Inability to convert corners?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

again you are ignoring the obvious....if it was a choice between a corner and free kick in a better position, almost all players would opt for the free kick.

BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT I AM SAYING.

The original argument was about trying to keep the ball "live" rather than settling for a corner, cos corners are naff.

which bit of "I'd say almost all corners are the result of the defence cutting out a ball that was intended to reach a player in the box" did you have trouble understanding?

Players aren't settling for corners. Corners are the result of the defence stopping the ball reaching its intended target.

[Ian Royal]

It's not oxf*rd string theory ffs snowball. Of course people are happy to win a corner. Usually it's because:
a) it is a free hit into the box which is the danger area.
b) it is sustained pressure.
c) it is a positive outcome of the previous attack rather than the ball being cleared, the keeper having control of the ball or goal kick having been awarded.

Players will sometimes let the ball run out for a corner rather than keep it live because they make the decision that it is better to get the free hit into the box, than take a chance on maybe controlling the ball and getting the opportunity to put a cross, pass or run into the box, rather than lose it. And to know there will be players there in numbers to try and get on the end of it.

Teams don't play for corners, a player may look to get a corner in a situation where they think it is the most advantageous result, but that's it.

You can't compare corners with open play for most likely to produce a goal, because one is a one off set piece and the other is sustained play which is near impossible to define or break down and also has little in the way of stats available. And you can't compare corners with all attacking freekicks for the same purpose because one has a huge advantage over the other, in that you can take a shot direct at goal.

Ok. Actually I take it back, you can compare them, but it is utterly moronic, tells you nothing significant and is essentially utterly pointless.

[Hoop Blah]

Snowball, do you now admit that my estimate using my gut feel and experience was far superior and accurate than your made up statistic?

Do you now see how flawed your source of data (match reports) are for these kind of things?

[Snowball]

It's not oxf*rd string theory ffs snowball. Of course people are happy to win a corner. Usually it's because:
a) it is a free hit into the box which is the danger area.

WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO VERY RARELY RESULT IN A GOAL.

b) it is sustained pressure.

WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN (the actual corner) TO VERY RARELY RESULT IN A GOAL.

c) it is a positive outcome of the previous attack rather than the ball being cleared, the keeper having control of the ball or goal kick having been awarded.

WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO VERY RARELY RESULT IN A GOAL. It is SLIGHTLY better than "the keeper having control of the ball or goal kick having been awarded" but NOT better than the ball being kept in play.

Players will sometimes let the ball run out for a corner rather than keep it live because they make the decision that it is better to get the free hit into the box, than take a chance on maybe controlling the ball and getting the opportunity to put a cross, pass or run into the box, rather than lose it. And to know there will be players there in numbers to try and get on the end of it.

WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO VERY RARELY RESULT IN A GOAL.
WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO VERY RARELY RESULT IN A GOAL.
WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN TO VERY RARELY RESULT IN A GOAL.


So PERHAPS (and it was only a question) some manager should tell his players to NOT settle for a corner as THE CORNER HAS BEEN SHOWN TO VERY RARELY RESULT IN A GOAL. and instead try to keep the ball alive and do something different.


AND HERE'S A THOUGHT

We have been HORRIBLY exposed three times this season (at least) from the opposition breaking from OUR corner. How many goals are scored AGAINST the side winning a corner?

Teams don't play for corners, a player may look to get a corner in a situation where they think it is the most advantageous result, but that's it.

You can't compare corners with open play for most likely to produce a goal, because one is a one off set piece and the other is sustained play which is near impossible to define or break down and also has little in the way of stats available. And you can't compare corners with all attacking freekicks for the same purpose because one has a huge advantage over the other, in that you can take a shot direct at goal.

Ok. Actually I take it back, you can compare them, but it is utterly moronic, tells you nothing significant and is essentially utterly pointless.

Perhaps you should go back and check the thread, Ian

YOU ASKED the f-cking question!!

[Snowball]

Snowball, do you now admit that my estimate using my gut feel and experience was far superior and accurate than your made up statistic?

Do you now see how flawed your source of data (match reports) are for these kind of things?

NO. I have decided to use the away data. 2 +1 over 2 games = 1.5 per game.

SEE? We have the data for TWO home games and two AWAY games. Do you REALLY believe that we now have a definitive answer?

If we were having this argument and were Swansea fans we'd be saying "Hmmm 2 a game". If we were Donny fans we'd be saying "1"

How many were there at Burnley?

[Snowball]

I think an interesting comparison might be percentage of goals coming from attacking free kicks... say everything within about 40 yards of the goal. If you could somehow separate out shots direct at goal from that as well it would be good.

At the moment the only stats seem to be about corners. That's nice an interesting, but without the context of other attacking situations, in isolation it's relatively meaningless because you can't make a comparison to anything.

Hi Ian...

[cmonurz]

Rev, I wasn't saying that short corners would change the corner-count but that they MIGHT create a higher percentage of goals...

The first rule of football is that short corners NEVER work.

Haven't followed this whole thread but I've always thought that short corners should lead to more goals. If they are used effectively, you are basically trying to optimise the angle and timing of delivery into the box. It should mean more goals are scored (on the basis that a kick from the corner flag is not optimal).

[Snowball]

Rev, I wasn't saying that short corners would change the corner-count but that they MIGHT create a higher percentage of goals...

The first rule of football is that short corners NEVER work.

Haven't followed this whole thread but I've always thought that short corners should lead to more goals. If they are used effectively, you are basically trying to optimise the angle and timing of delivery into the box. It should mean more goals are scored (on the basis that a kick from the corner flag is not optimal).

Agree totally. Getting proof (ie accurate stats) is not easy, tho'


The point is normal corners are not much above useless if the official stat of 1 goal every 37 corners is accurate

[Hoop Blah]

NO. I have decided to use the away data. 2 +1 over 2 games = 1.5 per game.

SEE? We have the data for TWO home games and two AWAY games. Do you REALLY believe that we now have a definitive answer?

If we were having this argument and were Swansea fans we'd be saying "Hmmm 2 a game". If we were Donny fans we'd be saying "1"

How many were there at Burnley?

I can't remember how many free kicks Swansea had, but Donny had more than 1 so I don't know what numbers your making up, are they more 'stats' extracted from match reports?

Even IF you take those 3 free kicks from two games and add them to the 10+ we've had that's an average of over 3. Our discussion was about the number of attacking free kicks we get per game and how your stats suggesting an average of 1 where way off the mark.

Just accept you were wrong!

[Snowball]

I can't remember how many free kicks Swansea had, but Donny had more than 1 so I don't know what numbers your making up, are they more 'stats' extracted from match reports?
Even IF you take those 3 free kicks from two games and add them to the 10+ we've had that's an average of over 3. Our discussion was about the number of attacking free kicks we get per game and how your stats suggesting an average of 1 where way off the mark. Just accept you were wrong!

I was at the game and made the unpardonable error of recording, in writing, all Free Kicks
with their timings, and then circling all which became A-FCs. I remembered 1, but in fact Donny
had their second AFC right at the death (all caught offside) and I hadn't written that one down.

Swansea I did write them down, all of them and posted the figures. That's 2 for each away side. Not a lot is it?

Listen, I have made it clear, and so have all you moaners. You all say "5 games is not enough" and I'm agreeing with you,
so TEN games should tell the tale. So far (on far too little data) away sides get two. And it MIGHT be that in these two games
we got a lot more than is typical. For example, in 12 games we scored 14 goals. In 2 games we've scored EIGHT. Which
sample should I select? The one that says we score 1.16 goals per game (after all we "couldn't score to save our lives" 8 days ago)
or take the new statistic that we score 4 per game? Or take the best statistic, 22 in 14 = 1.57 per game?


And lastly, go back and read EXACTLY what I said the first time I dug out the AFCs

[Snowball]

Here is what I said. Copied and pasted



IF we presume that the match reports report all goal attempts from free-kicks
ie shots or crosses into the box... (We can't know that they do. They might overlook some)


Do you understand the idea of a bolded, capitalised IF?

and the words "We can't know that they do. They might overlook some"

[Hoop Blah]

Our discussion was about the validity if that IF. I maintained that if your match report analysis said we* only had one a game that is was fundamentally flawed, as was, in my opinion the majority of your match report based stats.

A small sample size yes, but one big enough to prove that an average of 1 per game is totally wrong.

[Snowball]

Our discussion was about the validity if that IF. I maintained that if your match report analysis said we* only had one a game that is was fundamentally flawed, as was, in my opinion the majority of your match report based stats.

A small sample size yes, but one big enough to prove that an average of 1 per game is totally wrong.

Hoop,why do you do this?

Please cut and paste the post where I have said the average of 1-per-game was fact or even near-fact

You ASSUME then attack your own assumption.

I got the only "stat"I could find, then started eyeballing and noting actual games. And we are 2 games in.

This shouldn't be about scoring points. I have posted every fact as soon as we've gathered the fact.

You "guesstimate". I prefer empirical data

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

Our discussion was about the validity if that IF. I maintained that if your match report analysis said we* only had one a game that is was fundamentally flawed, as was, in my opinion the majority of your match report based stats.

A small sample size yes, but one big enough to prove that an average of 1 per game is totally wrong.

Hoop,why do you do this?

Please cut and paste the post where I have said the average of 1-per-game was fact or even near-fact

You ASSUME then attack your own assumption.

I got the only "stat"I could find, then started eyeballing and noting actual games. And we are 2 games in.

This shouldn't be about scoring points. I have posted every fact as soon as we've gathered the fact.

You "guesstimate". I prefer empirical data

The problem was/is your habit of using "IF" before a wild assumption as if that somehow validates any stats based upon that assumption. It renders you stats virtually meaningless time and time again.

Yes you love stats, but watching you use them is like watching a unicyclist trying to pull a wheelie.

[Wimb]

Our discussion was about the validity if that IF. I maintained that if your match report analysis said we* only had one a game that is was fundamentally flawed, as was, in my opinion the majority of your match report based stats.

A small sample size yes, but one big enough to prove that an average of 1 per game is totally wrong.

Hoop,why do you do this?

Please cut and paste the post where I have said the average of 1-per-game was fact or even near-fact

You ASSUME then attack your own assumption.

I got the only "stat"I could find, then started eyeballing and noting actual games. And we are 2 games in.

This shouldn't be about scoring points. I have posted every fact as soon as we've gathered the fact.

You "guesstimate". I prefer empirical data

The problem was/is your habit of using "IF" before a wild assumption as if that somehow validates any stats based upon that assumption. It renders you stats virtually meaningless time and time again.

Yes you love stats, but watching you use them is like watching a unicyclist trying to pull a wheelie.

[Hoop Blah]

Our discussion was about the validity if that IF. I maintained that if your match report analysis said we* only had one a game that is was fundamentally flawed, as was, in my opinion the majority of your match report based stats.

A small sample size yes, but one big enough to prove that an average of 1 per game is totally wrong.

Hoop,why do you do this?

Please cut and paste the post where I have said the average of 1-per-game was fact or even near-fact

You ASSUME then attack your own assumption.

I got the only "stat"I could find, then started eyeballing and noting actual games. And we are 2 games in.

This shouldn't be about scoring points. I have posted every fact as soon as we've gathered the fact.

You "guesstimate". I prefer empirical data

snowball, go back to page 5 and read on from there where you defend your free-kick stats saying, amongst other things, that "it's hard to believe it's a lot more than that" and "for it to be wildly different from the 8 recorded would mean that the reports and stats are hopelessly wrong".

The discussion was started as a comparison of an attacking free's 'danger' to that of a corner, ie to gauge some kind of comparable conversion rate. Somewhere along the line you seem to be changing your angle to counting free kicks that result in a save or shot which obviously discounts all those wasted free kicks similar to the majority of corners.

Why do I keep bringing this back up? It's not for petty point scoring because it's too easy to do that with you, it's because it is the most obvious example of where your stats and the analysis of them show up the glaring differences between your posts and reality.

You gave us the free kick stats. They were obviously quite inaccurate but yet you either didn't or wouldn't accept that. It's typical of what your doing on here and the majority of posters seem tired of it. I'm just trying to emphasise the issue with your source of data and posting style so that you might wake up and change.

I don't hold out any hope though...

[Snowball]

Snowball, go back to page 5 and read on from there where you defend your free-kick stats saying, amongst other things, that "it's hard to believe it's a lot more than that" and "for it to be wildly different from the 8 recorded would mean that the reports and stats are hopelessly wrong".

But I DO find it hard to believe that the OS would be miles out EXCEPT in games where we score lots of goals and have loads of incidents.

If you remember I also listed total free kicks (stat) versus number reported and the gap wasn't massive



The discussion was started as a comparison of an attacking free's 'danger' to that of a corner, ie to gauge some kind of comparable conversion rate. Somewhere along the line you seem to be changing your angle to counting free kicks that result in a save or shot which obviously discounts all those wasted free kicks similar to the majority of corners.

That is simply not true, and I posted my PRECISE definition. It actually talks of INTENT. For example, if we pump a free-kick from the wing into the box, clearly hoping one of our big lads will get a header at goal, that's an AFC. Point out where I said it must result in a save or a shot. That's utter rubbish you are making up.

if we have an AFC and a defender heads it away, it's still an AFC


Why do I keep bringing this back up? It's not for petty point scoring because it's too easy to do that with you, it's because it is the most obvious example of where your stats and the analysis of them show up the glaring differences between your posts and reality.


You have no accurate idea of what the "reality" is, and after ten games we'll have only an estimate/average from ten games. Had we looked at Swansea and Donny the average would be two. I suspect the average will be 4-5 or more but I'll say so when I know so. I don't believe in guesstimates.


You gave us the free kick stats. They were obviously quite inaccurate but yet you either didn't or wouldn't accept that. It's typical of what your doing on here and the majority of posters seem tired of it. I'm just trying to emphasise the issue with your source of data and posting style so that you might wake up and change.

I gave you the current best-available stats, taken from an official source and put riders in saying we could not know how many AFCs were not listed.

[Hoop Blah]

Except, Ian, when you read the reports you find they aren't THAT far away from the official stats,
stats on chances that the BBC use and people on here have quoted.

We seem to have a shortfall (against stats) of narrated chances when we've had 15-20 plus chances
maybe because the official site then just highlights the most exciting chances, those closest to
producing a goal.

But a mis-match of 22% is not horrendous and we can reasonably presume that if the official
site says there have been X attacking free-kicks, then in all probability that's accurate to
within the 22% already worked out.


So genuine attacking free-kicks likely-to-create-a-chance or force-a-save or a-good-defensive-clearance
is probably about one a game, slightly higher than the 8 in 10 found.

For it to be wildly different from the 8 recorded would mean that the reports and stats are hopelessly wrong.

So my best estimate is we score once every ten genuine attacking free-kicks...

Currently about twice the rate we score from corners, less than I'd've thought

Sorry snowball, I think I got your goalpost shifting the wrong way round, it's hard to keep up with all the rubbish you spam the board with, but I thought I'd also read something this weekend about saves and efforts on goal from freekicks.

Either way, you're reliance on these fake stats has been shown up for what it is.

Please either learn to question your sources, develop some ability to understand the game without the stats (eg it's obvious that we average more than 1 attacking free kick per game so don't throw the stat around in the first place) or, preferably, just stop spamming at all.

[Stranded]

Snowball, why are you only counting the away teams AFC's? Is it not likely that these would be lower as you would anticipate the home side to be on the front foot?

Surely to get any true data on the amount of AFC's you get you need to look at the home sides number as well?

[Snowball]

Snowball, why are you only counting the away teams AFC's? Is it not likely that these would be lower as you would anticipate the home side to be on the front foot?

Surely to get any true data on the amount of AFC's you get you need to look at the home sides number as well?

That was a JOKE, Stranded, because both away sides had had just 2 AFCs

I was making the point that it depends where you look.

And 4 teams/2 games for a total of 14 AFCs is hardly robust data-gathering. Doncaster's second AFC was in the 93rd minute!