Following on from a discussion in the Lewandowski thread and to avoid derailing it further....
What are YOUR thoughts on the subject?
What are YOUR thoughts on the subject?
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's the point that is being made exactly? That penalties are 'worth' less because they're assumed to be easier than goals from open play?
What about other dead ball scenarios - free-kicks, indirect fks in the box? They may be harder to score but still are an uninhibited attempt at goal.
If it's a comparison of value and fairness, I've got no qualms with how it is now. Penalties work well enough into the match flow for me. That said, I'd be open to varying degrees of penalties- same one for taking down a player versus only the keeper but then maybe something different from where the foul occurs if it is on the edge of the box, unlikely that the player scores from there.
As for talk comparing against tap-ins - poppycock. Pedantics.
What about other dead ball scenarios - free-kicks, indirect fks in the box? They may be harder to score but still are an uninhibited attempt at goal.
If it's a comparison of value and fairness, I've got no qualms with how it is now. Penalties work well enough into the match flow for me. That said, I'd be open to varying degrees of penalties- same one for taking down a player versus only the keeper but then maybe something different from where the foul occurs if it is on the edge of the box, unlikely that the player scores from there.
As for talk comparing against tap-ins - poppycock. Pedantics.
The point is that some people, myself included, don't put the same value into scoring a penalty, as scoring from open play. Others evidently feel that there is no difference between the two.
Its a silly debate. I get the point that people are making about penalties but of course they're "worth" the same as a goal from open play - a penalty that wins a team the game still gets awarded 3 points!!
Penalties are obviously worth less than a regular goal, and less than a tap in I would say - if you're getting into the debate of the quality of someones goal-scoring potency. Nevertheless if it is a debate about great players and both can clearly do damage in open play yet one happens to have more goals from penalties, then I think it can be devalued to an extent which is unfair, as penalty taking is an art in of itself. However to say a penalty is just as good a goal in open play in terms of difficult stakes, would definitely disagree (despite being a shite pen taker myself).
Imagine if you saw a hat-trick, where someone has scored three decent goals in open play and then the opponent had a striker who scored three pens but did nothing else in open play. Who would have the better hat trick? quite clearly it would be the guy who scored in open play.
As for a tap-in hat trick, someone like Inzaghi and Linekar were famous for that type of stuff and whilst they're renowned as 'poachers' they aren't rated as highly as say a Batigol. So the way you get your goals is important. That said a poacher is still very much respected, whereas if someone was purely just scoring from pens and unable to do damage from open play, they'd probably get dropped as the 'art' of taking a penalty is less easier to replace than the 'art' of poaching.
Most players could score a pen at the highest level, whereas most players are not consistent poachers in front of goal.
Imagine if you saw a hat-trick, where someone has scored three decent goals in open play and then the opponent had a striker who scored three pens but did nothing else in open play. Who would have the better hat trick? quite clearly it would be the guy who scored in open play.
As for a tap-in hat trick, someone like Inzaghi and Linekar were famous for that type of stuff and whilst they're renowned as 'poachers' they aren't rated as highly as say a Batigol. So the way you get your goals is important. That said a poacher is still very much respected, whereas if someone was purely just scoring from pens and unable to do damage from open play, they'd probably get dropped as the 'art' of taking a penalty is less easier to replace than the 'art' of poaching.
Most players could score a pen at the highest level, whereas most players are not consistent poachers in front of goal.
I guess the being made is that penalties are less of an achievement than goals from open play. I can see the logic in that. Comparing it to tap-ins is difficult, as every tap-in has its own story with so many variables in terms of defenders, distance traveled by the scorer, his body position when shooting, the pace and trajectory of the assist, etc. The physical circumstances of a penalty are always virtually identical. There's loads of space and time, no pressure from defenders and the player has the optimal body position to score, unless he completely botches his run-up. The big variable is the mental pressure of course, but the kick itself is almost trivial for a professional footballer. Having a very good penalty taker on your team is valuable, but not nearly as valuable as having a very good open play goalscorer in your team, in general.
Not really what we're discussing. Say two players tie for top scorer in the league on 30 goals each. One of those players scored all of his from open play, while the other scored 10 of his from the spot. I'd view the guy who scored all 30 from open play as having the better achievement.
Takes a cool customer to score a penalty in front of tens of thousands of people with millions more at home and all your teammates watching on. Some strikers make it look easy but I bet they'd much prefer a normal scoring chance with little time to think and more reliant on instinct.
Only thing I can compare it to personally (as I was never involved in a penalty shootout playing footie and only took penos without pressure) is being 4-4 in a pub pool league and down to the black ball to win it 5-4 for the team. Even the easiest shot seems to become difficult and I've missed a few over the years I'd ordinarily hammer in 99% of the time.
I admire penalty takers that consistently step up and put them away, especially in big games when it's all square or they're behind. Goalies have it easy as they're expected to concede and heroes when they save, but the taker is expected to score and a villain if he doesn't. I'm not one of them that besmirches penalties in a strikers goals per season stats, they ain't as easy as some people make them out to be and some players just don't have the guts at all to take them when their position would dictate they'd be first choice.
Or like Micheal Owen, absolutely shite at them.
Only thing I can compare it to personally (as I was never involved in a penalty shootout playing footie and only took penos without pressure) is being 4-4 in a pub pool league and down to the black ball to win it 5-4 for the team. Even the easiest shot seems to become difficult and I've missed a few over the years I'd ordinarily hammer in 99% of the time.
I admire penalty takers that consistently step up and put them away, especially in big games when it's all square or they're behind. Goalies have it easy as they're expected to concede and heroes when they save, but the taker is expected to score and a villain if he doesn't. I'm not one of them that besmirches penalties in a strikers goals per season stats, they ain't as easy as some people make them out to be and some players just don't have the guts at all to take them when their position would dictate they'd be first choice.
Or like Micheal Owen, absolutely shite at them.
There's a reason players who don't take penalties don't take penalties. It's a skill, more mental than technical, that not all players have.
A tap-in is probably easier to score than a pen I reckon.
To say different goals are worth more than others is the kind of thing fans over at rawk say to make themselves look better and I follow a general rule of thumb: if it sounds like rawk, it's stupid.
But a player can only score the tap in by making the right movement, being in the right place etc. And not all tap ins are equal, some are piss easy and in some the player has genuinely been quite clever to position himself correctly for the chance. Penalties aren't regarded as being "as good" as a goal from open play because they are free, clear cut chances where the chance doesn't have to be created in any way. They're also pretty rare - given that the vast majority of goals will be scored from open play it's better to be able to score from open play than to be able to score from a penalty.
I think the point is missed out here. No one is saying Penalty goal is not worth same as open play goal. If we are comparing 2 players on goals scored then the player who scored say 15 goals from open play is better goal scorer than player who scored same number of goals but with few penalties.
That's not true though. It's double standards to view open play goals as a product of movements and decisions from several players but not give the same treatment to the penalty. It deserves it. A penalty is given when a goal-scoring opportunity in the box is denied unlawfully. You can't just disregard everything that lead to the penalty if you're not going to do the same with every goal.
When assessing a player I think it is only logcial to exclude penalties. Teams usually have a couple of players who are good at them, so it's a pretty redundant skill and no one is going to field an inferior player because he is great at penalties.
I am guessing that one of the reasons to separate, not discount, goals from penalties is to get an accurate comparison.
For instance, you could compare two prospective strikers, or as with many forums, two past strikers.
So, perhaps incorrectly ( I have not looked into it), at one point people were posting that Andy Cole had nearly as many Premier League goals as Alan Shearer once penalties were stripped out. Equally, it may be useful to compare two future strikers goals, and to strip out penalties to get an accurate comparison. You can then see how many goals they score from open play, be they Cristian Ronaldo/Henry goals or tap-ins. That is the difference they bring as a striker/centre forward (I am aware that C Ronaldo often played nominally on the wing).
There is usually another player in the team who has a decent, if not world class, penalty record. So IMO strikers record of goals from open play are usually the most important statistic.
Of course, if a particular player has a better than average record when compared to other competent penalty takers, then that is important. Often though, it is the main striker who takes penalties so they can go for goal records.
For instance, you could compare two prospective strikers, or as with many forums, two past strikers.
So, perhaps incorrectly ( I have not looked into it), at one point people were posting that Andy Cole had nearly as many Premier League goals as Alan Shearer once penalties were stripped out. Equally, it may be useful to compare two future strikers goals, and to strip out penalties to get an accurate comparison. You can then see how many goals they score from open play, be they Cristian Ronaldo/Henry goals or tap-ins. That is the difference they bring as a striker/centre forward (I am aware that C Ronaldo often played nominally on the wing).
There is usually another player in the team who has a decent, if not world class, penalty record. So IMO strikers record of goals from open play are usually the most important statistic.
Of course, if a particular player has a better than average record when compared to other competent penalty takers, then that is important. Often though, it is the main striker who takes penalties so they can go for goal records.
Obviously penalties and goals from open play are "worth" the same. A goal is a goal no matter how it was scored.
That being said I think it's quite clear that penalties are easier than almost all goals scored from open play (the easiest being when you round the keeper and the net is wide open). With penalties, there's no off-the-ball movement to worry about or those pesky cretins called defenders.
That being said I think it's quite clear that penalties are easier than almost all goals scored from open play (the easiest being when you round the keeper and the net is wide open). With penalties, there's no off-the-ball movement to worry about or those pesky cretins called defenders.
Last edited:
How often is a penalty actually given because a clear goal scoring chance is denied? I'd argue that most of the time that isn't what happens. A goal scoring chance COULD happen but a foul is made, that's more common imo. And then there are plenty of penalties given where there isn't even much danger at all. Plus the fact that the player who wins the penalty often isn't the one who takes it, and the fact that winning a penalty is often more dumb luck than skill. Scoring goals is the hardest thing to do in football - taking penalties isn't.
When having an argument about penalties scored by a player. If you are comparing two players and their goalscoring exploits then you need to take away the extra penalties that one has taken and scored. Because if one has taken more then their goal tally will be inflated in comparison.
It's not about the goals worth to the team but the players own contribution to the goal and performance level.
A player who scores a scores three goals beating multiple defenders and doing it pretty much all on his own naturally deserves much more credit than someone who scores three goals from tap ins after someone else has done said individual brilliance in the buildup.
It's a perfectly logical and legitimate argument.
Shearer had 56 penalties (I believe 10 in one season and in 4 seasons penalties accounted for over 40% of his goals)
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11678/2373904/shearer-makes-others-pay-the-penalty
I think excluding penalties it would be 204 to Shearer and 186 to Cole
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/feb/01/1
What does the tap-in tell you about the quality of a player? If John Stone and Romelu Lukaku switched positions on the field (providence forbid!), Stones would likely score more tap-ins. Part of the reason Lukaku scores more, is that he is chosen to play forward. Part of the reason he is chosen to play forward, though, is that he is better than Stones at getting into tap-in positions.
Likewise with penalties. Kane will get more penalty goals than Lukaku this year (likely) on account of him being chosen to take them, while Lukaku for now is not. He's chosen, though, because he is better at scoring them. To get to be the prime PK taker, you have to A) be considered regularly best in your position in your team, and B) considered the best scorer of penalties among the 10-14 most regular starters at least. As a premium for this you get about 3-7 very good goal scoring opportunities extra each year.
Likewise with penalties. Kane will get more penalty goals than Lukaku this year (likely) on account of him being chosen to take them, while Lukaku for now is not. He's chosen, though, because he is better at scoring them. To get to be the prime PK taker, you have to A) be considered regularly best in your position in your team, and B) considered the best scorer of penalties among the 10-14 most regular starters at least. As a premium for this you get about 3-7 very good goal scoring opportunities extra each year.
Penalties cannot be frowned upon. If someone is scoring a lot of penalties, then his team is likely doing something right by winning the penalties in the first place. This is one of my main problems with people trying to dismiss pens. It's not like a player just puts the ball on the spot and takes a pen whenever he pleases... him or his team mate have to win the pen first. Then if someone is considered unreliable from the spot, there is a chance that he would no longer be the main penalty taker.
A goal is a goal. I could careless where its scored from. Goal scoring from any distance is never as easy as many imagine that us why those who put it in the net regularly from live or dead ball play are valued so highly.
Penalties are scored 75-80% of the time. Thus, they are relatively very easy chances, easier than some tap-ins even.
Someone who gets half their goals from the simplest chances (highest xG) is clearly less valuable than someone who can score difficult chances.
Someone who gets half their goals from the simplest chances (highest xG) is clearly less valuable than someone who can score difficult chances.
Is anyone saying penalty goals are worth less to the teams? I think argument started was for something else and some of the posts are talking about completely different things.
but obviously a goal scored from a penalty by a left footer is even better because its easier for keepers to save
Who cares, there are too many variables to discuss, I've read things like 'it's an uninhibited shot at goal', 'some tap-ins are also inhibited though and closer and therefore easier to score', 'doesn't take in to account if a player won the penalty', 'there's more pressure on a player when taking a penalty then other chances/shots at goal'.
All very valid points, all things that are totally impossible to weigh up and put numeric value figures on, so we might as well just keep things simple and count them towards total goal tallies. They are goals, after all. Otherwise we might as well go back through every single goal a player has scored when we are discussing their goals total and ability to put the ball in the net and check they haven't scored any that have deflected in off their ass, 'cos you know, that wouldn't count...
All very valid points, all things that are totally impossible to weigh up and put numeric value figures on, so we might as well just keep things simple and count them towards total goal tallies. They are goals, after all. Otherwise we might as well go back through every single goal a player has scored when we are discussing their goals total and ability to put the ball in the net and check they haven't scored any that have deflected in off their ass, 'cos you know, that wouldn't count...
I see what you are saying. But it's not as simple as saying Ronaldo is the penalty taker because he is the best in Real Madrid. There are many factors, including seniority, team politics, or simply favoritism by the coach.
When making a comparison between two players' goal scoring prowess (I assume this is usually what this is for), than of course it is logical to strip out penalties and compare like-for-like.
Now, if you are comparing two players' ability to score goals outside the box, then of course you strip out tap-ins etc
Anyone who thinks penalties should be included when comparing a penalty-taker vs a non-taker needs to attend some basic science class.
Now, if you are comparing two players' ability to score goals outside the box, then of course you strip out tap-ins etc
Anyone who thinks penalties should be included when comparing a penalty-taker vs a non-taker needs to attend some basic science class.
In terms of team effort , penalty is even harder as it takes more time compared to a single attack and many times a clear goal chance has been denied by a foul leading to a penalty and not always the penalty is actually a better chance , because more or less the keeper has time to prepare
This retardation dragged on for this long? A goal is a goal.
Goals are goals. Do you reckon Frank Lampard is bothered that a lot of his goals were deflections and penalties? Does he look at his name above Bobby Tamblin in the all-time Chelsea goal scorers list and feels like he cheated the poor bloke?
At the end of the day, those goals saw him help Chelsea to 3 premier league titles, 4 FA cups and the champions league.
At the end of the day, those goals saw him help Chelsea to 3 premier league titles, 4 FA cups and the champions league.
I have always thought that the person who won the penalty should be the one who has to take it.
You’re right. T’others are wrong.
That's the point - it's not a reflection on the player. However, if it were like the NBA and the player who is fouled had to take the pen and no one else, that'd be interesting.
Agreed. That was my argument, more or less.
Because this thread is not about what you (and 50% of other posters) thought about. It's not about the value of a penalty goal in the game, it's about evaluating player's performance, and whenever a player, who scored 30 open play goals in 30 games and a player, who scored 20 open play goals and 10 penalties in 30 games are equally threatening goalscorers.
Congratulations on not reading the thread. No one has argued anything to the contrary.
At the risk of inflaming the "anti-Americanization" crowd, maybe there should be a quality factor attached to each kind of goal.
0.5 for penalties, 0.75 for tap ins, 1 for good curlers, 1.25 for screamers from outside the box, 1.5 for volleys, 1.75 for goals scored after nutmegging 5 players...
Weight each goal by the quality factor and you come up with an adjusted goal total (AGT™©®, all rights reserved). So maybe Vardy scored 5 more goals than Martial, but his AGT total is half that of Martial's, indicating that he is a scorer of more shit goals...
0.5 for penalties, 0.75 for tap ins, 1 for good curlers, 1.25 for screamers from outside the box, 1.5 for volleys, 1.75 for goals scored after nutmegging 5 players...
Weight each goal by the quality factor and you come up with an adjusted goal total (AGT™©®, all rights reserved). So maybe Vardy scored 5 more goals than Martial, but his AGT total is half that of Martial's, indicating that he is a scorer of more shit goals...