|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 15:04:13 GMT
Unbelievable Jeff.
|
|
|
Post by Smudge_SCFC on Sept 28, 2010 15:04:26 GMT
The problem with the current classification is that it helps produce totally misleading sets of stats, such as those at Newcastle on Sunday. The commentators delight in telling us that Stoke win 2-1 after only having one shot on target... which just totally misrepresents the balance of play and genuine chances created.
The idea that a stinging drive that crashes down off the underside of the bar is categorised lower than a feeble dribbling shot from twenty yards, which trickles into the keepers hands is laughable. The frame of the goal is the whole target in my opinion and should count.
In baseball they have a nominal 'strike zone' and if such a thing was ever introduced in football (in some future super-duper electronic age - or now if you ever played with jumpers for goalposts) then there would be no instances of the ball hitting the woodwork and going in, or bouncing out. The shot would either be a goal or not a goal.
Which is why, I believe, it's a nonsense to have a shot which hits the woodwork and goes in classed as on target, but one which hits the woodwork and doesn't is classed as off-target.
Although I do firmly believe that striking the woodwork should be classed as on-target I think a genuinely sensible compromise would be to have stats that say...
Goals On Target Woodwork Off Target Corners etc...
This would provide a far more accurate brief description of events in a game
|
|
|
Post by mumph on Sept 28, 2010 15:07:40 GMT
And 'Kicked Like a Big Girl'.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 15:08:02 GMT
The problem with the current classification is that it helps produce totally misleading sets of stats, such as those at Newcastle on Sunday. The commentators delight in telling us that Stoke win 2-1 after only having one shot on target... which just totally misrepresents the balance of play and genuine chances created. The idea that a stinging drive that crashes down off the underside of the bar is categorised lower than a feeble dribbling shot from twenty yards, which trickles into the keepers hands is laughable. The frame of the goal is the whole target in my opinion and should count. In baseball they have a nominal 'strike zone' and if such a thing was ever introduced in football (in some future super-duper electronic age - or now if you ever played with jumpers for goalposts) then there would be no instances of the ball hitting the woodwork and going in, or bouncing out. The shot would either be a goal or not a goal. Which is why, I believe, it's a nonsense to have a shot which hits the woodwork and goes in classed as on target, but one which hits the woodwork and doesn't is classed as off-target. Although I do firmly believe that striking the woodwork should be classed as on-target I think a genuinely sensible compromise would be to have stats that say... Goals On Target Woodwork Off Target Corners etc... This would provide a far more accurate brief description of events in a game I understand your point Smudge. When they banged on about us winning 2-1 with only one shot on target, as if it were some kind of “smash and grab”, it was a tad annoying. To be honest though, I know the truth, as do most other Stokies. We created a lot and were very unlucky with the chances that hit the woodwork. I can sleep easily knowing that. I still think if you’re not making the keeper make a save then it is not on target.
|
|
|
Post by mumph on Sept 28, 2010 15:11:13 GMT
..and how many shots did they have and lose?
|
|
|
Post by stokebill on Sept 28, 2010 15:13:37 GMT
I suppose Nolan skewing it wide from 6 yards is a better chance than a feeble 30 yard scuff on target too. Stats are crap really. It annoys me when commentator's delight in possession stats when Stoke play, without taking into account that our game plan is, putting it simplistically, to give the opposition the ball.
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Sept 28, 2010 15:14:19 GMT
The problem with the current classification is that it helps produce totally misleading sets of stats, such as those at Newcastle on Sunday. The commentators delight in telling us that Stoke win 2-1 after only having one shot on target... which just totally misrepresents the balance of play and genuine chances created. The idea that a stinging drive that crashes down off the underside of the bar is categorised lower than a feeble dribbling shot from twenty yards, which trickles into the keepers hands is laughable. The frame of the goal is the whole target in my opinion and should count. In baseball they have a nominal 'strike zone' and if such a thing was ever introduced in football (in some future super-duper electronic age - or now if you ever played with jumpers for goalposts) then there would be no instances of the ball hitting the woodwork and going in, or bouncing out. The shot would either be a goal or not a goal. Which is why, I believe, it's a nonsense to have a shot which hits the woodwork and goes in classed as on target, but one which hits the woodwork and doesn't is classed as off-target. Although I do firmly believe that striking the woodwork should be classed as on-target I think a genuinely sensible compromise would be to have stats that say... Goals On Target Woodwork Off Target Corners etc... This would provide a far more accurate brief description of events in a game Hardly a solution to the problem you're presenting though Smudge - all you're doing is shifting the classification of shots by a few centimetres. Under your system a team could still have all the pressure and a dozen shots that fizz just past the post or just over the bar, while the other team could have one "feeble dribbling shot" and come out on top in the stats. The problem isn't with the classification system, it's with using these types of statistics to analyse football full stop. The game just can't be truly represented by stats in the way that (for example) the US sports can. Possession/shots stats can be interesting and probably mostly representative, but should never be used to reach conclusions about a game on their own.
|
|
|
Post by PickSCFC on Sept 28, 2010 15:18:00 GMT
the only stats that matters is the ones in the score column
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 28, 2010 15:18:40 GMT
the only stats that matters is the ones in the score column And throw ins.
|
|
|
Post by RINGO STARR on Sept 28, 2010 15:29:06 GMT
I don't care what anybody says at Skysports,opta, vison express, BBC, ITV, house of kriscommons, fa headquarters, sid's cafe.
If a ball hits a post or if a ball hits a crossbar-its a bloody chance on target. End of. If a shot is saved by the keeper whether it be one caught by th ekeeper in the middle of th egoal, or one that is touched around the post for a corner-its a shot on target.
Case closed.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Sept 28, 2010 15:32:05 GMT
One of these days against a smaller defence who can't head a ball, he's going to score 3 or 4 a game. I really believe that. I Love it! Arsenal Football Club, anyone? ;D
|
|
|
Post by ColonelMustard on Sept 28, 2010 15:32:31 GMT
Representing a game through numbers is far more cumbersome than in words. Even though it would hopefully less subjective the choice of categories skews the truth anyway. Somebody was making a point on here the other day about territorial advantage telling a different story to possession stats in Stoke games and they made much more sense of our results.
Mind you I still reckon woodwork and out is off target
|
|
|
Post by markscfc72 on Sept 28, 2010 15:32:55 GMT
If a shot hits the woodwork and goes in – on target If a shot hits the woodwork and does not go in – off target correct target = getting the ball over the line, if thats via the goal posts so be it, if it hits the post/bar and doesnt cross the line then obviously its not on target, simples!
|
|
|
Post by RINGO STARR on Sept 28, 2010 15:34:06 GMT
One of these days against a smaller defence who can't head a ball, he's going to score 3 or 4 a game. I really believe that. I Love it! Arsenal Football Club, anyone? ;D That'd be nice wouldn't it. 5-0 at the Brit with Kenwyne netting 3 and Shawcross two. All from throw ins. Bloody brilliant!
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Sept 28, 2010 15:36:06 GMT
If the Baggies can get 3 at the Emirates, I'd be hoping Big Kenneth could manage at least 4 at the Brit.
|
|
|
Post by mumph on Sept 28, 2010 15:55:42 GMT
Until not scoring goals results in points - who gives a fuck?
|
|
|
Post by acstokie on Sept 28, 2010 16:00:54 GMT
Arsenal Football Club, anyone? ;D That'd be nice wouldn't it. 5-0 at the Brit with Kenwyne netting 3 and Shawcross two. All from throw ins. Bloody brilliant! Yeah with seven of there players getting carried off with injuries after a gust of wind blew them over!
|
|
|
Post by Etain Tur-Mukan on Oct 3, 2010 18:40:30 GMT
At least once or twice more again yesterday!
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Oct 3, 2010 18:51:16 GMT
At least once or twice more again yesterday! I suppose you have to make it 2 really.
|
|
|
Post by Etain Tur-Mukan on Oct 4, 2010 10:27:17 GMT
How many is that this season so far then?
|
|
|
Post by wearethepeople on Oct 4, 2010 10:30:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by shiny nosehair on Oct 4, 2010 10:38:29 GMT
As the posts and crossbar are part of the goal, and the goal is the target, i'm gonna go with a shot on target includes the woodwork
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2010 10:39:18 GMT
As the posts and crossbar are part of the goal, and the goal is the target, i'm gonna go with a shot on target includes the woodwork No it doesn't. Thanks. WD
|
|
|
Post by shiny nosehair on Oct 4, 2010 10:43:28 GMT
WOOD YOU BELIEVE IT? Dear Martin. Can you settle a bet? I reckon Kenwyne Jones has hit the woodwork more than some entire Premier League teams have this season. Am I right? Marc (Stoke City supporter).
MARTIN SAYS: You're absolutely right, Marc. According to Opta, the Stoke striker has hit the woodwork four times this season. That's twice as many times as any other player (Andrei Arshavin - in the same incident - Stewart Downing, Kieron Dyer, Nani and Frederic Piquionne have all hit the woodwork twice).
In total, Stoke City have hit the woodwork eight times in their first six games, which is twice as many as any other side. Arsenal and West Ham have done so on four occasions each - which means Kenwyne Jones has hit the woodwork as many times as the entire Arsenal and West Ham teams this season - and more than every other Premier League team!
Number of times each Premier League has hit the woodwork (2010/11):
EIGHT: Stoke City FOUR: Arsenal, West Ham THREE: Aston Villa, Blackburn, Chelsea, Everton, Man Utd, Tottenham, Wigan TWO: Wolves ONE: Bolton, Liverpool, Man City, Newcastle, West Brom NONE: Birmingham City, Blackpool, Fulham, Sunderland
|
|
|
Post by bettsy on Oct 4, 2010 11:25:07 GMT
we hit the woodwork twice sat but 1 was straight from a throw onto the post (2nd half) so doesn't count, and 1st half straight from a throw but i think huth just brushed it with his head (but im not 100% sure)
|
|