Strange how, when something goes well for us, it is quickly attributed to luck and seldom if ever to the manager. For example, when we went on that ten-match unbeaten run before Christmas last season, it wasn't that we played sufficiently good football to warrant those results, it was largely due to big slices of luck. Then, when we ended the season 11th in the league, again we didn't deserve it, we were simply lucky, in particular we were presented with 6 points by teams "already on the beach" (no matter that we actually accumulated a total of 19 points from the 18 games which followed our defeat to WBA before Christmas). Last Saturday when we beat the Hammers 3:1, it was due to luck, the luck in this case being the error by the normally reliable Jaaskelainen which gifted us a penalty and got us back in the game. All this is sheer nonsense and special pleading and demonstrates a woeful ignorance and tunnel-vision regarding luck and its prevalence in football. Why, for example, was our first goal against the Hammers attributed to luck, while no mention was made of the role luck played in the Hammers goal? The latter was scored only because of two big slices of luck. First of all, Ryan Bennett's block on Nolan's first attempt fortuitously stayed in play rather than going out for a corner (which it so nearly did). The second slice of good fortune contributing to the goal was Pilkington's injury. As luck had it, it was Pilkington who was tracking Morrison; Morrison was able to run clear unmarked into space where Nolan picked him out. A simple finish, but one more down to good fortune than to skill. The fact is that good and bad fortune of one sort or another plays a huge part in every game of football, so great a part that it makes the result of almost any game a 50:50 call. If CH is lucky, so is every manager of every team in the league, and when bad luck strikes it strikes all equally.
Spot on either way, people can't have it both ways; if we are lucky to win against West Ham then we were also unlucky not to win against Cardiff but if we we lose to Chelsea because they outclassed us then we also beat Stoke because we outclassed them.
Good post Robbie, and as I mentioned in my essay yesterday one of the claims my "friend on the train" was making on saturday was that we only beat West Ham because we got a lucky penalty, though he didn't have anything to say when I informed him that by the same token we only lost against Hull because of a lucky penalty
We were getting battered in the first half and were fortunate to come away just 1 zero down, that was the lucky part the penalty was valid .
Agree with what you say SN23, Have to disagree about the penalty though (BTW good to see you back), If you watch the replays Hooper actually attempts to kick the ball and ends up kicking JJ's armpit and falls over, at no point does JJ do anything to Hooper, apart from get himself inbetween Hooper and the ball. In regards to the thread, totally agree, Luck plays a huge part in sport and sometimes as a supporter you just have to shrug your shoulders and say today just wasn't your day, or have a little chuckle when it does go your way.
Good post Robbie. I have bemoaned the fact several times on various threads that CH does not have a lot of luck and it so happens that this time he / we got some. The big thing now is to use that change of fortune to propel us up the league backed by the increase in confidence that the win brings, in that context the International break has come at the wrong time. Bad luck returns!
Strange how, when something goes well for us, it is quickly attributed to luck and seldom if ever to the manager. For example, when we went on that ten-match unbeaten run before Christmas last season, it wasn't that we played sufficiently good football to warrant those results, it was largely due to big slices of luck. Then, when we ended the season 11th in the league, again we didn't deserve it, we were simply lucky, in particular we were presented with 6 points by teams "already on the beach" (no matter that we actually accumulated a total of 19 points from the 18 games which followed our defeat to WBA before Christmas). Last Saturday when we beat the Hammers 3:1, it was due to luck, the luck in this case being the error by the normally reliable Jaaskelainen which gifted us a penalty and got us back in the game. All this is sheer nonsense and special pleading and demonstrates a woeful ignorance and tunnel-vision regarding luck and its prevalence in football. As A Hughton outer, I guess this is at least partially aimed at me. I don't see these things as lucky or unlucky in the main part. The ten game run was not down to luck. It was mostly down to resolute defending. (Not great or entertaining football, though I would say that winning is usually enough to entertain and leave you smiling) As an example, the sunderland game during the run, that second half our goal didn't half lead a charmed life and I couldn't believe it when we still had all 3 points come the final whistle the way we got battered, but luck no, 44 minutes of good football, followed by a second half of said resolute defending in conjunction with sunderlands at times poor attempts on goal (much like us against Cardiff) I think luck has context. I think the penalty could of been lucky in a way and in a moment. JJ doesn't drop many like that and then concede a penalty, you could call that lucky. But subsequentely winning the game was not luck, were we lucky for the rest of the 90 minutes? Arguably so to get in at 1-0! But then, as with us and Cardiff there are GK's to beat. Not beating Cardiff was no more bad luck than west ham not beating us. It was the product of skill and new found belief. Some might say that with out the moment of luck the latter may not occur but equally the game could of drifted towards a draw or even a Hammers win. It was a better response to an incident from one team than another. Whether luck evens out is another thing entirely. Big teams get big decisions is that luck? For example had Cech dropped the ball and bundled Hooper over at CR it might of been given, at SB however it would be very unlikely, does it now become bad luck because its not given? he has still dropped the ball and made that error, so is it still good luck but with poor officiating? Can you make your own luck? people will only point to luck in the context of big incidents that change games. But if a keeper miscontrolling it however rare constitututes luck then what of a rare slack pass from a top midfielder? Just because it does not result in anything more than a change in who has possession, if its a rare mistake is that less lucky? If he'd found a team mate they may have gone on to score in 4 passes time. May be if he'd found his team mate, he'd of been tackled the ball run to the oposition who then scored. Against Wet sham it could of been the worst luck. What if a low on confidence Hooper had put his spot kick in row Z. Then it could of been the catalyst for us to fold and WH could of won by 4 or 5? (OK its WH 2 or 3!) if you can only see luck when it has a direct and obvious bearing on the game, e.g. a penalty, a deflected goal etc then may be you can make your own luck to an extent by getting in to those areas more often and more effectively? So if you believe in luck then you surely can make your own. So in effect a manager whose team is ineffective in the final third or can't keep the ball is more likely to be perceived as unlucky, Hughton by some is perceived to have been a bit unlucky. Bah!
Does any one else when they have waffled a bit think it somewhat inappropriate to have to hit "Post Quick Reply"? Bah!
The bit in bold is a very good point, take this thing about the bigger sides getting more penalties because of who they are, pure and utter bollocks if you ask me, its because generally they have the ball in the oppo's area more often, thus the chances of getting a penalty are increased.
The 'lucky penalty' comments angered me as well, and Big Sam's view that City's play didn't improve until after the penalty did as well. City were better from the start of the second half, pressing up the pitch and forcing errors. I did actually make the point about Pilks pulling up when he was tracking Morrison being 'lucky' for West Ham, Robbie, but not the one about the ball just staying in. I don't agree with Guru's interpretation of the penalty. JJ had no reason to stick his arm out like that other than to stop Hooper getting to the ball. JJ made no attempt to get the ball, so it was a penalty.
Statistically the more attacking sides should and will get more penalties, but to denigh that there is any bias toward those larger clubs, when every week we see incidents to the contrary is also a bit blinkered! Bah!
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x170l4n_norwich-vs-west-ham-3-1-motd_sport?start=10 Sorry Rick, got to disagree. JJ is clearly try to gather the ball (roughly 3.15 in the video) and hooper falls over him, What else was JJ supposed to do in that situation?
The thing is Guru, no matter how you try and dress it up, it WAS a penalty because the referee said so and his word is final!
well there's a shock. guru doesn't think it was a penalty. err, perhaps you should fast forward your video to around 8:00 because the panel all thought it was. do you know why? because it was a penalty!
I'll be honest at the time from where I was behind that goal it looked an absolutely blatant, nailed on penalty as it appeared that JJ tripped Hoops up by grabbing hold of his foot, however when I saw the highlights it didn't appear to be quite as blatant. That said, it was still definitely a penalty regardless how many times you watch it, and the referee got it spot on and made a great call
supers and Dave, I wonder what your reactions would have been if it was at the other end? I can see why some people say it was a penalty. To me it wasn't, not because its you but because i can't see how a goalkeeper diving away from the centre forward to gather a bobbling ball can be judged to have given a penalty away, if i remember rightly he doesn't even look in hoopers direction once he drops the ball, so how can he judge if hooper is going in that direction. I ask again what else could he have done? if JJ movement was towards hooper, or he looks towards him as he is going to ground, than yes defo bang on penalty, but moving away? And you talk about the pundits saying it was a penalty, are these the same pundits that are ridiculed on here on a weekly basis for not knowing anything? but now suddenly they hold the definative answers!
i suppose many would describe the penalty decision as 'soft' but it was 100% the correct decision. anyone who thinks otherwise is biased - that'll be you then guru! even big sam had no gripes - he was (rightly) more aggrieved at his keeper for a) dropping the ball under very little pressure and b) tripping up hooper. he described it as "two errors in a row". how come you can't understand that? it isn't exactly a tough decision to call. if it was i could understand why you might feel the need to come on here and tell us but you're just making yourself look a little silly.
Being battered doesn't mean we were fortunate to be only one down at half time. What made it "fortunate"? Why don't you say we did enough defensively to keep the Hammers out -- until two big slices of luck led to their goal? Were Cardiff "lucky" because we battered them for virtually the whole game without scoring? Or did they defend very well and Marshall have a blinder? This is precisely the sort of talk of "luck" and "fortune" etc. that I am trying to get people to stop and think about. What I'm saying is that luck is a constant element in every game; when a team defends stoutly and doesn't concede, that will ALWAYS be down to a combination of skill and luck. Likewise, any passage of attacking play leading to a goal will ALWAYS involve both elements. People focus selectively on this or that lucky break, while failing to take note of the countless other examples that occur in every game. ALL of them contribute to the outcome of the game. That's football. All the research into the part luck plays in a game, and the part skill plays, leads to the same conclusion, namely that in any given game luck plays almost as big a part as skill. Even over runs of games, CLOSE TO HALF THE POINTS A TEAM ACCUMULATES CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO FORTUNE! Significantly greater skill does pay dividends over a run of games, but the operative words are "significantly greater". Even then the probability that relative performance will reflect relative skill levels is surprisingly low. And where you have a group of teams with very little difference in skill levels (such as the group of PL teams of which we are one), their relative performance over e.g. a season, is ALWAYS as much a function of fortune as skill.
