Goal scoring problems?

[ZacNaloen]

Not really folllowed this but it seems people are arguing that it's stupid to get excited at a corner because only a small % of them directly result in a goal. Kind of misses the point - the chances of scoring from it (or from pressure that follows it eg. ball being cleared then played back out to the wing again) are still way way higher than when the ball is on the half-way line, or at the keeper's feet, or hanging in the air over midfield etc.

It's not that people expect a direct goal as such (although sometimes it does happen) but more that it reflects a period of territorial domination, a chance to get bodies/the ball in and around the oppositions penalty area which is, after all, where most goals are scored.

So sorry, Zac et al, but i'm not buying that people "get excited over corners for no reason". Pressure is exciting. Attacking is exciting. If you're not going to get excited when your team has the opponents under the cosh then, well, I don't know why you'd watch football at all.

No no, I'm arguing that when you are getting excited at a football match that excitement colours your perceptions of the match. Which may lead to some dodgy recall later down the line. Which in turn could lead to things such as thinking we score more corners than we do and in turn means that stats really do have a place in analysing the game otherwise all your doing is arguing your perceptions and not what happened.


*obviously you need to do it right. I never said I agree with snowballs conclusions.

[Hoop Blah]

And the percentage of goals from those different scenario's as they occur through a game? Are they greater than the same for corners?

I still maintain that people getting excited at corners aren't doing so because they think we're likely to score, they're doing so because they're there to get excited, make some noise, and generally enjoy themselves. It's a set piece moment in the game where the crowd have an excuse, and a 'trigger', to make some noise and show support irrespective of the likelihood of us converting a corner to a goal.

I notice you haven't looked at the first 10 goals of this season. What would be the percentage of goals from corners for that random sample?

[Snowball]

The obvious counterpoint to this (and this might be a step too far for you) is that you need to compare not the TOTAL number of goals that come from each scenario but rather the PERCENTAGE of times that scenario results in a goal. That is the central tenet of your argument about getting excited at corners after all.

So, how many times does a full-back need to get possession before he assists a goal? How many times does Federici lump the ball down the pitch before we get a goal? And then compare that to the number of corners/second phases from corners that we need before we score a goal.

Then tell me whether I should get more excited when we have the opposition pinned back in their own box or whether the ball's with Sean Cummings 30yds from his own goal.

This is funny. It's a fact that last season we took 330 corners to score 4 goals, scoring a goal every 12th game from corners.

But we scored 64 goals (1.5 a game) from moves that were NOT corners.

That is we scored SIXTEEN TIMES as many goals from NOT-corners as corners.

Now to be "as bad" at converting that would need to be 330 x 16 attacks = 5,280 ATTACKS

Let me repeat that, 5,280 attacks.

46 games x 90 minutes x 50% possession = 2070 minutes of possession, a significant
amount of which will be in our penalty area or deep in our half.

Do you think we can have 5,280 full-on proper attacks (as opposed to mid-field stalemate)
in 2,070 minutes (less the time where we are in our own defensive third)

That's 5,280 full-on, proper attacks in, say 1,500 minutes of play

Or to put it another way 114 full-on, real attacks PER GAME, almost three full-on attacks per minute of possession.


Look, we got four goals from corners in 330 tries. Say we have 24 full-on, real attacks per game (average)
we get 1.5 goals from those 24 attacks, a goal every 16 attacks.... TWENTY TIMES BETTER THAN FROM CORNERS.

[Maguire]

Clearly you're wrong. Here's how they were scored.

it is simply NOT TRUE that we don't get balls from midfield play,
or from deep positions, or from full-backs feeding wingers.

You've totally ignored what i said in my post and the 20 goal diatribe does nothing to address or refute my point.

You can't go on about the PERCENTAGE of corners that result in goals and then switch to the TOTAL number of goals when talking about other scenarios. It's another misuse of statistics - you need to compare apples with apples.

So, I don't dispute that we score from midfield or that we score goals originating in deep positions, I merely contend that the number of times a corner (or secondary phase thereafter) results in a goal is higher than the number of times a punt down the pitch results in a goal. Or Federici goal-kick results in a goal. Or Sean Cummings touching the ball results in a goal.

Which is why people don't jump off their seat and punch the air when Feds puts the ball down on the edge of his six yard box.

[Snowball]

And the percentage of goals from those different scenario's as they occur through a game? Are they greater than the same for corners?

MASSIVELY GREATER, VERY, VERY VERY MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE.

Would you agree that we do not average 90 full-on attacks that get the ball into
the opposition's penalty area every game. That would be an incredible number of attacks
equalling two per minute of possession. But we average 1.5 goals per game


IF we did have 90 attacks (stupidly high number) that would be 1 in 60, 5.5 times better than corners.

[Maguire]

The obvious counterpoint to this (and this might be a step too far for you) is that you need to compare not the TOTAL number of goals that come from each scenario but rather the PERCENTAGE of times that scenario results in a goal. That is the central tenet of your argument about getting excited at corners after all.

So, how many times does a full-back need to get possession before he assists a goal? How many times does Federici lump the ball down the pitch before we get a goal? And then compare that to the number of corners/second phases from corners that we need before we score a goal.

Then tell me whether I should get more excited when we have the opposition pinned back in their own box or whether the ball's with Sean Cummings 30yds from his own goal.

This is funny. It's a fact that last season we took 330 corners to score 4 goals, scoring a goal every 12th game from corners.

But we scored 64 goals (1.5 a game) from moves that were NOT corners.

That is we scored SIXTEEN TIMES as many goals from NOT-corners as corners.

Now to be "as bad" at converting that would need to be 330 x 16 attacks = 5,280 ATTACKS

Let me repeat that, 5,280 attacks.

46 games x 90 minutes x 50% possession = 2070 minutes of possession, a significant
amount of which will be in our penalty area or deep in our half.

Do you think we can have 5,280 full-on proper attacks (as opposed to mid-field stalemate)
in 2,070 minutes (less the time where we are in our own defensive third)

That's 5,280 full-on, proper attacks in, say 1,500 minutes of play

Or to put it another way 114 full-on, real attacks PER GAME, almost three full-on attacks per minute of possession.


Look, we got four goals from corners in 330 tries. Say we have 24 full-on, real attacks per game (average)
we get 1.5 goals from those 24 attacks, a goal every 16 attacks.... TWENTY TIMES BETTER THAN FROM CORNERS.

Again, you totally miss the point. Is it the statistics or the football you're struggling with? Or both?

You've now shifted the goalposts again and have started to compare "attacks" with corners. Well that's something different again. People get excited about "attacks" too. Utterly irrelevant to any discussion that's preceeded your post.

[Snowball]

You've totally ignored what i said in my post and the 20 goal diatribe does nothing to address or refute my point.

Oh but it DOES!


You can't go on about the PERCENTAGE of corners that result in goals and then switch to the TOTAL number of goals
when talking about other scenarios. It's another misuse of statistics - you need to compare apples with apples.


YES, but we have given the total number of corners and resulting goals.

We cannot give the total number of other types of attack, but we CAN see,
for example, that we scored seven times from crosses in open play, and all
the other methods we produced a goal

Now, even you can understand that we don't get 5,280 attacks per season.

That's how many we'd need to have (AT MINIMUM) to be as bad at converting
as we were last season from corners.




So, I don't dispute that we score from midfield or that we score goals originating in deep positions,



How many genuine "through-balls" do you think we attempt in a season or a game?
It's not that many, is it? I doubt it averages much more than 1 a game, if that. I can only
remember 2-3-4 this season, two of which won penalties and became goals.

Yet we got those three goals last season, the same as WE scored from 330 corners.



I merely contend that the number of times a corner (or secondary phase thereafter) results in a goal is higher than the number of times a punt down the pitch results in a goal. Or Federici goal-kick results in a goal. Or Sean Cummings touching the ball results in a goal.

Which is why people don't jump off their seat and punch the air when Feds puts the ball down on the edge of his six yard box.


Are you asking would I prefer a corner to a goal-kick?

[Hoop Blah]

And the percentage of goals from those different scenario's as they occur through a game? Are they greater than the same for corners?

MASSIVELY GREATER, VERY, VERY VERY MUCH MORE PRODUCTIVE.

Would you agree that we do not average 90 full-on attacks that get the ball into
the opposition's penalty area every game. That would be an incredible number of attacks
equalling two per minute of possession. But we average 1.5 goals per game


IF we did have 90 attacks (stupidly high number) that would be 1 in 60, 5.5 times better than corners.

As Mags has said, you've changed your definition of the scenario's. Originally you just said about full back passing to winger etc etc. We definately have 90 passages of play during a game, whether they all come to anything I seriously doubt it.

To answer my question above, the one about goals from corners this season, the one you seem to have ignored so far (you may be looking into it now) I think I make it 4 or 5 from our first 10 goals this season that came from corners. That's at least 40% of goals for this team within that sample...a ridiculously high percentage don't you think?

** I still see corners as a panto like passage of play for the crowd to 'support' rather than a 'wow, we've got a corner so we're going to score moment'.

[Snowball]

You've now shifted the goalposts again and have started to compare "attacks" with corners. Well that's something different again. People get excited about "attacks" too. Utterly irrelevant to any discussion that's preceeded your post.

Bull-ocks. No goal-post moving.

YOU were trying to make the point that other attacking moves were probably
at least as inneffective.

First I've shown we scored 16 times as many goals from non-corners as from corners. FACT.


Then, because we cannot define an attack (although we could say, EITHER, a ball played
into the opponent's penalty-area, or a shot at goal from anywhere, or the player with ball
breaking into the area) all we can do is make estimates and show that 64 goals CLEARLY
came from a lot less than 5,280 attacks. (a ridiculous 114 per match)


If we get, on average, a full attack per minute for every minute of possession (which would be incredible)
that would be 45 attacks per game resulting in 1.5 goals at a rate of 1 goal every 30 attacks

eleven times more productive than corners

And if they did, then all-attacks-other-than-corners are CLEARLY more productive.

[Maguire]

You've totally ignored what i said in my post and the 20 goal diatribe does nothing to address or refute my point.

Oh but it DOES!

You can't go on about the PERCENTAGE of corners that result in goals and then switch to the TOTAL number of goals
when talking about other scenarios. It's another misuse of statistics - you need to compare apples with apples.

YES, but we have given the total number of corners and resulting goals.

We cannot give the total number of other types of attack, but we CAN see,
for example, that we scored seven times from crosses in open play, and all
the other methods we produced a goal

Now, even you can understand that we don't get 5,280 attacks per season.

That's how many we'd need to have (AT MINIMUM) to be as bad at converting
as we were last season from corners.

So, I don't dispute that we score from midfield or that we score goals originating in deep positions,

How many genuine "through-balls" do you think we attempt in a season or a game?
It's not that many, is it? I doubt it averages much more than 1 a game, if that. I can only
remember 2-3-4 this season, two of which won penalties and became goals.

Yet we got those three goals last season, the same as WE scored from 330 corners.



I merely contend that the number of times a corner (or secondary phase thereafter) results in a goal is higher than the number of times a punt down the pitch results in a goal. Or Federici goal-kick results in a goal. Or Sean Cummings touching the ball results in a goal.

Which is why people don't jump off their seat and punch the air when Feds puts the ball down on the edge of his six yard box.

Are you asking would I prefer a corner to a goal-kick?

You're still going on about "attacks". You've just moved the goalposts because you can't pick apart what i've said in my previous posts. And you can't pick it apart because it's just totally grounded in common sense and, well, obvious.

Now, here's an apple:



and here's a pear:



Let's pick this up again once you learn how to tell them apart.

[Snowball]

As Mags has said, you've changed your definition of the scenario's. Originally you just said about full back passing to winger etc etc.
We definately have 90 passages of play during a game, whether they all come to anything I seriously doubt it.

WHAT THE HELL IS "A PASSAGE OF PLAY"?

For one thing we average about 50% possession. So are you suggesting, we have an attack every 30 seconds? Get real!

And we need to define "attack". A corner gets the ball into the box almost every single time.

So other forms of attack should have the same criteria (ball into the box attempting to create a shot
on target or header on target)...

[Snowball]

And the percentage of goals from those different scenario's as they occur through a game? Are they greater than the same for corners?

Yes they are

[Hoop Blah]

How many genuine "through-balls" do you think we attempt in a season or a game?
It's not that many, is it? I doubt it averages much more than 1 a game, if that. I can only
remember 2-3-4 this season, two of which won penalties and became goals.

1 through ball a game? Really? Are you sure about that one?

In terms of passages of play, I'm thinking about the kind of thing the ruling bodies now refer to as 'phases' (although not quite so short) so that we can break it down into similar chunks as 'this goal comes from a corner'. In a typical game I'd expect us to have a significant number of them yes, because the majority of them will last just a few seconds (ie a throw into play, knocked straight out by the defender on the first challenge, goal kick taken straight out of play or straight through to their keeper etc etc).

Now....back to the 40% of our first 10 goals, any view on that?

[Hoop Blah]

And the percentage of goals from those different scenario's as they occur through a game? Are they greater than the same for corners?

Yes they are

And the stats to back that up? Or are you just relying on the already agreed dodgy human recall to draw those conclusions?

[Snowball]

To answer my question above, the one about goals from corners this season, the one you seem to have ignored so far (you may be looking into it now) I think I make it 4 or 5 from our first 10 goals this season that came from corners. That's at least 40% of goals for this team within that sample...a ridiculously high percentage don't you think?

We have scored as many times from corners this season as in the whole of last season

BUT THAT ISN'T THE POINT, DO THIS MIND-EXERCISE.


A team plays 100 games and gets 100 corners per game, and scores 2 goals (from a corner) per game

That's 200 goals in 100 games, scoring once every fifty corners Wowee!

Open play is a rarity. The team gets one open-play attack per game, but always score.


200 goals from corners, 100 goals from open play. WOOPDEDOO, Corners are better than open play!

Er, no they are not. They have a higher goal count because there are so many corners.
49 of every 50 corners are wasted. But every open-play attack results in a goal with NONE wasted


That's extreme, simply to show that there are a LOT of corners to produce very few goals.
it is NOT the total number of goals scored, but how OFTEN they are scored, what the conversion rate is.

[Hoop Blah]

Who said corners were better than open play?

[Snowball]

And the percentage of goals from those different scenario's as they occur through a game? Are they greater than the same for corners?

Yes they are

And the stats to back that up? Or are you just relying on the already agreed dodgy human recall to draw those conclusions?

The stats are bare facts. We scored 64 goals last season in the league that were NOT corners.

If we define an attack as a shot or header attempted at goal, OR a clear attempt to create an opening
(cross into the box, through ball attempt to put a player in on goal) YOU decide how many attacks
reading have in an average game. You know the difference between us passing the ball around our defence,
a pass-back to Federici, midfield possession and/or probing and an actual move that tries to create a chance?

How many "attacks" then? 10? 20? 30? 40? 45? 45 attacks in 45 minutes of possession?

Isn't that very high? But say that's the number you settle on. Agreed, or do you think we average MORE than 45 attacks a game?


45 attacks a game = 1.5 non-corner goals = 1 in 30. Corners last season were 1 in THREE-HUNDRED and 30.


Geddit yet?

[ZacNaloen]

No one did, it's a hypothetical scenario to demonstrate his point.

[Maguire]

Bull-ocks. No goal-post moving.

YOU were trying to make the point that other attacking moves were probably at least as inneffective

Nope, I actually said:

the chances of scoring from it (or from pressure that follows it eg. ball being cleared then played back out to the wing again) are still way way higher than when the ball is on the half-way line, or at the keeper's feet, or hanging in the air over midfield etc.

Nothing about "attacking moves". That's just something you started to bring up when you moved the goalposts. I was merely explaing why people get excited at corners despite the low direct conversion rate. You chose to argue with what I said by claiming that more goals come from goal-kicks etc. than they do for corners. Ref:

If you actually CHECK and see where a lot of our goals come from, you might be surprised. They are NOT
direct from corners (hardly at all), nor often from secondary play following a corner. You might need to check
how many goals resulted from a Federici kick-out (more than 4 a season) or from full-back to winger (more than 4 a season)
or from a deep ball into the channels from defence (more than 4 a season) or from a pass out of midfield (more than four a season)

I didn't dispute that they can come from this, but pointed out to you that you were misusing statistics again by basing your central argument around the PERCENTAGE of corners that result it goals () and then attempting to refute my argument by comparing this with the TOTAL number of goals that come from eg. full-back possession or goal-kicks ()

all-attacks-other-than-corners are CLEARLY more productive.

Well yes, but nobody was disputing this. Fans get excited at "attacks" as well, and rightly so. I've just illustrated why they get excited at corners too, somethign which you think is statistically unreasonable.

[Snowball]

How many genuine "through-balls" do you think we attempt in a season or a game?
It's not that many, is it? I doubt it averages much more than 1 a game, if that. I can only
remember 2-3-4 this season, two of which won penalties and became goals.

1 through ball a game? Really? Are you sure about that one?


NO, OF COURSE I'M NOT SURE. I GO BY (FALLIBLE) MEMORY.

I CAN REMEMBER THE TWO THAT RESULTED IN THE FOULS ON LONG,
THE BREAK (BUT NOT A THRU BALL?) BY HRK. WHAT OTHERS HAVE THERE BEEN

UNFORTUNATELY THERE ARE NO STATS ON THRU-BALLS AVAILABLE.



In terms of passages of play, I'm thinking about the kind of thing the ruling bodies now refer to as 'phases' (although not quite so short) so that we can break it down into similar chunks as 'this goal comes from a corner'.


GO AHEAD, THEN, DECIDE ON A REASONABLE FIGURE
NUBER OF READING ATTACKING PHASES PER GAME (AVERAGE)


In a typical game I'd expect us to have a significant number of them yes,

HOW DO WE ARGUE OVER "A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER" IS THAT FIVE OR FIVE-HUNDRED AND FIVE.

USE A REAL, ARGUABLE, CHALLENGEABLE NUMBER.


because the majority of them will last just a few seconds (ie a throw into play, knocked straight out by the defender on the first challenge,
goal kick taken straight out of play or straight through to their keeper etc etc).

OH, FOR GOD'S SAKE!

A CORNER IS A CLEAR ATTEMPT TO GET THE BALL INTO THE DANGER AREA.

YOU'RE COMPARING THAT TO A SHORT-THROW IN, MAYBE IN LINE WITH OUR PENALTY
ARE BY GRIFFIN TO MILLS, SAY? YOU'RE CALLING THAT AN ATTACK?

YOU AND I KNOW WHAT IS AN ATTACK, WHAT'S JUST PUSSY-FOOTING AROUND OR KEEP-BALL.



Now....back to the 40% of our first 10 goals, any view on that?


NOT YET. AGAIN, IT IS NOT-NOT-NOT THE NUMBER OF GOALS
SCORED BUT THE CONVERSION RATE FROM TYPES OF ATTACK.