please don't attempt to question my logic, as in your earlier post ( today # 56):

"I would point out that the low statistical population means you shouldn't rely on the data" coupled with " Maybe the classic to remember was the Proschwitz penalty against Cardiff" you seem to be using as a argument that a small statistical sampling (Brady's 2 P.K.s) as a reason to not use stats, yet in the same breath use an even smaller statistical sampling ( Prozzy's single PK) as a counter argument. Bizarre to say the least from a logical argument point of view, something you are inclined to discredit others for.

I have pointed out the difference between the two cases. The "Brady two" was definately a use of statistics whereas the "Proschwitz one" was an example of a poor penalty". As I have already explained. I wouldn't make a decision to keep or change a penalty taker from such a small sample but I would definately want to improve technique if I saw a deficiency.

Some people on here seem to think that Brady is deliberately kicking the opposite way to the goalkeeper. Let's see whether that is the case in the coming months. If the goalkeeper does go the right way I hope Brady's shot isn't like it was against Norwich. Hopefully, by then, he will have changed his technique to resemble Ricky Lambert's.

 

[petersaxton]

So now you're comparing Brady's so far successful penalty taking with a high risk flood area? I give up!

I suppose you have not been educated in the subject of "analogies" yet.

In that case you are most wise to give up at least until you rectify the deficiency in your education.

 

[Fez]

I think your logic is flawed. People were trying to use statistics to say there's nothing wrong with Brady's technique because it resulted in two goals from two attempts. They didn't even care about his technique because it went in the net.

I was giving an example of poor technique in the Proschwitz case. I wouldn't decide whether he should take penalties or not based on one attempt. What I would do in both cases - whether they score or not - is to attempt to remedy deficiencies. Your approach seems to be let people do things patently wrong because they are achieving results.

There have only been two Brady penalties this season and folk were simply offering an opinion; I certainly thought it unnecessary to expand on technique at that stage. All of this is based on your razor-sharp insight into the technical merits of Brady's penalty taking; have you discussed it with him? When was the first time you saw the penalty; at the ground?

Explain to us all again, just what did Brady do wrong?

 

[petersaxton]

There have only been two Brady penalties this season and folk were simply offering an opinion; I certainly thought it unnecessary to expand on technique at that stage. All of this is based on your razor-sharp insight into the technical merits of Brady's penalty taking; have you discussed it with him? When was the first time you saw the penalty; at the ground?

Explain to us all again, just what did Brady do wrong?

PLT has explained it perfectly. Didn't you read and comprehend what he said?

Brady put both penalties half way between the keeper and the post. The Norwich penalty was weakly hit. If the goalkeeper went the right way they could have saved either penalty. If Brady had put the penalty nearer the post and harder the goalkeeper would have less chance of saving it. Of course there would be more chance of him missing. But practice should reduce the chance.

 

[tigerscanada]

I suppose you have not been educated in the subject of "analogies" yet.

In that case you are most wise to give up at least until you rectify the deficiency in your education.

Here we go again....trying to make a point through arrogance & by insulting a poster.

 

[tigerscanada]

cock -up on my part. I do have the advantage of a 5 hour time difference so I can try again.......

 

[tigerscanada]

PLT has explained it perfectly. (1) Didn't you read and comprehend what he said?

Brady put both penalties half way between the keeper and the post. The Norwich penalty was weakly hit. (2)If the goalkeeper went the right way they could have saved either penalty. If Brady had put the penalty nearer the post and harder the goalkeeper would have less chance of saving it. Of course there would be more chance of him missing. But practice should reduce the chance.

(1) And again.......another insult to attempt to make a point.

(2) They didn't though did they , in both of Brady's successful PKs.?

Keepers invariably decide which way they will go before a penalty is taken, based on their knowledge (research & stats) of where they think the taker will place the shot. They tend to make that move a split second before the ball is struck....in other words, they commit themselves a split second early in the misguided belief that they improve their chances of making a save.
That may work in the case of a miss-hit penalty (misplaced or extremely weakly hit), or when a penalty taker is crap at the task. A technically gifted PK taker has the advantage in the overwhelming majority of cases. A good PK taker (blaster and/or accurate sharpshooter) gives keepers little chance in a high percentage of cases. A highly technical & proficient PK taker, having the advantage of seeing the keepers weight shift in a particular direction, can modify his shot to take advantage of the goalie's irreversible body momentum. At the same time the PK taker can reduce the risk of error ( i.e. missing the target) by placing the ball into a more highly (percentage-wise) successful & less risky trajectory and direction. He also has the ability to reduce the "speed" of the shot to a safer level to remain within the target zone.

I'll give you one thing you keep harping on about - practice will improve results. Pace of shot and perfection of accuracy in combination is inherently more risky as attention is deflected from the ability to observe the goalie's movement at address.

I suppose the bottom line here Peter is that you have no confidence in Brady's technique, and that you think he will fail when the first clairvoyant keeper susses him out, or when he's practiced to the extent that he's infallible.

If ever I start to believe in the occult, I may change my opinion, but right now, even with such a small statistical sampling, I think I would go for Brady's technique every time. Just my opinion - based on very little knowledge of the subtleties of the game.

I guess we will not have the pleasure of seeing him take a penalty against Villa this weekend.

Drat the bad luck !!

 

[tigerscanada]

I think your logic is flawed. People were trying to use statistics to say there's nothing wrong with Brady's technique because it resulted in two goals from two attempts. They didn't even care about his technique because it went in the net.

I was giving an example of poor technique in the Proschwitz case. I wouldn't decide whether he should take penalties or not based on one attempt. What I would do in both cases - whether they score or not - is to attempt to remedy deficiencies. Your approach seems to be let people do things patently wrong because they are achieving results.

Just spotted this gem.

You are saying that Brady's technique is patently wrong. Until you have evidence that the results of Brady's efforts are unfavourable (I'm assuming you're a City supporter, and not one of the enemy), then I would suggest it is you who are patently wrong. In this particular case - two rights do not make a wrong !!!!!

You think my logic is flawed ? I know yours is floored !!

 

[tigerscanada]

I suppose it's like flooding. In a high risk area some people prefer to wait until the water causes a lot of damage before regretting not doing anything whereas other people anticipate the flooding and take measures to minimise the damage.

Well Peter, yet another gem. You seem to not fit into either camp....

[video=youtube;yShvgXZQBTs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yShvgXZQBTs[/video]

.classic.