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.
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.
So now you're comparing Brady's so far successful penalty taking with a high risk flood area? I give up!
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.
Right, and now for something completely different.... [video=youtube;IqhlQfXUk7w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w[/video]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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 !!
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 !!
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.
