Euro 2016

[gregpj]

17 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Portugal - Iceland was another prime example for why this sport is totally broken: Why doesn't a team win that completely dominates the opponent? Isnt sports supposed to be about the better team winning. Well, football is not. Is it still a sport, though?

Attempts: 27 vs 4

Crosses: 32 vs 9

Corners: 11 vs 2

Possession: 67 vs 33 %

...but I know, I'm just the only one unable to see the entertainment in this spectacle.

Like you said, some statistics mean nothing... The Iceland goalie played exceptionally well and Portugal spent too much time complaining for fouls. I don't know why Portugal kept trying to cross from deep in the corners. It wasn't working with the way Iceland was crowding the 18 yard box. The same thing over and over will pad your stats but it won't win you a game.

[feed]

12 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Portugal - Iceland was another prime example for why this sport is totally broken: Why doesn't a team win that completely dominates the opponent? Isnt sports supposed to be about the better team winning? Well, football is not. Is it still a sport, though?

Attempts: 27 vs 4

Crosses: 32 vs 9

Corners: 11 vs 2

Possession: 67 vs 33 %

Result: 1 - 1

...but I know, I'm just the only one unable to see the entertainment in this spectacle.

What are you talking about? Football isn’t a stats heavy sport.  They only reason that stuff is counted is for betting purposes, not analysis on the game or to determine team performance.  

If you’re looking at those stats and thinking why didn’t the better team win then you’re doing it wrong.  

 

[Frank Brickowski]

12 hours ago, gregpj said:

Like you said, some statistics mean nothing... The Iceland goalie played exceptionally well and Portugal spent too much time complaining for fouls. I don't know why Portugal kept trying to cross from deep in the corners. It wasn't working with the way Iceland was crowding the 18 yard box. The same thing over and over will pad your stats but it won't win you a game.

So what you essentially say is: Portugal was NOT the better team?

What I was criticising about statistics, by the way, was the fact that (only) in football they don't necessarily say anything about which team won or which players were good or bad (but those numbers here DO say something about which team worked better offensively). That is why I said many of the statistics presented are oftentimes obsolety. Apart from statistics it was also obvious in this case that Portugal did very much more to win the game, was more capable and played very much better overall and in detail, but still they did not win in the end because of the curious characteristics of the sport ("how to win a game").

Edited June 15, 2016 by Frank Brickowski

[Frank Brickowski]

55 minutes ago, feed said:

What are you talking about? Football isn’t a stats heavy sport.  They only reason that stuff is counted is for betting purposes, not analysis on the game or to determine team performance.  

If you’re looking at those stats and thinking why didn’t the better team win then you’re doing it wrong.  

 

Yes, because in football the better team in fact does NOT win. Who wins is the team that scores more goals - that team does not necessarily need to be the better one. That's different from (almost) every other team sport.

[feed]

3 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Yes, because in football the better team in fact does NOT win. Who wins is the team that scores more goals - that team does not necessarily need to be the better one. That's different from (almost) every other team sport.

They can’t possibly be the better team, it was a draw.   It doesn’t matter who you thought played better or more aggressively, or what the stats show.  The result was a draw, therefore they played equally well in that game, by definition.  

You’re right there is only one stat that counts, goals scored.  If all that possession, those attempts, corners or crosses didn’t result in goals, then they weren’t the better team, as the point of having defenders is to stop the attackers.  Portugal didn't score, so they didn’t win.

[gregpj]

16 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

So what you essentially say is: Portugal was NOT the better team?

What I was criticising about statistics, by the way, was the fact that (only) in football they don't necessarily say anything about which team won or which players were good or bad (but those numbers here DO say something about which team worked better offensively). That is why I said many of the statistics presented are oftentimes obsolety. Apart from statistics it was also obvious in this case that Portugal did very much more to win the game, was more capable and played very much better overall and in detail, but still they did not win in the end because of the curious characteristics of the sport ("how to win a game").

What I'm saying is that I think Portugal played better overall but they hampered their chances of winning by a) spending too much time falling on the turf with every little touch, b ) complaining about the lack of calls and c) trying the same unsuccessful tactic over and over. Great teams don't do that and unless Portugal adjusts mentally, they won't be advancing out of their group.

6 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Yes, because in football the better team in fact does NOT win. Who wins is the team that scores more goals - that team does not necessarily need to be the better one. That's different from (almost) every other team sport.

Hockey can often end up like this if you encounter a hot goalie. I've seen games where one team had 3 times as many scoring chances but the goalie was playing exceptional and stopped everything. In that scenario, one team has 5 players doing great but unable to score and the team playing poorly might get a lucky break and score a couple goals on a goalie who is having trouble staying in the game.

I think the Iceland goalie played exceptionally well. He made some tough saves, but positionally seemed to always be in the right spot.

[Frank Brickowski]

4 minutes ago, feed said:

The result was a draw, therefore they played equally well in that game, by definition.  

 

No, absolutely not. Not even by the football definition of a win. A draw only says that both teams scored the same amount of goals. It does NOT say anything about who played better - how could it?

[Frank Brickowski]

5 minutes ago, gregpj said:

What I'm saying is that I think Portugal played better overall but they hampered their chances of winning by a) spending too much time falling on the turf with every little touch, b ) complaining about the lack of calls and c) trying the same unsuccessful tactic over and over. Great teams don't do that and unless Portugal adjusts mentally, they won't be advancing out of their group.

Hockey can often end up like this if you encounter a hot goalie. I've seen games where one team had 3 times as many scoring chances but the goalie was playing exceptional and stopped everything. In that scenario, one team has 5 players doing great but unable to score and the team playing poorly might get a lucky break and score a couple goals on a goalie who is having trouble staying in the game.

I think the Iceland goalie played exceptionally well. He made some tough saves, but positionally seemed to always be in the right spot.

Still, Portugal had 27 attempts. How did that happen if they did apply an "unsuccessful tactic", like you said?

[feed]

6 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

No, absolutely not. Not even by the football definition of a win. A draw only says that both teams scored the same amount of goals. It does NOT say anything about who played better - how could it?

It doesn’t matter how well a team plays, if they don’t score they don’t win and can’t claim to be the better team.  They didn’t win, so clearly they weren’t good enough or better enough. 

[gregpj]

4 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Still, Portugal had 27 attempts. How did that happen if they did apply an "unsuccessful tactic", like you said?

Portugal: 27 attempts, 1 goal = 3.7% success ratio

Iceland: 4 attempts, 1 goal = 25% success ratio

You can have a hundred attempts, but if enough of them aren't quality chances, you won't score. In Portugal's defense, they had some quality ones but the goalie was hot. What I'm saying (for the last time) is that if they had gotten into the game mentally, they'd have realized they needed to change things up in order to score. But they were so busy looking for the penalty, they kept doing the same thing over and over and the result - only one goal and a tie.

[Will 4]

g

14 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Portugal - Iceland was another prime example for why this sport is totally broken: Why doesn't a team win that completely dominates the opponent? Isnt sports supposed to be about the better team winning? Well, football is not. Is it still a sport, though?

Attempts: 27 vs 4

Crosses: 32 vs 9

Corners: 11 vs 2

Possession: 67 vs 33 %

Result: 1 - 1

...but I know, I'm just the only one unable to see the entertainment in this spectacle.

Hey Frank ever heard of the tactic counter attack?

[Frank Brickowski]

1 minute ago, Will 4 said:

g

Hey Frank ever heard of the tactic counter attack?

Of course not, because I'm an idiot and dont know anything about football (or sports in general).

[Will 4]

Just now, Frank Brickowski said:

Of course not, because I'm an idiot and dont know anything about football (or sports in general).

hmm I would advise that you watch the games to learn and maybe read a couple of books e.g. Money ball for baseball

[gregpj]

2 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Of course not, because I'm an idiot and dont know anything about football (or sports in general).

You realize we're all bookmarking that post for future use right?

[Frank Brickowski]

16 minutes ago, gregpj said:

You realize we're all bookmarking that post for future use right?

You see me becoming ironic because of understanding that no matter how good your arguments are, some people simply won't even think about them on principle, which will bury any discussion.

[gregpj]

1 minute ago, Frank Brickowski said:

You see me becoming ironic because of understanding that no matter how good your arguments are, some people simply won't even think about them on principle, which will bury any discussion.

Oh lighten up, you're always so serious.

I in fact agree with you about statistics in soccer. Most of them are pretty useless, though I have come to accept some of them as relatively useful but certainly not world-changing. I used to think the "distance ran" was a useless stat, but really it's not much different than "ice time in minutes" used for ice hockey. Depending on a player's fitness level (or perhaps with some hidden injury or oven a little cold) how far they run (or how much they've skated) can help you predict when they might hit that wall and need to be substituted out.

I have been so annoyed with the TV coverage by BeIN Sports here in France. I don't want to see tweets and useless stats and trivia while I'm watching the game. The TV surface is barely 40% game with the other 60% pure noise.

 

[Frank Brickowski]

48 minutes ago, gregpj said:

Oh lighten up, you're always so serious.

I in fact agree with you about statistics in soccer. Most of them are pretty useless, though I have come to accept some of them as relatively useful but certainly not world-changing. I used to think the "distance ran" was a useless stat, but really it's not much different than "ice time in minutes" used for ice hockey. Depending on a player's fitness level (or perhaps with some hidden injury or oven a little cold) how far they run (or how much they've skated) can help you predict when they might hit that wall and need to be substituted out.

I have been so annoyed with the TV coverage by BeIN Sports here in France. I don't want to see tweets and useless stats and trivia while I'm watching the game. The TV surface is barely 40% game with the other 60% pure noise.

 

Concerning "distance ran": What you are talking about is the value of that statistic for the team manager or physio. I dont disagree that they can use that stat for the purpose of player fitness and health. But what do you need that stat for (as a TV viewer) regarding quality/efficiency of a player? You simply don't. Still that is what the UEFA stats table shows when a player is substituted. It's really no wonder how much BS people talk about football when they are being educated by media experts who have no clue themselves. In the end John from the pub thinks he is SO educated about football because he watches every bit of coverage offered, while in fact it would be better to listen LESS to what they tell you on TV.

Apart from that there are also several threadbare flaws in how the game is played itself - I know that it sounds totally arrogant to say that as an "amateur". Still, for example, everybody could witness yesterday that Iceland's long throw-ins were pretty dangerous, even creating one or two chances right in front of the goal. But how often do you see this in other teams? It is a great way of using throw-ins really effectively, much more dangerously than all those pointless corners (which are mostly useless because of the position they are executed from - as well as the main problem of the sport: the lack of precision in playing the ball with your foot). But why is everybody so keen on corners and nobody cares about long throw-ins which are much more precise and dangerous? It's like everybody sees what happend, but forgets it the the moment. Why doesn't EVERY team practice these long throw-ins into the box? Why don't they have specialists for it? To me it's so obvious what an impact that "tactic" could have, but no one from any pro staff seems to care.

What I'm trying to say: Be it the way the game is played, the way it is refereed or the way it is analysed, much of all this is so outdated and bland (compared to how other sports have evolved over the years), it often just hurts to see what is happening on the field as well as to hear what is being talked about afterwards. But if you try to address that (for example in a forum discussion) everybody is just like "Yeah, yeah, say what you will, everything about the sport is just fine and knowledgeable people are doing their job." That is one reason why some things (that should be adjusted) will never change in this sport. For me personally it is also frustrating to see how easy to please people are and how conservative they think. But that's just my problem.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Frank Brickowski

[gregpj]

2 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Concerning "distance ran": What you are talking about is the value of that statistic for the team manager or physio. I dont disagree that they can use that stat for the purpose of player fitness and health. But what do you need that stat for (as a TV viewer) regarding quality/efficiency of a player? You simply don't. Still that is what the UEFA stats table shows when a player is substituted. It's really no wonder how much BS people talk about football when they are being educated by media experts who have no clue themselves. In the end John from the pub thinks he is SO educated about football because he watches every bit of coverage offered, while in fact it would be better to listen LESS to what they tell you on TV.

I don't think showing it is the problem, to me it's two-fold:

1) People don't have a clue what some of these statistics mean. Distance ran isn't as obvious as something like scoring chances.

2) These days, TV and other sports news ram them down your throat without really explaining them. Listening to a commentator who knows what they are talking about is much more valuable. Last night the French commentator noted how hard the Iceland defenders were running back to defend - and with purpose. They were jamming the 18 yard box (sorry, I've always called it the 5 yard and 18 yard box :)) leaving the outside players open to driving in shots from the sides.

Most sports fans just can't admit they don't know what a stat might be useful for and do talk a lot of BS... But I won't say they're stupid. Ignorant, arrogant, full of testosterone, yup.

2 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Apart from that there are also several threadbare flaws in how the game is played itself - I know that it sounds totally arrogant to say that as an "amateur". Still, for example, everybody could witness yesterday that Iceland's long throw-ins were pretty dangerous, even creating one or two chances right in front of the goal. But how often do you see this in other teams? It is a great way of using throw-ins really effectively, much more dangerously than all those pointless corners (which are mostly useless because of the position they are executed from). But why is everybody so keen on corners and nobody cares about long throw-ins which are much more precise and dangerous? It's like everybody sees what happend, but forgets it the the moment. Why doesn't EVERY team practice these long throw-ins into the box? Why don't they have specialists for it? To me it's so obvious what an impact that "tactic" could have, but no one from any pro staff seems to care.

I am 100% in agreement here. It's like the deep kick from the goalies to the other teams zone - I see maybe 1 out of 20 attempts successful. The rest of the time the other teams defenders get the ball and move it back the other way. I played soccer for many years (and not very high level teams, hockey took precedence there) but I loved the long throw ins. It always caught the other team off guard when you zipped it into the 18 yard box.

The thing that makes a corner dangerous is that you can kick the ball so much harder than you can throw. My fav corner kick is the one that targets the player coming in from the opposite side. You can't reach that person with a throw in. For the record, I've scored directly on 2 corner kicks in my soccer career and probably could have scored plenty more times if the coach had let me.

Corners and throw ins can both be useful if you exploit the no-offside aspect.

2 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

What I'm trying to say: Be it the way the game is played, the way it is refereed or the way it is analysed, much of all this is so outdated and bland (compared to how other sports have evolved over the years), it often just hurts to see what is happening on the field as well as to hear what is being talked about afterwards. But if you try to address that (for example in a forum discussion) everybody is just like "Yeah, yeah, say what you will, everything about the sport is just fine and knowledgeable people are doing their job." That is one reason why some things (that should be adjusted) will never change in this sport. For me personally it is also frustrating to see how easy to please people are and how conservative they think. But that's just my problem.

I say this with sincere politeness - just relax and enjoy the game. It's entertainment and entertaining if you let it. Those who take it too seriously like those idiots rioting and fighting all over France are ruining it more than some bland style of play. It takes years to change styles of play - often an entire generation. These kids have been taught how to play the game a certain way and it's not easy to change the way an entire team is coached and played especially when they only come together for larger tourneys like the Euro cup.

If Iceland has moderate success this year, I predict you'll see other countries following suit over the next 5 years.

 

[Ciglione]

"distance ran" and other BS do not interest me a bit.

If, for example, you look at the greatest players ever. They run maybe 2 clicks max. but still play the stars from heaven. Like Maradonna or Romario. Those were "lazy" players but ooh so effective.

[gregpj]

13 minutes ago, Ciglione said:

"distance ran" and other BS do not interest me a bit.

If, for example, you look at the greatest players ever. They run maybe 2 clicks max. but still play the stars from heaven. Like Maradonna or Romario. Those were "lazy" players but ooh so effective.

That's why they should leave it out of the TV coverage. The only people interested can just as easily read about it after the game...

2km... they probably ran a little more than that but as the stars, they shouldn't be running all over the place anyways. If you have a star like Ronaldo running 10km just like one of the half backs or defenders, then your game plan stinks.

[Frank Brickowski]

12 minutes ago, gregpj said:

 I played soccer for many years (and not very high level teams, hockey took precedence there)

Since you played yourself I'd like to hear your opinion on this scene from a German football game. The commentary says "One glimpse, one trick - and the goalie did a clean nutmeg on the striker. The goalie is so cool." I also saw an interview with the goalie. In my opinion the problem was that everybody was convinced (and still is) the goalie did that ON PUROPOSE, which imo is impossible in that situation. So when asked about how he did that the goalie did of course not demask his "trick" as pure luck but let the legend live on by saying something else. A good example imo for many "purposeful" (...say the commentators) actions players do that are just coincidence. I'd say you can also see it from the goalies reaction after the nutmeg that this was totally unintended - look at how surprised he reacts to the ball still being in front of him ready to be played (instead of stolen by the striker).
 

 

[Ciglione]

8 minutes ago, gregpj said:

That's why they should leave it out of the TV coverage. The only people interested can just as easily read about it after the game...

2km... they probably ran a little more than that but as the stars, they shouldn't be running all over the place anyways. If you have a star like Ronaldo running 10km just like one of the half backs or defenders, then your game plan stinks.

Believe me... Romario de Souza Faria probably even did not reach 2 km. But would score 3 times.

[gregpj]

9 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Since you played yourself I'd like to hear your opinion on this scene from a German football game. The commentary says "One glimpse, one trick - and the goalie did a clean nutmeg on the striker. The goalie is so cool." I also saw an interview with the goalie. In my opinion the problem was that everybody was convinced (and still is) the goalie did that ON PUROPOSE, which imo is impossible in that situation. So when asked about how he did that the goalie did of course not demask his "trick" as pure luck but let the legend live on by saying something else. A good example imo for many "purposeful" (...say the commentators) actions players do that are just coincidence. I'd say you can also see it from the goalies reaction after the nutmeg that this was totally unintended - look at how surprised he reacts to the ball still being in front of him ready to be played (instead of stolen by the striker).

 

I have two thoughts...

1) It's possible he did that on purpose, in which case he should not be celebrated but berated by the coach and fans for doing something so stupid in front of his own goal. Have you ever seen a goalie really deke someone out with the football? No? Me neither... they aren't always the best with their feet.

2) In the end, no way he did that on purpose but you never admit that to the other team. Maintaining the mystique will give you the upper hand next time you play. To me it looks like he meant to kick it to the player on his left but he totally flubbed it and as luck would have it, the opposing player made an equally big mistake by sliding in with his legs open.

Want to see a trick play that isn't fake or by chance? The quality is crappy but he really did this during a game.

 

[Frank Brickowski]

21 minutes ago, gregpj said:

I have two thoughts...

1) It's possible he did that on purpose, in which case he should not be celebrated but berated by the coach and fans for doing something so stupid in front of his own goal. Have you ever seen a goalie really deke someone out with the football? No? Me neither... they aren't always the best with their feet.

2) In the end, no way he did that on purpose but you never admit that to the other team. Maintaining the mystique will give you the upper hand next time you play. To me it looks like he meant to kick it to the player on his left but he totally flubbed it and as luck would have it, the opposing player made an equally big mistake by sliding in with his legs open.

Want to see a trick play that isn't fake or by chance? The quality is crappy but he really did this during a game.

 

Thanks for your more "practice-approved" view on my goalie question! I'd really like to know how often IN GENERAL nutmegs are done on purpose in a game. I mean to really do it intently you would have to know how the defender will move his legs while both of you are moving and you also have to coordinate your own legs, protect the ball, ... sounds impossible on paper already. Whatever...

That ice hockey trick there looks really great. That sport has the advantage of players controlling the "ball" with a stick their HANDS, which allows much more precise (and believably intended) actions (whereas the intendedness of many "tricks" in football should be doubted very much). As I said before, most players won't even hit 50 % on a goal wall, because shooting the ball with your foot is just so damn tricky you can never surpass a certain (low) level of precision. That being said, how can a player - in a professiona game - hit a certain spot in the goal INTENDEDLY from 40 meters away? The answer is: he cannot. Maybe he WISHED FOR the ball to go there and in 1 out of 20 shots it does. If he hits that goal, commentators will speak of ability and purpose - while the 19 times the ball goes into the stands (with the same amount of "ability" and "purpose") they will cite "bad luck", "he didn't hit the ball properly" or "his standing leg slipped" - instead of just saying it was inability. In the end the difference between the 1 time and the 19 other times is just coincidence - which no commentator will say, of course.

Edited June 15, 2016 by Frank Brickowski

[gregpj]

7 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

Thanks for your more "practice-approved" view on my goalie question! I'd really like to know how often IN GENERAL nutmegs are done on purpose in a game. I mean to really do it intently you would have to know how the defender will move his legs while both of you are moving and you also have to coordinate your own legs, protect the ball, ... sounds impossible on paper already. Whatever...

That ice hockey trick there is really nice. That sport has the advantage of players controlling the "ball" with a stick their HANDS, which allows much more precise (and believably intended) actions (whereas the intendedness of many "tricks" in football should be doubted very much). As I said before, most players won't hit 50 % on a goal wall, because shooting the ball with your foot is just so damn tricky you can never surpass a certain (low) level of precision. That being said, how can a player - in a professiona game - hit a certain spot in the goal INTENDEDLY from 40 meters away? The answer is: he cannot. Maybe he WISHED FOR the ball to go there and in 1 out of 20 shots it does. If he hits that goal, commentators will speak of ability and purpose - while the 19 times the ball goes into the stands (with the same amount of "ability" and "purpose") they will cite "bad luck", "he didn't hit the ball properly" or "his standing leg slipped" - instead of just saying it was inability. In the end the difference between the 1 time and the 19 other times is just coincidence - which no commentator will say, of course.

I think plenty of players try that trick but you only hear about the successful ones (because it does look good) or the extreme fails when it's failure causes a goal.

Having played soccer, there is absolutely a direction you can give the ball with the direction you swing your leg and the angle of your foot. With practice you can become fairly accurate but there is always a deviation due to factors out of your control such as slipping, wind (when outside), position of opponents causing you to alter your shot and getting a consistent position next to the ball is hard. But you can give it direction. Also, some players have better technique than others - Ronaldo has an amazingly good kick. He really ought to use it more often. Others players like Messi rely more on finesse and rightly so.. but Ronaldo, he should hammer the ball every chance he gets.

Ice hockey is different - if a player uses the same curve on a stick through their career (and they do), the puck will tend to leave the stick the same way each time. Good hand eye coordination will ensure the puck is in the same place. Also, pointing your stick towards the intended target tends to improve your accuracy since it directs the puck there. Add those together and practice will ensure consistency.