A lot has been said about how unlucky we have been as a team, particularly this season. Of course, that's always a contentious and subjective topic (people can point at the Newcastle game and rightfully say we got lucky there), but on balance I would argue we have had a pretty rough ride. There is a football analysis company that measure "fortune" of teams, but their information is restricted so I can't post a link. Essentially, they measure luck over the course of the season, with teams averaging to a measure of 1000 (with above 1000 being "lucky" and below being "unlucky"). I've no idea how they measure it, and I only saw the details once, in December. But to give you an idea, their stats showed that Arsenal, for example, had average scores well below 1000 for each of the preceding seasons, but this season (up to December) they had a score of over 1100. Teams like Southampton, Newcastle and Hull were even higher. We had a score of around 800. It might have gone up since then (because of the Newcastle match) or not (because of the Cardiff match). I don't know. But by the only (possibly thorough and objective, if questionable) measure that I know, Norwich have been profoundly unlucky. And being unlucky is extremely bad news: http://www.sportdw.com/2013/05/impa...3/05/impact-luck-premier-league-football.html But other than to say that our manager somehow needs to improve our luck, that's not the only point of this rambling post. The other point is, while our team is unlucky: how lucky is Bradley Johnson?? I'd say he is quite possibly the luckiest player in the Premier League at the moment. I have never witnessed a player so miraculously good at avoiding yellow cards. Given how many fouls he gives away and how cynical many of them are, it is (IMO) miraculous that he has only one yellow card suspension in his getting on for three seasons at Norwich. I think the decision, based on the rules, by the FA to rescind his red card was correct, but equally it was surprising given their past form and Johnson's behaviour. But, more to the point, how lucky is he that just one week after he made a bit of a prat of himself, a similar, but far bigger and noisier sending off scandal has erupted and (possibly apart from in the minds of the odd Newcastle fan) Johnson's behaviour appears to have been completely forgotten. Of course, Chico was much, much worse, but that in itself was lucky! Particularly as this is the second time Johnson has done it! So if that's all the case, is playing Johnson our best hope for restoring our luck?
Not sure that his luck in not getting suspended as much as he probably should is the luck we need to push on. The luck I'm waiting for is Howson to make a miraculous recovery so we don't have to play Johnson anymore
The thing is, what do you describe as lucky? If a goalie has an exceptional game against you, do you say that is lucky or well thats what he is paid to do? same as if a striker hits a post, to me thats not unlucky because the post is there and he should do better to get the shot on target. probably the only thing you can include in the 'lucky' thing is ref decisions, but then even that is up for debate, take the remy/johnson incident, a lot of people would say that the ref should have slapped their wrists give a yellow each and play on for the good of the game, whereas as others would say letter of the law should followed. Its a tough one.
Which would occur automatically if the team and tactics employed gave them something to get excited and noisy about. More play like that second half (barring the obvious two minute spell) against Cardiff would go a long way to achieving that, which in turn fires up the players still further, etc etc. At which point it becomes self-perpetuating But imagine if we sit deep tomorrow (which is fairly likely) and stand off players of the calibre of Citeh. They score, our players heads drop, passing goes astray, ideas and movement dry up and all that percolates through to the guys in the stands. We've seen it time and again this season and people have had a gut full of it.
Point taken. I suspect that the statistics are rather measured more carefully than that. I.e. for the team with the goalkeeper playing well, that is not "luck" (as you point out), but for the team that is playing against the goalkeeper playing well, that is "unlucky" because you do not always come up against a goalkeeper playing well. In other words, luck is about how things occur which are out of your control. A defensive mistake by your own player is not bad luck. A defensive mistake by the opposition player is good luck. It gets slightly trickier with the "Is hitting the post unlucky or just a bad shot?" debate. In my opinion it is not as black and white as "if you hit the post, it's a bad shot". We were discussing this the other day. The reason for this is that due to us being human there is a finite level to which we can be accurate. If the best player in the world was able to hit the ball with absolute precision every time, taking accurately into account the wind and the shape of the ball (things outside of our control), then I would agree - it is a bad shot. However, there is a finite level of accuracy for humans - as can be seen by the likes of Messi and co. who are still only able to get the ball into a certain sized area from - and the tiniest difference (a gust of wind after it left your boot, a minor lump in the football) can make the difference between a goal or the post (in fact, even more). Technique-wise, if I was to hit a ball and it arced beautifully into the top right corner, I would agree that it was a good shot, but I would also say it was lucky - because my technique is not good. I.e. the better your technique is, the less luck comes into play. As with all this, the effect is more profound the further the shot is from the goal. So I would argue that when it comes to hitting the post, because of the multitude of variables that it is impossible for the player to control or for the watcher to measure, luck really is a question of our instinct. I think most of us would agree that if a player is four yards from the goal and hits the post, that is not unlucky, that is a poor shot. But most of us will look at a 25 yard screamer and if it rattles off the inside of the post and out into the area, are instinct would say "that was unlucky", because it would have taken the slightest thing outside of the player's control to make the ball go in. I't a matter of opinion, though. I'm firmly behind the idea that anything out of your control amounts to luck (bad or good, depending on effect). And that includes the path of the ball, the further it is from goal with the shot.
Although the one thing that Hughton really has against him on this front is that you can't be lucky if you don't take a chance. I'll never win the lottery while I don't buy a ticket.
Regarding what counts as luck/fortune, when this sort of question gets raised the first reaction tends to be that the people producing the stats are imbeciles who know nothing about the game and even less about what they are doing. There are indeed imbeciles out there, but there are also seriously clever and knowledgeable people whose reputations and businesses depend on the accuracy and meaningfulness of the analyses they provide and the statistics they generate. I've taken flak on here for drawing people's attention to the fact that as many games are decided by strokes of fortune as are decided by skill. This is not sheer imagination on my part; it is statistically supported by the findings of intelligent and knowledgeable people who have spent long periods analysing in great detail games from different leagues and cup competitions and thinking seriously about how best to understand and meaningfully capture what happens on a football pitch during a match. In the case of luck/fortune, the point is not to bemoan the amount of bad luck you suffer, but to ask yourself what can be done (a) to minimise the likelihood that bad luck will lose you the game and (b) to maximise the likelihood that good luck will win it for you. An example of the former would be shots deflected by defenders past their own goalkeeper. In what situations is attempting to block the shot the best strategy, and in what situations is it better to leave it to the goalkeeper to make the save if he can? Your example of defensive mistakes illustrates the latter: it is open to teams to increase the likelihood of an opposing defender making a mistake, e.g. by keeping defenders under pressure, or even just by choosing, having won the toss, to play so that the sun is in the opposition goalkeeper's eyes.
Surely the point is that if you take a chance you might be lucky, but you may equally open yourself to misfortune or make yourself even more vulnerable to greater skill. I can think of few surer ways of throwing money away than buying a lottery ticket!
Sorry, but doesn't this just sum up the problem? We'll support you -- if you give us something to get excited and noisy about. Surely the point is to help the team by cheering when they are most in need of it.
Confucious said - Man standing on hill with mouth open has long wait for roast duck to fall in it. You make your on luck we don't get it because we don't try.
I would argue that there are two main areas of luck in football.The first is the number of times that a team is foiled by the woodwork.The ball hitting the frame of the goal and either coming back into play or deflecting behind for a goal kick or a corner.When an attacking player shoots or heads for goal he is not sufficiently skilled to place the ball accurately in exactly the best position,which would be immediately adjacent to the goal frame.So it's a matter of luck whether it goes in or stays out. The second area is penalties.If we were to rate penalties from 1 to 10 with the lower the number the least legitimate then I would see it like this. 1-4 would cover ball to hand handball awards and spot kicks given for minimal contacts/dives.8-10 Would cover deliberate saves by outfield players,obvious fouls on players clear through on goal either by the defender or goalkeeper and deliberate pushing offences.Anything other than these would qualify for the middle numbers.So failing to be awarded a 10 would be unlucky while being awarded a 1 would be lucky.Just out of interest I will look at any penalties given this in this weekend's matches and try to give them a "luck" quotient. What I would not include under the luck heading are especially good goalkeeping performances and clearances off the line etc,these come under skill.
And as Confucius also said - Man who lights fire in house to roast duck ends up with neither house nor duck. The whole point of football analytics is to dispense with this type of cliched received wisdom and engage in proper research into the realities of the game. As far as risk taking goes, this is one chestnut which keeps appearing in the Lambert v Hughton debate, Lambert being applauded as an imaginative risk taker, Hughton ridiculed as a cautious dullard. But as the stats in my signature show, in terms of matches won and points gained, there is nothing to choose between the two, either in their current posts or over their managerial careers as a whole. Lambert gambles more often than Hughton, but pays the same price for his gambling as Hughton pays for his caution. The real point is that both are restricted by the quality of the players at their disposal. Neither has the resources that would allow taking risks while keeping the likelihood of failure to a minimum. When the SAS "dare", they do so equipped with the best troops, training, equipment and intelligence it is possible to have.
An interesting piece on football 'stats' and why they should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Oh yes indeed. http://angryofislington.com/2012/03/28/88-of-stats-are-stupid-pointless/
Frankly that article seems more like a rant shouted in a pub than good critique of stats, the first few paragraphs raise a good point about assists, one that has been remedied with the "key pass" metric that takes the criticism into account. the point that they don't know if the stats are good or bad means that more information is needed however when they come out in commentary they tend to be lead by the context of the game so it is more obvious. Normally looking at the possession, shots and fouls stats normally shows a reasonably picture of the game.
The article simply illustrates a lack of understanding of what football analytics and statistics are about. To quote: "But a lot of stats that get bandied around in football these days are not so clear, clean and undeniably ‘good’. In fact they are completely meaningless. For example: “Alex Song has played more through balls than anyone else in the Premier League this season.” Apparently his total is 18. But his total number of assists is eight, so are his through balls any good? At least ten of them didn’t result in goals. Maybe he makes too many. Maybe the ten that weren’t assists set up good chances anyway. Or maybe they didn’t. The point is we don’t know, so the statistic is meaningless." A statistic such as the number of through balls played by a certain individual does not pretend to have intrinsic meaning. It is simply a number recording the frequency of a specific kind of event. Despite lacking intrinsic meaning, it may have extrinsic meaning when placed within a wider context. The fact that idiots attach idiotic meaning to them, or that their significance is not understood, is no reflection on the statistics. It is a reflection on the people who misinterpret them or fail to grasp the meaning that they have. What happens on a football field is certainly complex, but not more complex or inscrutable than many types of occurrence where statistical analysis plays a fundamental role in increasing understanding. Instead of complaining that we don't know the significance of a certain statistic, intelligent people will attempt to work out what significance it has. Just like the statistic that tells us that the planet's average temperature is rising at a certain rate. That's just a number, the debate is about what it means and how we need to respond to it.
Well, at the risk of being branded a simpleton / ******, I enjoyed it more when it was all about entertainment, rather than trawling through endless jargon and treating it as some new branch of science!
