Inability to convert corners?

[Snowball]

...and hands up who gives a toss!!!

<sits on hands>


Once again discussion is stiffled by a masterclass in anal retention.

It's stifled, one f.

We SHOULD care, because it's obvious (at least was last season) that
'winning a corner" is almost a complete waste of time, that our
normal corner methods are VERY ineffective.

That suggests we should NOT be happy to run a ball out for a corner,
that we should try short-corners and balls to the edge of the box instead

[Snowball]

Note: This statistical stuff is fcuking boring.

No it isn't. It's boring if you read it, if you're the bored by stats type.

Resolution? Don't read stuff that bores you.

That was hard, wasn't it?



Personally, I find real facts, objective facts (statistics) to be illuminating.

Human inference, intuition, is notoriously inaccurate.

I doubt if there's an honest poster on here who truly believed we could go
100, even 130+ corners without a goal.

[Forbury Lion]

Their figure is just 2.7% of corners result in a goal.

It's interesting because we seem to cheer a lot when we get corners

We cheer when we get a penalty too, What are the stats around penalties resulting in a goal?

[From Despair To Where?]

But you use statistics subjectively, You really are thick aren't you? Is it really that difficult to understand that it's not the debate that no-one gives a toss about, it's your endless spamming. You suffocate the board by spamming the life out of just about every thread with largely irrelvant statistics. Not all stats are boring, just yours because you have no idea when to stop.

[Maguire]

The statistics are fine.

The conlusions are born of someone who clearly doesn't understand statistics.

[sandman]

Note: This statistical stuff is fcuking boring.

No it isn't. It's boring if you read it, if you're the bored by stats type.

Resolution? Don't read stuff that bores you.

That was hard, wasn't it?



Personally, I find real facts, objective facts (statistics) to be illuminating.

Human inference, intuition, is notoriously inaccurate.

I doubt if there's an honest poster on here who truly believed we could go
100, even 130+ corners without a goal.

They are boring when there is post after post of the bl00dy stuff. Used sporadically stats can be interesting. Use them constantly and people just switch off.

[Snowball]

so switch off.

[sandman]

Don't worry I have. As have others.

[Hoop Blah]

so switch off.

It gets to the point where it's pretty much switching everyone off though!

[Millsy]

Thanks Snowball for the stats.

I asked for them and you delivered.

Cheers.

[papereyes]

Im surprised its as high as 2.7% to be honest, I call them 1%'s.

The "Corner short corner wasted" brigade couldnt be further from the truth imo. I doubt you could find and stats, but i would guess the success rate is much higher than from long corners. Its much harder to defend a short one, you dont know where the cross is coming from and the keeper is less likely to take an easy catch and create a counter attack.

Yeah ... most corners don't end up in a goal. Its a pointlessly small number.

English fans like the idea of putting it in the mixer. So, corners become valued in the minds of English fans (and, I fear, coaches).

[Ian Royal]

Im surprised its as high as 2.7% to be honest, I call them 1%'s.

The "Corner short corner wasted" brigade couldnt be further from the truth imo. I doubt you could find and stats, but i would guess the success rate is much higher than from long corners. Its much harder to defend a short one, you dont know where the cross is coming from and the keeper is less likely to take an easy catch and create a counter attack.

Yeah ... most corners don't end up in a goal. Its a pointlessly small number.

English fans like the idea of putting it in the mixer. So, corners become valued in the minds of English fans (and, I fear, coaches).

I still think it's a combination of "the it being in the mixer" as you say, the continued pressure on goal and that something positive for the team coming out of a failed attack. Oh and sheer bloody desperation that something might just go your team's way.

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.

[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.

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)

This season so far they mention 8 attacking free-kicks

From those we
hit the woodwork twice,
hit the side-netting once
had two headers of no consequence
had one shot over
had one shot inches wide
and scored one goal

1 Goal from 10 Free-Kicks. Slightly better than 1 in 82.5

Sig hits bar Scunthorpe
Sig hits post Portsmouth
Sig fires over Forest
Header into side-netting from Howard Free-kick Leicester
Header goalwards from Long from Howard FC Leicester
Harte "inches away" with keeper stranded Boro
Harte scores against as Hunt makes space in wall Barnsley
Glancing header from Harte free-kick Ipswich

[Hoop Blah]

You think we've only had 8 attacking free kicks all season?

This is where your stats become even more flawed than your use and presentation of them. You're taking them from a match report, often leaving things out, and by the look of things failing to apply any sensible reasoning to what they tell you.

I promise you we've had more than 8 attacking free kicks this season. That's less than 1 a game!

[Snowball]

You think we've only had 8 attacking free kicks all season?


DID I SAY THAT? I SAID I DIDN'T KNOW AND CAN ONLY REPORT WHAT THE CLUB SITE REPORTS.



This is where your stats become even more flawed than your use and presentation of them. You're taking them from a match report, often leaving things out, and by the look of things failing to apply any sensible reasoning to what they tell you. I promise you we've had more than 8 attacking free kicks this season. That's less than 1 a game!


They are not "flawed stats". They are stats based on FC's reported.
I actually said IF they are all reported.


FOR ONE DEFINE "ATTACKING FREE-KICK."

I have defined it, partly in agreement with Ian Royal.

A shot closer in than 40 yards (I would say about 25 yards, typically)
or a free-kick which puts the ball into the area. (Like a corner)

That does NOT include free-kicks, which, say, are banged out to Kebe
or McAnuff causing a secondary attack.

[Hoop Blah]

You think we've only had 8 attacking free kicks all season?

DID I SAY THAT? I SAID I DIDN'T KNOW AND CAN ONLY REPORT WHAT THE CLUB SITE REPORTS.

Basically you did say it yes! You based a whole post and the stats within it on the basis of the stats that say we only had 8 attacking free kicks.

You ask me to define what an attacking free kick is. Well you're the one banding the stat about, perhaps you should define it so that we are clear on what you're comparing with corners this time around.

Personally I'd say an attacking free kick is one where we think we have a chance of creating a goalscoring chance from it, ie it's probably in the last third of the pitch and the centre halfs are encouraged to go for it. There is no way we've only had 8 of those all season.

[Snowball]

I promise you we've had more than 8 attacking free kicks this season. That's less than 1 a game!

You PROMISE me?

Oh fine. I'll just take your "finger-in-the-air and feel the wind word for it.


Maybe it's 9. What do you think?
Maybe it's 10.
Maybe it's 20


But with no stats available (AFTER we've defined "attacking free-kick") what's to do?


How many of our free-kicks are in our own half?
How many of those are cross-field to a defender or out to a winger?


Ian was asking about ATTACKING FREE-KICKS and partly defined what he meant.

In actuality it's reasonable to argue that EVERY free-kick is "attacking" but most reasonable fans know the difference
between Fedders taking a free-kick from in his own area, Griffin taking a free-kick from his own corner-flag,
Mill squaring a free to Pearce, Howard putting a free out to Kebe... etc etc etc all these, while "attacking"
are not remotely the same as a free-kick on the edge of the box that Harte is going to welly at goal, or a free-kick
thirty-five yards out and ten-yards in from the touch-line that's going to be punted into the box for the big men to
attempt to head.

We know the difference. We know when a free-kick is likely to lead to a chance, or is "just a free-kick" in our half.
Most free-kicks are pretty innocuous. We've had a total of 145 frees awarded this season. I can't remember being on the
edge of my seat expecting that many shots from Harte, Siggy or Howard, or great balls into the box from frees.


But there's no point in arguing about the effectiveness of "attacking free-kicks" unless

(a) We agree what an attacking free-kick IS
(b) There are figures we can agree on.

[Snowball]

Basically you did say it yes! You based a whole post and the stats within it on the basis of the stats that say we only had 8 attacking free kicks.

NO. 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)

I've added emphasis below to show the words you obviously overlooked

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"

[Gav]

Their figure is just 2.7% of corners result in a goal.

It's interesting because we seem to cheer a lot when we get corners

We cheer when we get a penalty too, What are the stats around penalties resulting in a goal?

I cheer at corners, only because it's symbolic of pressure. More often than not, a corner comes from positive pressure being applied to the opposite team. A corner results in a break from play, a chance to catch my breath, and a tribal roar at my desire for the ball to be put back in and the pressure to resume.

Everyone knows corners are gash though, but you get them because you're generally on top in some way at that point. That's what's exciting, not the actual corner.

[Hoop Blah]

That is such a big IF though that your post should've stopped there as the rest is totally useless unless you accept the stat as anywhere near accurate.

As for promising that we've had more than 1 attacking free kick every game and half or (whatever it would work out to be), that might be finger in the air stuff but it's more credible than 8 attacking free kicks in what 13 or 14 games (can't remember how many we've played now).