This sounds like a moron
Penalties vs Goals From Open Play
- Thread starter The Bloody-Nine
- Start date
-
Nik (@Rood) and Imran (@Annihilate Now!) discuss United's fantastic win away against Athletic Club in the semi-final of the Europa League.
They also pick out the positives of United's 4-3 loss away at Brentford, and Nik reviews a day out at Old Trafford watching Manchester United Women qualify for the Champions League.
What you said is true. But why did Lukaku take them in the first place? Penalties are high % games for the taker, even Lukaku if he is bad should score 60-70%. He was unlucky that he missed the first, but if he had scored the next few, Martial would have had to wait longer for his turn.
In most cases you have a bunch of similar skilled takers, and influence will always play a part. Like for example, Neymar presumably will share duties at least with Cavani now, even though his career % is lower.
This is a discussion for a different forum but, CEO's often do the least amount of work in a company since they are able to delegate.
So says the guy who thinks what Inzaghi does is as beautiful as Messi.
Lukaku's penalty record is 68.8% which is less than that. How do we describe his performance? Someone who can't score easy chance? It is a different skillset which is complementary, like goals from free kicks and header. A complete goal scorer is someone who can scores all sort of goals equally good. Some might be world class at some of the skills, decent at the other. It's also up to the team and players' style. What they want to focus more in training. In the end, the goal scorers are judged by how much goals they can get, regardless of how. If a team has a starting superb non-striker penalty taker, then there might not be any urgency for the striker to put extra effort in training penalty taking. They can use the time to improve other skillset. Therefore, I don't think any player/manager will rate certain kind of goal less than the other just like that. So it's not fair to say that a striker who scores 10/30 from penalty is not as good as one who scores 30/30 from open play.
Everyone saying "a goal is a goal" , "they are all worth the same" etc obviously didn't read/understand OP's point and/or is using a straw man argument.
I see this debate is more concerned with the individual point of view rather than the collective point of view. (e.g a tap is usually the result of brilliant build up play from the team but we're more concerned in the individual assessment of the goal scorer.)
I for one believe that penalty goals should not count towards statistics such as individual goals, conversion rate, shot accuracy, golden boot etc for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. The problem with penalties is that many times the penalty taker may have not been involved at all in the lead up to the penalty yet they get credited for it. Whereas, the opposite is true for a tap in.
I see this debate is more concerned with the individual point of view rather than the collective point of view. (e.g a tap is usually the result of brilliant build up play from the team but we're more concerned in the individual assessment of the goal scorer.)
I for one believe that penalty goals should not count towards statistics such as individual goals, conversion rate, shot accuracy, golden boot etc for the reasons already mentioned in this thread. The problem with penalties is that many times the penalty taker may have not been involved at all in the lead up to the penalty yet they get credited for it. Whereas, the opposite is true for a tap in.
True enough. Though he would probably not have gotten the chance if Cavani hadn't scuppered his high-profiled post-quarrel effort. And yet, the fact that these two are left by Emery to duke it out for the honors (how entertaining!) is still a reflection of the qualities they alteady have, as football players and goal scorers.
I do like the idea suggested by posters in this thread, that penalties should compulsorily be taken by the person who was fouled. Since he was "denied" a goal scoring opportunity, he should have the responsibility.
Now, some are going to say, leave the game as it is, football is a team game etc, shouldn't matter who scores as long as team wins.
Truth is, football today is increasingly individualistic, and mostly about money. Therefore, just accord the individual statistics fairly.
Now, some are going to say, leave the game as it is, football is a team game etc, shouldn't matter who scores as long as team wins.
Truth is, football today is increasingly individualistic, and mostly about money. Therefore, just accord the individual statistics fairly.
If a defender handles in the box, who takes the penalty?
The one who made the pass or shot before the defender handled it.
What if the defender handles after a pass from one of his teammates?
It's an inherently flawed idea.
The last player who touched from the other team.
For fouls for handball, in weird cases where it's not a play initiated by anyone on the opposition team, then the referee can decide to let the opposition team choose who take it.
It's not that complicated.
It's absurd, which is why it will never be introduced.
The player who is fouled has to go off injured. Who takes it?
The defender handles it. Who takes it?
If the player who is fouled has to take the pen, then why can anyone take a free kick?
It falls down at the slightest scrutiny.
Why is it absurd?
If player is really injured, then the team can nominate another to take it. But said injured player should not be allowed to join the field for at least 10 minutes. 4th official can easily do this. Otherwise, pick yourself up and take it.
Defender handles, the player who crossed/ passed or shot the ball takes it. If it's off a random richochet, team can nominate a taker.
I think it should be extended to direct free kicks around the area. Player who is fouled takes it.
It makes perfect logic to me actually. The person who was denied a shooting opportunity/ goal scoring opportunity gets the chance to take the kick or penalty.
So team will play with 10 players for 10 mins?
If player is injured, and just needs a min or two, then game can wait (in any case now we have to wait for the docs to come in).
If they need to be stretchered off, and needs real treatment, then they probably need 5-10mins anyway. If you choose to fake an injury to let better team-mate take the penalty then that is the price for your team.
If he is immediately injured substituted, then team can nominate.
I feel that this proposal will make it fairer for individual accolades, with the added benefit of reducing the value of teams playing intentional to get a penalty.
Right now, the benefit of getting a penalty is too big compared to the foul most of the time. You get the chance to nominate your best specialist kicker, even though he wasn't involved in that play, for a 80% chance of a goal. Very few impeded chances in the box are really worth 80% of a goal. Very commonly, a penalty is awarded for a foul near the touch line, a handball for blocking a cross, getting fouled while lining up to shoot.
Hopefully we will never ever see these being implemented.
It's absurd because every time a player is fouled for a pen he will feign injury and the designated penalty taker will take the penalty anyway rendering the entire thing redundant.
Last edited:
Nowadays players are compared by stats and a designated PK taker will have his goalscoring stats padded whether he is any good at it or not.
For the same reason why midfielders and attackers have their scoring stats analysed differently, players on penalty duty should be treated differently and comparing goals from open play is the best solution.
Of course scoring penalties is a skill but when comparing players we should look more at the conversion rate rather than simply adding the penalties to their goals.
For the same reason why midfielders and attackers have their scoring stats analysed differently, players on penalty duty should be treated differently and comparing goals from open play is the best solution.
Of course scoring penalties is a skill but when comparing players we should look more at the conversion rate rather than simply adding the penalties to their goals.
Also a good point. If a team's designated penalty taker scores 9 from 10 penalties in a season, that's good, but you've gotta assume that they must have other players who would have scored at least 7 or 8 of them.
A player who scores 10 poachers goals, though? You can't really say the same thing.
What are your reasons for disliking it?
Maybe you should read my post first before just saying it is absurd. As I mentioned, if player insists he is too injured to take a kick, then he has to be out for a period of time, say 10 mins, or substituted from play.
I have a question, when there are penalty shoot-outs, do the penalty-takers get an official international goal for the penalties successfully scored? I was always under the impression they weren't, but is that fair given that sometimes the pressure of a shoot-out is even more important to deal with than a penalty in the middle of the game?
I feel like everyone is focusing on the wrong thing here.
The whole argument between the open goal and penalty really goes down to this: would you rather have a player great at open goal scoring or great at penalties in your squad?
The answer must be the former, for most of the team. Because football is in open play all the time, and penalties occur once every X games.
For all the meaningless drivel espoused about how a penalty goal has the same impact as an open goal, it's not really what matters most in a football team's aspirations for glory.
The whole argument between the open goal and penalty really goes down to this: would you rather have a player great at open goal scoring or great at penalties in your squad?
The answer must be the former, for most of the team. Because football is in open play all the time, and penalties occur once every X games.
For all the meaningless drivel espoused about how a penalty goal has the same impact as an open goal, it's not really what matters most in a football team's aspirations for glory.
Goals scored on a shoot-out don't count for any kind of tally (team, player, etc) in any competition. And yes, I think it's fair, a boring 0-0 shouldn't stay on record as having 8 goals because it ended 5-3 in the shootouts.
It's just an after-game event to decide who wins/progresses. It's not really part of the game itself.
A goal is worth a goal.
Behond that, the difficulty of scoring the goal may have a effect on mentaly weak teams and players, but people talking about the process leading toa open-play goal need to remember that there was a process before the penalty was given.
A screamer from 20 meters is worth a goal. A tap in is worth a goal. A penalty is worth a goal.
I understand those that use penalty-taker to reduce total likely goals somewhat from a attacker when comparing to another non-penalty taking attacker, bar that it's just not worth a debate. Feelings vs facts.
Behond that, the difficulty of scoring the goal may have a effect on mentaly weak teams and players, but people talking about the process leading toa open-play goal need to remember that there was a process before the penalty was given.
A screamer from 20 meters is worth a goal. A tap in is worth a goal. A penalty is worth a goal.
I understand those that use penalty-taker to reduce total likely goals somewhat from a attacker when comparing to another non-penalty taking attacker, bar that it's just not worth a debate. Feelings vs facts.
As for the important of penalties in player's tallies, I really think they count far less and a player's total number of goals should be put into that context. It's an easily replaceable thing. Both Real Madrid and Barcelona would probably be better off if neither Ronaldo nor Messi took the penalties (particularly evident in the case of Messi). The other goals the score are theirs and uniquely irreplaceable, same thing can't be said of penalties, which for the vast vast majority of times would also be a goal even if the player wasn't there.
Jardel's "best" season in Portugal meant 42 goals scored the league (in only 30 games). But that number gains a different meaning when you know that 15 of them were from a penalty, an outrageously high number on it's own (being awarded so many in a season is simply an anomaly).
Jardel's "best" season in Portugal meant 42 goals scored the league (in only 30 games). But that number gains a different meaning when you know that 15 of them were from a penalty, an outrageously high number on it's own (being awarded so many in a season is simply an anomaly).
I read your post. If you need to implement a bunch of rules in order to make one work then it probably isn't a good idea.
You mean like the offside rule?
It's not even that. I always worry about a centre forward that doesn't fancy penalties. It's a weakness and the very best don't seem to have that weakness.
I'd understand Kane not talking penalties if Dier was truly their best penalty taker. But the best centre forwards should be great penalty takers. It's a free shot at goal. I'd expect Kane to be their best penalty taker inside a year. It's one of the most trainable skills for top forwards.
Andy Cole not being a penalty taker was a huge mark against him at the time when he was rivalling Shearer. Never once did I look at Shearers record and think 'Well if he was sh1t at penos like Andy they'd be closer". Cole should have got good at taking penalties.
Is it that simple though? Cantona was taking it for us at the time if I don't recall wrongly.
Was Cole bad at penalties though? Anyway got an idea?
Cantona was a phenomenal penalty taker, but Cole spent maybe 4 years at the club post-Eric and never became our penalty taker. He also played a bunch of years at various clubs and never took penalties there either. He's an oddity, but the most obvious one for me to use.
My principle point is that I don't inflate Cole for being great for being a bad penalty taker. Shearer, Henry, van Nistelrooy, Kane, Fowler etc all picked up the ball and got good at taking penalties. Cole didn't. In no way is that a positive attribute.
Anyone suggesting we treat penalties different may as well start suggesting we no longer count corners or free kicks as assists as the situation is also controlled. It's a daft viewpoint.
I think you are confusing the distinction between being good at taking penalties, and actually taking penalties. The former is a positive attribute, the latter is not necessary.
Your argument would be very sound if the best takers always took penalties. Reality is that is just not true. As someone pointed out, Barca and Real would be better off if Ronaldo and Messi didn't take penalties. Or I would go back to the argument that Neymar insisting on taking penalty kicks over a better Cavani (in terms of career %) does not mean Neymar is a better goalscorer than a non-penalty taking Neymar.
Corners/ free-kicks are not high % chances. To pad your assist by 5 a season for example, you'd maybe have to take 300-400 decent corners. To pad your goals by 5, maybe 50 decent free kicks.
Anyone that suggests that the best penalty taker in a team doesn't taken all of the important penalties is absolutely nuts.
Anyone who thinks football is like FIFA - just use highest rated penalty taker ... is deluded
I agree. (I also assume that that's a feature of FIFA)
Who said anything about FIFA though?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Hang on, are you the guy who argued for ten pages that Giggs wasn't a top player?
Last edited:
Now I remember. Are you the guy who was constantly bashed for unmeaningful contribution other than 1-liners?