I'm sure you have taken a penalty before at some level. If you haven't ever taken a penalty just try it in your garden. If you are right footed it's practically impossible to kick the ball to the right (the kickers right! - just think "the goalkeeper dived to the left" - now is it the goalkeepers left or is it the kickers left? I think it's pretty obvious in both instances) without making it obvious before the ball is kicked. I am of the opinion that the "variables" are obvious, too. If you are solely considering Brady's technique you are excluding factors external to Brady's technique such has the behaviour and ability of the goalkeeper. Getting back to practice: do you think that Jay Simpson's scuffed penalty against Sheffield Wednesday was the result of a complete absence of practice? I don't see how a penalty could be taken so badly by a practiced penalty taker.. My view, from an analysis of penalty kick placings, is that the goalkeeper would be better standing still until the ball is kicked given the number of penalties that are hit quite close to where the goalkeeper is standing. He would then only have to stick out a hand or foot or try to get behind the ball. The problem is that if the goalkeeper does this consistently then the kicker should score easily. If I was a goalkeeper or a penalty taker I would be analysing the behaviour of my likely opponent in past penalties. I'd have my favoured technique but I would also vary my approach given the probability of my opponents behaviour based on previous contests. I would never consider saying I've been successful two times out of two so I am perfect. There's always room for improvement no matter what the protestations to the contrary.
This is another example of being totally wrong. Both penalties were very low - one or two feet at the most whereas mid-height would be 4 feet.
We are not saying they are not different in pace and direction. We are saying they are too near the goalkeeper if he went the right way. Some players - Cantona - were able to decide at the very last instance where to put the ball based on the movement of the goalkeeper. I don't think that Brady is doing that. I would prefer him putting it nearer the post. My estimate of the placing is one was one yard to the goalkeepers left and the other was two and a half yards to the goalkeepers right. Given you only have to kick a still ball just over 12 yards I would have thought that with practice you could kick the ball very hard and still get it no more than half a yard inside the post.
True when you are only considering the PREVIOUS penalty but irrelevant when you are considering what to do with the NEXT penalty.
Oh dear, you're going to get me into trouble with PLT! As our views seem to be the same, wouldn't have been more conventional to post against the opposing view? You usually do.
I don't think that scoring from a penalty kick is remotely similar to scoring from open play so I don't think it would boost his confidence.
No, all this because Brady wouldn't have scored one of the penalties if the goalkeeper had gone a different way. I agree that it's a fuss over nothing if you don't care whether we win, draw or lose a game. If we do care then it's vital we do our best IN THE FUTURE especially at dead ball situations.
That was my point exactly Peter, you don't think but you certainly don't know that, that isn't precisely what Brady is doing. How about we just wait and see what happens wnen we get the next penalty after he is fit again?
It's pointless, Peter. You are arguing an hypothetical case against the reality that the guys technique scores goals - it's pointless.
A successful penalty consists of 2 main characteristics, a) it hits the target and b) it beats the keeper. Brady clearly has confidence that he can do b) well enough that he doesn't have to do a) brilliantly because his ability to do b) is of a high quality. He's gone a different way with both penalties which is a good thing too. It's surprising when they bring up the graphic of where people hit penalties how regularly they go for the same spot. They must clearly favour a) over b) in terms of priority which I feel is some people on here's preference. The above may be utter nonsense but I just thought I'd join in this exercise in putting the pathetic into hypathetic.
(1). Quite a few, at several levels. I'd say less than 50% success rate. My accuracy was rubbish, my technique randomly ineffective. Nothing to do with the ability of the goalie - just my incompetence ! (2) As a predominately right footed player, I'd say the exact opposite. For a start you don't have to swing your leg and foot across your body, unless of course you are running up to the ball in a totally unnatural way - i.e. from more than 3 degrees (Euclidian) right of the penalty spot. Then you'd be talking about John Cleese "silly walks" type contortions to have any chance of placing the ball to the right (the GKs left). (3) Give me some credit, I'm not spatially dyslexic. (4a) + (4b) + (4c). My whole point about good technique AS A PENALTY KICK taker is that the goalie is typically already in motion (albeit a nano-second earlier) with little (given the known laws of physics - don't question or insult me on that - it's my field) possibility of changing direction. - the keeper in most (majority of) situations makes his decision before the PK taker hits the ball. I.e. the keeper commits himself to go in a particular direction BASED on his knowledge/research of the particular PK taker. He "shows his cards" - to use an analogy (don't you just love analogies) & hence expectation of the PK taker's previous history/success patterns. - the good PK taker, with that window of opportunity (a nano-second of observation of the direction & momentum of the keeper), is adept at reducing the risk factors that would cause him to miss the target - whether it be direction, trajectory or force of impact in striking the ball. Your typical "blaster to the bottom or top corner" doesn't need to be so astute in his observations of the keeper's initial movement as the keeper has almost zero chance of saving the PK whether he "guesses" correctly or not. In a real sense, Brady doesn't need to consider these (undefined by you by the way) external factors. He has the edge in the conflict as the keeper HAS to make the first move to misguidedly increase his chances of saving the PK. I think a good PK taker doesn't need to concern himself with those factors (whatever they may be) outside his control. He just has to see the keeper's initial movement & adjust accordingly. Good 'uns can do that. (5) Dunno, can't honestly recall if I saw said Simpson's penalty. He may have practiced a lot - he may have ****ed up on that occasion, or he may be always crap at taking them. If the latter is the case, he should not have been allowed to take it. If the former, hell, he may have had an off day. (6). Peter - you surely are joking ? Any coach worth his salt would see that & give him absolute ****, whether he saved it or not. Any decent PK taker would see the lack of movement & adjust the direction, trajectory of his strike to hit the GAPING available target. It would only ever happen once for said keeper, however good he was in open play. he'd be subbed for any PK from that point on. Of course, you are clearly missing the jist of my argument by making such a statement as this. Good PK takers read the keepers motion in that crucial split second. Even I, a right-footed, half blind erratic PK taker, would take advantage of such lackadaisical behaviour. (7) Couldn't agree more, with every statement in your last para. PK takers do however, with knowledge & technique, have a distinct edge over the GK in these situations. If you think about it, why would a penalty ever be awarded if the odds were not in favour of the PK taker - why wouldn't the ref just award a goal if a potential goalscoring situation was prevented by foul means ? Good PK takers improve the odds of taking advantage of the situation. Goalies really only make a difference if the PK taker buggers up.
Wrong. All this because Brady's ability allowed him to spot that the goalie had set off in the opposite direction (the wrong direction) , whence he (Brady) chose to send the ball in the right direction. i.e. You think Brady was lucky and unlikely to continue his recent success taking PKs.. Many respondents to your posts on this thread disagree with your analysis of Brady's competence & PK taking technique & your view of him sustaining his PK taking success. This whole thread has been about your insecurity about Brady's PK taking ability, not anyone else's caring about whether City win, lose or draw. I would imagine most on this board care deeply. You are making a major erroneous quantum leap in logic by connecting your insecurities with other peoples caring about City's results. .
"(6). Peter - you surely are joking ? Any coach worth his salt would see that & give him absolute ****, whether he saved it or not. Any decent PK taker would see the lack of movement & adjust the direction, trajectory of his strike to hit the GAPING available target. It would only ever happen once for said keeper, however good he was in open play. he'd be subbed for any PK from that point on. Of course, you are clearly missing the jist of my argument by making such a statement as this. Good PK takers read the keepers motion in that crucial split second. Even I, a right-footed, half blind erratic PK taker, would take advantage of such lackadaisical behaviour." I don't mean that the goalkeeper makes it obvious before the penalty that they are not going to dive! What about all these little dinks when the goalkeeper would only have to catch it. Trying to not make it obvious what you are going to do is important. I don't know why anybody wouldn't think Brady should put it nearer the post than he does.
