Inability to convert corners?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

It's a oxf*rd load better than your average based on (shit) statistics. And no, it isn't based on one game... History doesn't reset itself at the start of the season.

Oh, and seeing as I believe we're using my definition of an attacking freekick iirc, who said it has to go into the box? Or would you like to rule out short corners and those played outside the box, from your corner stats?

You really are a moron. You have a SINGLE match in which TWO teams between them had 7 attacking free-kicks
and yet from that you work out that it's an average "OF AT LEAST 5" for Reading

so are you still still sticking to your opinion that 1 per match is about right?

[Hoop Blah]

I'm not interested in "intention" since "intention"
cannot always be known and is subjective opinion...

...MAYBE the Harte ball that didn't go into the box was "meant to"
but I cannot know that, you cannot know that, and the ball didn't
go into the box, so doesn't meet the definition I gave, and you didn't challenge.

Swansea also had a few FCs that they COULD HAVE put into the box, but chose not to

Where were the centre halfs for this free kick? I'd imagine they were up in the box weren't they?

Irrespective of that 6th free kick, you still haven't said how accurate you now think your average of 1 free kick a game is. Any comment on that?

[Snowball]

Irrespective of that 6th free kick, you still haven't said how accurate you now think your average of 1 free kick a game is. Any comment on that?

NO. The recorded stats have accumulated for a whole game.

Had we been Swansea fans we'd've thought, hmmm 1 v 2, just one FC different.

[Hoop Blah]

Or 100% out?

Given that you say Swansea, as a team that didn't really put the ball in the last third that much had two attacking free kicks and we, for the sake of the argument had 5 (it was 6 but you seem to be unable to recognise that), that's 7 between the two teams.

It was a game without much genuine goalmouth action and without any bad tackles so I reckon on the lower end of average for attacking free kicks (and corners as it happens). It would give an average of 3-4.

Do you know see that your stat, that you were so confident in, is going to be wrong?

[andrew1957]

Our corner delivery from Harte and McAnuff was awful again on Saturday. Swansea only had a few corners but their delivery looked much more threatening.

For the record Harte did not even take corners at his last club as they saw him as a threat in the box - hence why he scored so many - and yet he has become our main corner taken - just goes to show how lightweight our options are without Sig's excellent delivery.

[Snowball]

Or 100% out?

Given that you say Swansea, as a team that didn't really put the ball in the last third that much had two attacking free kicks and we, for the sake of the argument had 5 (it was 6 but you seem to be unable to recognise that), that's 7 between the two teams. It was a game without much genuine goalmouth action and without any bad tackles so I reckon on the lower end of average for attacking free kicks (and corners as it happens). It would give an average of 3-4. Do you know see that your stat, that you were so confident in, is going to be wrong?

Please post where I said I was confident in that stat.

I went to the game, recorded the facts to post whatever they meant. I am ALWAYS happy to do that. I'm interested in objective fact over dodgy memory and subjectivity. We need a few more games than 1 to decide what the truth is (unless we have a plastic palm-tree, that is)

[Hoop Blah]

Or 100% out?

Given that you say Swansea, as a team that didn't really put the ball in the last third that much had two attacking free kicks and we, for the sake of the argument had 5 (it was 6 but you seem to be unable to recognise that), that's 7 between the two teams. It was a game without much genuine goalmouth action and without any bad tackles so I reckon on the lower end of average for attacking free kicks (and corners as it happens). It would give an average of 3-4. Do you know see that your stat, that you were so confident in, is going to be wrong?

Please post where I said I was confident in that stat.

I went to the game, recorded the facts to post whatever they meant. I am ALWAYS happy to do that. I'm interested in objective fact over dodgy memory and subjectivity. We need a few more games than 1 to decide what the truth is (unless we have a plastic palm-tree, that is)

If you weren't confident in it why did you spend 2 or 3 pages defending it and putting it forward as the best available number to work with (when it was obviously incorrect).

[Snowball]

If you weren't confident in it why did you spend 2 or 3 pages defending it and putting it forward as the best available number to work with (when it was obviously incorrect).

BECAUSE-IT-WAS

the best available number to work with


DUH!


and I said, specifically posted, that it was not necessarily reliable.




I only looked at Frees because Ian asked.

[Snowball]

Fing is, Hoop, we should AGREE the definition of an attacking free-kick


Here is MY definition. Feel free to suggest something different.


(a) A direct shot at goal from no more than 25 yards
OR
(b) a tap for a second player to shoot from no more than 25 yards
OR
a ball put up into the box with the obvious intention of a Reading player heading for goal or nodding down for a shot.
OR
(rarely) a through ball into the box for a player to latch on to and shoot.


That is, attacking free-kicks are roughly like corners plus the extra of a direct shot.


I EXCLUDE, balls out to the wing, anything played backwards unless it's (b)
a dink to someone OUTSIDE the box who might then try to make something happen etc


The point is, it's a real chance (like a corner) of putting it immediately into the mix



THEN (IF WE ARE AGREED) WE WATCH SOME GAMES AND COUNT THE ATTACKING-FREES.

Anything else is pointless.

[Hoop Blah]

Fing is, Hoop, we should AGREE the definition of an attacking free-kick


Here is MY definition. Feel free to suggest something different.


(a) A direct shot at goal from no more than 25 yards
OR
(b) a tap for a second player to shoot from no more than 25 yards
OR
a ball put up into the box with the obvious intention of a Reading player heading for goal or nodding down for a shot.
OR
(rarely) a through ball into the box for a player to latch on to and shoot.


That is, attacking free-kicks are roughly like corners plus the extra of a direct shot.


I EXCLUDE, balls out to the wing, anything played backwards unless it's (b)
a dink to someone OUTSIDE the box who might then try to make something happen etc


The point is, it's a real chance (like a corner) of putting it immediately into the mix



THEN (IF WE ARE AGREED) WE WATCH SOME GAMES AND COUNT THE ATTACKING-FREES.

Anything else is pointless.

I'd pretty much agree with your definition, but I do think you have to imply that if we send our centre backs up into the box and our 'set peice expert' of a left back goes over the to right wing to take a free kick we are using it as some kind of attacking set piece situtation.

[Snowball]

Today I made it 7 AFCs for Reading (2 Goals), 2 for Doncaster (1 Goal)


If you remember this argument, the point was that I believed attacking free-kicks
resulted in more goals than corners. 2 from 7 or 3 from 10 today, and we had a goal
from an AFC won by Long at Burnley (no idea how many AFCs in total)

So we are averaging 6 AFCs after 2 games. Not remotely enough games, of course
but it'll be a big surprise if we don't average 4 at least.


And they look to be a LOT more productive than corners (as I said.)

[Ian Royal]

Today I made it 7 AFCs for Reading (2 Goals), 2 for Doncaster (1 Goal)


If you remember this argument, the point was that I believed attacking free-kicks
resulted in more goals than corners. 2 from 7 or 3 from 10 today, and we had a goal
from an AFC won by Long at Burnley (no idea how many AFCs in total)

So we are averaging 6 AFCs after 2 games. Not remotely enough games, of course
but it'll be a big surprise if we don't average 4 at least.


And they look to be a LOT more productive than corners (as I said.)

You should really be discounting direct shots as you can't have a shot at goal from a corner, IMO of course. That's the way to compare apples with apples. Short corners cloud the situation a little, as do touches to the side for a shot from freekicks.

It's pretty obvious that anything where you can take a direct shot at goal is going to be more productive for scoring goals than something where you can't. It's like saying penalties provide a better goal ratio than freekicks. Of course they do, it's closer and there's no one between you and the goal except the keeper.

[Snowball]

You should really be discounting direct shots as you can't have a shot at goal from a corner, IMO of course. That's the way to compare apples with apples. Short corners cloud the situation a little, as do touches to the side for a shot from freekicks. It's pretty obvious that anything where you can take a direct shot at goal is going to be more productive for scoring goals than something where you can't. It's like saying penalties provide a better goal ratio than freekicks. Of course they do, it's closer and there's no one between you and the goal except the keeper.

If you remember, the argument was that corners were hopelessly unproductive
and therefore teams should try to keep the ball live, get off a shot or play
for a foul and a free-kick.

It's irrelevant that you can't shoot direct from a corner (tho' you can SCORE direct from a corner)

The point is that corners aren't very productive goal-wise and AFCs are.


And that was the crux of the argument.

[Ian Royal]

And a completely ridiculous one as it's comparing things that are uncomparable because they are so different.

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

If you remember, the argument was that corners were hopelessly unproductive
and therefore teams should try to keep the ball live, get off a shot or play
for a foul and a free-kick..

and how successful would playing for a free kick be?

You are only going to score directly from a free kick around the "D", and it's incredibly rate that a player would ever be in a situation which offered the chance or such a free kick OR a corner.

[Snowball]

And a completely ridiculous one as it's comparing things that are uncomparable because they are so different.

Dim and dimmer

[Snowball]

If you remember, the argument was that corners were hopelessly unproductive
and therefore teams should try to keep the ball live, get off a shot or play
for a foul and a free-kick..

and how successful would playing for a free kick be?

You are only going to score directly from a free kick around the "D", and it's incredibly rate that a player would ever be in a situation which offered the chance or such a free kick OR a corner.

But it isn't just free-kick SHOTS AT GOAL, there's also free-kick crosses to be headed.

There were two goals like that today and one direct shot, also a goal

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

If you remember, the argument was that corners were hopelessly unproductive
and therefore teams should try to keep the ball live, get off a shot or play
for a foul and a free-kick..

and how successful would playing for a free kick be?

You are only going to score directly from a free kick around the "D", and it's incredibly rate that a player would ever be in a situation which offered the chance or such a free kick OR a corner.

But it isn't just free-kick SHOTS AT GOAL, there's also free-kick crosses to be headed.

There were two goals like that today and one direct shot, also a goal

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. That isn't an option in almost all cases, so saying they should try to play for a free kick instead of a corner is just stupid. After all, out of all the corner we have, how many are "played for"? Beyond perhaps kicking it off a player near the corner flag, I'd say almost all corners are the result of the defense cutting out a ball that was intended to reach a player in the box.

i.e. the corner/not a corner decision typically isn't ours to make. It's the defender's choice.

[Maguire]

Quite right Rev. Snowball is backtracking heavily having been shown up extensively on these pages.

[Snowball]

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.

Most players (and fans) seem happy to win a corner, despite the fact that they rarely result in goals, whereas men free in the box, or tackled in the box DO.

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