“Ineteresting argument but flawed IMO. You can be beaten or win by a mis kick, dodgy ref decsision, wood work etc... In a close game any one of these can have a major influence. Can anybody who has played football claim they haven't scored a flukey goal or been a bit luck or indeed unlucky. If you were a striker say who on acerage took 4 opportunities out of 10, you might get a game where you get 3 chances and score 3 and you might get a game when you get 6 chances and score 0. The average generally evens itself out but you are a 4 in 10 striker not a 0 in 6 or a 3 in 3. Luck plays a part.”
But I wouldn’t say the goal you described was actually (and I mean in reality) flukey. If I’m playing 5-aside on a Thursday and someone scores the winner with a deflection in the last kick of the game I’d say “you lucky so and so” but in reality it wasn’t luck was it ? In reality, combination of the way the player kicked the ball, combined with the positioning of the player against whom the ball deflected and the position of the goalkeeper meant that the ball was always “destined” to end up in the net, in exactly the same way that a tap in from 5 yards out was always going to go in. The difference between the tap in and the deflection is that we thought the ball wouldn’t go in because we hadn’t foreseen the deflection which changed the trajectory of the ball. We call the gap in-between what we thought would happen, and what actually happened “luck” but really it isn’t luck, it is the combination of the factors I’ve just described.
“i think it's lucky when a player that is pony and never gets dropped gets injured and forces the manager to play a better one that leads to better results”
That’s not luck though, the player was always pony, and his replacement was always better, the manager just didn’t realise it. Again the gap between the expectation (that the player in reserve is probably worse than the player that’s pony) and the reality (the player in reserve turns out to better) we call luck but it isn’t, it was always the case, we just need a better manager who knows his squad properly !!
“Could say it's luck when a goal is disallowed like it was against Colchester though”
Again, I don’t think that’s luck. What happened was Powell protested vigorously enough to have the fourth official call the referee over and present a convincing enough argument to have the decision reversed in our favour. At what point did Luck work it’s magic and force the referee to change his decision ?
In Chris Powell's first home game, the opposition had 2 glorious chances to equalise and blazed over with the goal at their mercy. In that instance, without going into an analytical study of what actually occurred, i think it could be quite reasonable, in a common sense type way, to say we were lucky. Think there's a danger of dissapearing up one's backside in analysing in any more depth. I take off it's point in that some people say we are lucky if we win and just crap if we lose which is what i think was meant. That does seem a bit negative but i think the real point is that in this division a hell of a lot happens as the consequence of mistakes as the quality isn't great and we are pretty much at the level of this division, maybe a bit above average and that isn't good enough. We don't roll teams over and the odd lucvky break here or there quite often determines the outcome of our games - in the common sense use of the word.
[cite]Posted By: se9addick[/cite]“Ineteresting argument but flawed IMO. You can be beaten or win by a mis kick, dodgy ref decsision, wood work etc... In a close game any one of these can have a major influence. Can anybody who has played football claim they haven't scored a flukey goal or been a bit luck or indeed unlucky. If you were a striker say who on acerage took 4 opportunities out of 10, you might get a game where you get 3 chances and score 3 and you might get a game when you get 6 chances and score 0. The average generally evens itself out but you are a 4 in 10 striker not a 0 in 6 or a 3 in 3. Luck plays a part.”
But I wouldn’t say the goal you described was actually (and I mean in reality) flukey. If I’m playing 5-aside on a Thursday and someone scores the winner with a deflection in the last kick of the game I’d say “you lucky so and so” but in reality it wasn’t luck was it ? In reality, combination of the way the player kicked the ball, combined with the positioning of the player against whom the ball deflected and the position of the goalkeeper meant that the ball was always “destined” to end up in the net, in exactly the same way that a tap in from 5 yards out was always going to go in. The difference between the tap in and the deflection is that we thought the ball wouldn’t go in because we hadn’t foreseen the deflection which changed the trajectory of the ball. We call the gap in-between what we thought would happen, and what actually happened “luck” but really it isn’t luck, it is the combination of the factors I’ve just described.
“i think it's lucky when a player that is pony and never gets dropped gets injured and forces the manager to play a better one that leads to better results”
That’s not luck though, the player was always pony, and his replacement was always better, the manager just didn’t realise it. Again the gap between the expectation (that the player in reserve is probably worse than the player that’s pony) and the reality (the player in reserve turns out to better) we call luck but it isn’t, it was always the case, we just need a better manager who knows his squad properly !!
“Could say it's luck when a goal is disallowed like it was against Colchester though”
Again, I don’t think that’s luck. What happened was Powell protested vigorously enough to have the fourth official call the referee over and present a convincing enough argument to have the decision reversed in our favour. At what point did Luck work it’s magic and force the referee to change his decision ?
How often does a 4th official listen to a manager and actually consult with the referee?
Very rarely in my experience and that is why I say we were "lucky" to encounter a 4th official prepared to do his job properly. Chris Powell obviously helped to make his own luck by protesting but as I recall Parky got sent to the stands when he protested! Some officials, whether it is correct or not, are of the mentality to say I've made the decision stop protesting or I'll send you off.
Against Colchester we were "lucky" to encounter a man of integrity and competence, rare virtues these days.
"In Chris Powell's first home game, the opposition had 2 glorious chances to equalise and blazed over with the goal at their mercy. In that instance, without going into an analytical study of what actually occurred, i think it could be quite reasonable, in a common sense type way, to say we were lucky. Think there's a danger of dissapearing up one's backside in analysing in any more depth. I take off it's point in that some people say we are lucky if we win and just crap if we lose which is what i think was meant. That does seem a bit negative but i think the real point is that in this division a hell of a lot happens as the consequence of mistakes as the quality isn't great and we are pretty much at the level of this division, maybe a bit above average and that isn't good enough. We don't roll teams over and the odd lucvky break here or there quite often determines the outcome of our games - in the common sense use of the word."
No obviously we can’t analyse every single moment in a game (or in our lives!) to decide what cause the outcome of a particular incident to be so, but that’s exactly what I’m saying. We use the term “luck” as it’s easier than actually trying to see what has happened because in reality the term “luck” exists as a convenient way of avoiding analysis and allows us to put something down to a supernatural force which doesn’t actuall exist.
"Against Colchester we were "lucky" to encounter a man of integrity and competence, rare virtues these days."
Not really, that official was assigned to the game weeks in advance, the combination of events during the game and their outcome are the reason the disallowed goal was “scored” in the first place, and why was the official “a man of integrity and competence” I don’t know, probably the way he was raised. Again, we say that the difference between our expectation (that the official wouldn’t be “a man of integrity and competence”) and the reality (that he was) was luck, but it wasn’t. It’s just that it’s easier to say that it’s luck and therefore avoid, as BexleyDan said, some sort of indepth analysis of a random officials moral code !
Bexley - agree totally - we normally think we have been unlucky or lucky. Sometimes we think we have been very lucky - I certainly did when we played Notts County at the Valley. You can say we weren't lucky that Hughes missed a sitter and a penalty - it was down to his ineptitude. But I say, on another day and another he would have taken his chances - because at this level (despite being a nasty so and so) he is a decent striker. We were lucky he had a bad day at the office that day.
The quality we have up front now for this level is now a strength. Anyisah, BWP and Ecclestone missed good chances - yes their ineptitude but on another day they would have scored. They had a bad day at the office but no need to panic as we know they are more than decent at this level. I thought that we were very unlucky - that doesn't mean we played brilliantly or that we weren't architects of our own downfall, but that on another day and another, and another we would have won that game with the chances we created and the lack of chances County created.
Yes you can say it was good play for the Notts County player to run at the ball, hit it with his backside so precisely that it flicked of Francis' foot into the net. I think he was lucky and the defence can not be blamed in the same way as if he had a free header or shot. If County tried to emulate that goal, they could try 1million times and it not happen. That can't be said for a good cross and well timed run. Yes they were lucky, very lucky.
Apart from being frustrated and hard done by, I am reassured. It is better to be very unlucky than plain unlucky or even lucky. Why? becuase as SE( says, there is not really such a thing as good or bad luck, there is simply luck. If you are very unlucky, you lost a game that @ 8 times out of 10 you would win. Now if you win 8 games out of 10 you will be there or there abouts. For too much of this season, the variance in chances between us and our opponents has been too close, I say that we should be encouraged by the variance in this game and it is worth Powell keeping the faith and continuing with the system, fine tuning were necessary but not giving up on it. We have those ratios every game and we will probaly go up automatically - having said that though we need to continue in the same vane. A 'lucky' win tomorrow won't fill me with confidence for the reasons stated above.
Regardless of whether we we have been lucky or unlucky in certain matches the fact is that teams that get promoted don't tend to lose three games in a row against sides like Harlepool, Exeter and Nott's County. If you're good enough you don't need to rely on luck. Assuming Brighton go up as champions I don't suppose many of us will say it's because they're luckier than us. They're just a better side at the moment.
I thought we deserved at least a point, and would have had it if BWP had trusted the pitch and not run run up a bit too tamely for his penalty.
Overall we look better as a team, I was impressed that when attacking we kept the ball on the deck, but perhaps on a slippery pitch we could have played the ball a bit longer and aimed behind the centre-backs in the hope that one would slip or that the pace of Anyinsah/BWP/Eccleston would see them get there first. What Powell got wrong was to not get the ball played through the centre - it might have been me, but everything was down the wings and that caused their centre-backs to play a bit apart. A bit more through the middle and a few gaps might have been exploited.
Think when you try to change the way you play - it takes a while to get right. I think I can see were Powell is going and I like what I see. As long as the confidence can hold, I believe we will see some changes for the better, sooner rather than later. Keep the faith!.
Lets look at the chances we created on Friday - We had BWP shooting wide when keeper spilled which he would score 70% of the time (1), Anyinsah close in mis kick on the surface which he would have scored 50% of the time (2), Eccleston 1 on 1 where keeper did well which he would have scored 50% of the time (3), Eccleston through but rushed shot - Would result in gaol probably 25% of the time (4), Anyinsah likely to score before keeper rushed into him (which was a clear red) a goal 60% of the time and a sending off 80% of the time (5) the Penalty - a goal 90% of the time (6), Dailly over the bar with keeper beaten - a goal 30% of the time (7). On another day we could have got at least 2 given the percentages.
Now lets look at Notts County - A flukey goal off players backside which clipped of defenders toes - Is that repeatable? Being generous, a goal 1% of the time. The only other chances for County were a few shots from outside the area- ranginging from 5-10% of the time.
Had we won the game by a couple of goals, which on another day would have happened, we would have been saying what a positive performance it was. If our strikers were rubbish we would be saying that we created chances but they are not good enough to take them. Yes they had a bad day at the office but with the exception of Semedo- our best players are our strikers. As for our defence- I doubt Notts County, who are good at home, have created as little many times this season. We have another game like that, we are likely to win it which you cant say for some of the games we have won previously.
are not as bad as people are making out and wil lgo on another run soon if we carry on how we left off on Friday. Forget about the disapointment of a 3rd staright loss and think about the game.
Comments
But I wouldn’t say the goal you described was actually (and I mean in reality) flukey. If I’m playing 5-aside on a Thursday and someone scores the winner with a deflection in the last kick of the game I’d say “you lucky so and so” but in reality it wasn’t luck was it ? In reality, combination of the way the player kicked the ball, combined with the positioning of the player against whom the ball deflected and the position of the goalkeeper meant that the ball was always “destined” to end up in the net, in exactly the same way that a tap in from 5 yards out was always going to go in. The difference between the tap in and the deflection is that we thought the ball wouldn’t go in because we hadn’t foreseen the deflection which changed the trajectory of the ball. We call the gap in-between what we thought would happen, and what actually happened “luck” but really it isn’t luck, it is the combination of the factors I’ve just described.
“i think it's lucky when a player that is pony and never gets dropped gets injured and forces the manager to play a better one that leads to better results”
That’s not luck though, the player was always pony, and his replacement was always better, the manager just didn’t realise it. Again the gap between the expectation (that the player in reserve is probably worse than the player that’s pony) and the reality (the player in reserve turns out to better) we call luck but it isn’t, it was always the case, we just need a better manager who knows his squad properly !!
“Could say it's luck when a goal is disallowed like it was against Colchester though”
Again, I don’t think that’s luck. What happened was Powell protested vigorously enough to have the fourth official call the referee over and present a convincing enough argument to have the decision reversed in our favour. At what point did Luck work it’s magic and force the referee to change his decision ?
How often does a 4th official listen to a manager and actually consult with the referee?
Very rarely in my experience and that is why I say we were "lucky" to encounter a 4th official prepared to do his job properly. Chris Powell obviously helped to make his own luck by protesting but as I recall Parky got sent to the stands when he protested! Some officials, whether it is correct or not, are of the mentality to say I've made the decision stop protesting or I'll send you off.
Against Colchester we were "lucky" to encounter a man of integrity and competence, rare virtues these days.
No obviously we can’t analyse every single moment in a game (or in our lives!) to decide what cause the outcome of a particular incident to be so, but that’s exactly what I’m saying. We use the term “luck” as it’s easier than actually trying to see what has happened because in reality the term “luck” exists as a convenient way of avoiding analysis and allows us to put something down to a supernatural force which doesn’t actuall exist.
"Against Colchester we were "lucky" to encounter a man of integrity and competence, rare virtues these days."
Not really, that official was assigned to the game weeks in advance, the combination of events during the game and their outcome are the reason the disallowed goal was “scored” in the first place, and why was the official “a man of integrity and competence” I don’t know, probably the way he was raised. Again, we say that the difference between our expectation (that the official wouldn’t be “a man of integrity and competence”) and the reality (that he was) was luck, but it wasn’t. It’s just that it’s easier to say that it’s luck and therefore avoid, as BexleyDan said, some sort of indepth analysis of a random officials moral code !
The quality we have up front now for this level is now a strength. Anyisah, BWP and Ecclestone missed good chances - yes their ineptitude but on another day they would have scored. They had a bad day at the office but no need to panic as we know they are more than decent at this level. I thought that we were very unlucky - that doesn't mean we played brilliantly or that we weren't architects of our own downfall, but that on another day and another, and another we would have won that game with the chances we created and the lack of chances County created.
Yes you can say it was good play for the Notts County player to run at the ball, hit it with his backside so precisely that it flicked of Francis' foot into the net. I think he was lucky and the defence can not be blamed in the same way as if he had a free header or shot. If County tried to emulate that goal, they could try 1million times and it not happen. That can't be said for a good cross and well timed run. Yes they were lucky, very lucky.
Apart from being frustrated and hard done by, I am reassured. It is better to be very unlucky than plain unlucky or even lucky. Why? becuase as SE( says, there is not really such a thing as good or bad luck, there is simply luck. If you are very unlucky, you lost a game that @ 8 times out of 10 you would win. Now if you win 8 games out of 10 you will be there or there abouts. For too much of this season, the variance in chances between us and our opponents has been too close, I say that we should be encouraged by the variance in this game and it is worth Powell keeping the faith and continuing with the system, fine tuning were necessary but not giving up on it. We have those ratios every game and we will probaly go up automatically - having said that though we need to continue in the same vane. A 'lucky' win tomorrow won't fill me with confidence for the reasons stated above.
Overall we look better as a team, I was impressed that when attacking we kept the ball on the deck, but perhaps on a slippery pitch we could have played the ball a bit longer and aimed behind the centre-backs in the hope that one would slip or that the pace of Anyinsah/BWP/Eccleston would see them get there first. What Powell got wrong was to not get the ball played through the centre - it might have been me, but everything was down the wings and that caused their centre-backs to play a bit apart. A bit more through the middle and a few gaps might have been exploited.
Lets look at the chances we created on Friday - We had BWP shooting wide when keeper spilled which he would score 70% of the time (1), Anyinsah close in mis kick on the surface which he would have scored 50% of the time (2), Eccleston 1 on 1 where keeper did well which he would have scored 50% of the time (3), Eccleston through but rushed shot - Would result in gaol probably 25% of the time (4), Anyinsah likely to score before keeper rushed into him (which was a clear red) a goal 60% of the time and a sending off 80% of the time (5) the Penalty - a goal 90% of the time (6), Dailly over the bar with keeper beaten - a goal 30% of the time (7). On another day we could have got at least 2 given the percentages.
Now lets look at Notts County - A flukey goal off players backside which clipped of defenders toes - Is that repeatable? Being generous, a goal 1% of the time. The only other chances for County were a few shots from outside the area- ranginging from 5-10% of the time.
Had we won the game by a couple of goals, which on another day would have happened, we would have been saying what a positive performance it was. If our strikers were rubbish we would be saying that we created chances but they are not good enough to take them. Yes they had a bad day at the office but with the exception of Semedo- our best players are our strikers. As for our defence- I doubt Notts County, who are good at home, have created as little many times this season. We have another game like that, we are likely to win it which you cant say for some of the games we have won previously.
The fact is, we