Chances v Scunthorpe

[William Henry Foulkes]

Posted elsewhere but might be worth a thread of its own. In particular can anyone add to the first half. I can only recall details of three but I think there were a few more than that.

Done's header from 6 or 8 yards out
Reed 1v1 with the keeper - might've run away from Reed a bit but it looked to me like he could've lifted it over the keeper
Shot from <Blade> 12 yards out on Foxy's video or youtube
Holt from 6 or 8 yards out
Twice
The Beard's air shot

Any of these could've been a goal without the player on the end of it doing anything spectacular.

Besides this there was at least one attempt by Davies where he worked space for himself and shot narrowly wide. Not really a chance as it'd've been a very good goal if it had snuck in.

Negative?

UTB

 

[Kenilworth]

Posted elsewhere but that is no where near enough for 60% possession and just shows the opposite of what you are looking to state.

Their keeper had very little to do and that is the measure of a chance. That's why we only scored 1 since the keeper only had trouble from Freeman's shot and nowt else.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

just shows the opposite of what you are looking to state.

I am showing that we had several good chances. This demonstrates that clearly. There were others besides. Especially in the first half.

Their keeper had very little to do and that is the measure of a chance. That's why we only scored 1 since the keeper only had trouble from Freeman's shot and nowt else.

I think this is not a reasonable definition of a chance. For instance by this measure if you're a yard out, dead centre of an open and empty net and put it wide then it wasn't a chance. I don't see how that can be the case.



It's OK son, it wasn't a chance.

 

[Kenilworth]

I am showing that we had several good chances. This demonstrates that clearly. There were others besides. Especially in the first half.



I think this is not a reasonable definition of a chance. For instance by this measure if you're a yard out, dead centre of an open and empty net and put it wide then it wasn't a chance. I don't see how that can be the case.



It's OK son, it wasn't a chance.

The output objective is goals.
If you don't hit the target you don't score.
Hitting the woodwork is off target
If you get shots on target then the only reason for not scoring is a goal line clearance, a great block tackle or a save by the keeper.

Shots on target and saves by the keeper are the only real measure of a chance because, by definition, any other activity would not have resulted in a goal.

I know you are trying to big it up and look for the positives but if you are to score more than one goal you simply have to have several more than one or two shots on target.

 

[William Henry Foulkes]

I know you are trying to big it up

just shows the opposite of what you are looking to state.

It's quite easy to "win" an argument if you assert what someone is saying and then show it to be mistaken. I think this is called a Straw Man. Or an Aunt Sally. (Both of which featured in Worzel Gummidge.)

So Yakubu's miss was not a chance?

Not sure this view would get widespread support.

If we refrain from creatively redefining age-old football terminology we had 5 or 6 or more decent chances against Scunthorpe.

For me passing the ball sideways or backwards and thereby retaining possession is just common sense. There's nothing negative about it. We can't get through that way, let's see if we can get through this way. This is the opposite of negative. It's positive, confident, and optimistic, and when it works I really enjoy watching it.

Sometimes we don't do it quickly or creatively enough, but that's not through negativity, that's quality, form, or some other factor or factors.

 

[bartman]

It's quite easy to "win" an argument if you assert what someone is saying and then show it to be mistaken. I think this is called a Straw Man. Or an Aunt Sally. (Both of which featured in Worzel Gummidge.)

So Yakubu's miss was not a chance?

Not sure this view would get widespread support.

If we refrain from creatively redefining age-old football terminology we had 5 or 6 or more decent chances against Scunthorpe.

For me passing the ball sideways or backwards and thereby retaining possession is just common sense. There's nothing negative about it. We can't get through that way, let's see if we can get through this way. This is the opposite of negative. It's positive, confident, and optimistic, and when it works I really enjoy watching it.

Sometimes we don't do it quickly or creatively enough, but that's not through negativity, that's quality, form, or some other factor or factors.

I think you missed another free header by Done in the first half and the nailed on penalty when Freeman a as brought down in the second half.
Agreed that it the pace at which we pass sat her than pace by itself is a major issue as players seemed to be apprehensive about misplacing a pass

You forgot the golden rule. Because we drew it means we were negative and didn't create any chances despite the evidence of the 90 minutes before hand.

 

[Kenilworth]

I think you missed another free header by Done in the first half and the nailed on penalty when Freeman a as brought down in the second half.
Agreed that it the pace at which we pass sat her than pace by itself is a major issue as players seemed to be apprehensive about misplacing a pass

You forgot the golden rule. Because we drew it means we were negative and didn't create any chances despite the evidence of the 90 minutes before hand.

Nah, the golden rule is 'you don't shoot you don't score' and if your shooting doesn't trouble the keeper then you will not win football games. The draw is a consequence of not making the goalkeeper work enough times regardless of how much you keep the ball compared to the opposition. Scunny didnt need to keep 60% possession to trouble our keeper. Every free kick we give away or corner we concede provided them an opportunity to threaten because of their height and heading ability advantage. To mitigate that threat we have to score more often and give away fewer fouls, which is why we are not as aggressive as we ought to be for fear of giving the opposition the chance to plop one in the box. Our counter measure for not giving fouls away in positions where they can deliver into the big men is to keep possession of the football. It works as a defensive ploy to some extent but as and when we give the ball away cheaply (third division quality players) we concede a silly foul and invite the pressure on.

If we scored more goals then the nervousness that leads to the silly foul instances would reduce as confidence would be far higher.

It all boils down to shots on goal and shots that trouble the goalkeeper. The more you do that the more you score and the whole context of the game changes.

 

[Jehovah]

So we're shit at finishing then. Great.