Just from September. So many great goals.
DCL bullet header vs SPurs
Trossard vs Chelsea
James vs Brighton
West brom free kick vs Everton
Praet vs Burnley
Rashford vs Brighton
Mahrez vs Leicester
Maddison vs City
What's happened to spectacular goals?
- Thread starter vidic blood & sand
- Start date
Just from September. So many great goals.
DCL bullet header vs SPurs
Trossard vs Chelsea
James vs Brighton
West brom free kick vs Everton
Praet vs Burnley
Rashford vs Brighton
Mahrez vs Leicester
Maddison vs City
The only goals I can really think that aren't so common are the absolute rockets from 40 yards. You used to have Blackburn and Portsmouth players smashing them in. Then you have the Ronaldo one where he was told not to shoot.
Truth is we'd be furious if we saw our players trying it.
Truth is we'd be furious if we saw our players trying it.
Not quite, but almost right. This is one of those "everything used to be better in the pastThis is one of those "everything used to be better in the past" threads, where folks present their feelings as facts, right?
" threads, where folks present their feelings as feelings.This.
Before every breath was analysed players could just take chances as long as their manager / teammates were fine with it. Now they'll have a team of analysts on their back. One more reason to hate XG.
The lack of wonder goals is because of the lack of fans in the stadium in my opinion.
Wonder Goals are hardly planned within a team and can be a reliance on sudden instinct.
When I look at Rooney's Bycicle kick vs City - do I see Rooney being able to do that with no fans in the stadium? Very light ability in my eyes in comparison to the Rooney that does that with 76k people watching him.
It's the same with the other goals. The lack of stadium noise and eyes, consistently being able to hear your team mates and manager on the pitch rather than believing in making making the needed impact by relying on your own instincts and no one elses etc.
Wonder Goals are hardly planned within a team and can be a reliance on sudden instinct.
When I look at Rooney's Bycicle kick vs City - do I see Rooney being able to do that with no fans in the stadium? Very light ability in my eyes in comparison to the Rooney that does that with 76k people watching him.
It's the same with the other goals. The lack of stadium noise and eyes, consistently being able to hear your team mates and manager on the pitch rather than believing in making making the needed impact by relying on your own instincts and no one elses etc.
Last edited:
Collection from our treble winning season.
Patterns.
I liked lamelas goal, it’s the shock value and skill involved. For me though a screamer or the ‘best’ goals to see are from range and smacked hard with height on them, if they hit the crossbar before going in too, then
I certainly don’t think we see as many of these goals anymore, I know this was an anomaly but looks these goals just from one month
Without even opening the thread I knew someone is going to post Matt Taylor’s goals.
If its specifically long shots from 30-35+ yards out, my guess is teams are trained not to take these low percentage shots now.
If its specifically long shots from 30-35+ yards out, my guess is teams are trained not to take these low percentage shots now.
The reason is that long shots and crosses are very unlikely to result in goals and thus usually reflect poor decision making. And that is coached out of players these days.
Pogba against West Ham was a great goal.
The only time I see it as frustrating for one of our players to have a go from 35 yards is when they don't really have it in their locker, or if there's 10 minutes to go and we desperately need a goal.
I remember Ander Herrera used to keep having a pop from way out, and most times he was waaaaaay off.
I remember Ander Herrera used to keep having a pop from way out, and most times he was waaaaaay off.
Surprised no one's mentioned Kane's goal vs Palace a couple of weeks ago.
Yes, there's much fewer shots from outside the box than there was ten years ago.
I was messing around with something a while back, a very basic xG model for a bit of 'fun' I suppose. Someone else had made this model in the past and posted it on his football analytics blog. Rather than post numbers he just posted the method, wanting people who were interested to reproduce it as an introduction to the field of study.
If you go on whoscored they have data for six-yard box attempts, penalty box attempts, and outside the box attempts at goal. It was just using those without getting more specific. Of course not every shot in the box is the same as another but it treated it as such because it was just a very simple model. Whilst probably being the worst xG model out there it 'works' to some extent too and is better than nothing or relying on shot count only.
Anyway, yes there was that noticeable decline from shots outside the box. I looked at ten years of data starting in the past and the numbers were getting lower and lower as I moved closer to the current season. I was taking averages across three leagues, the Premier League, Serie A and La Liga and they all had the same pattern. From memory there was around a 2.9% chance of a shot from outside the box being a goal or 0.03 xG.
I don't think I have all the data and I'm not going to reproduce it all but will have a quick look on whoscored. 2009/10 there were 4880 attempts from outside the box in the Premier League, in 2019/20 we're down to 3300. La Liga 4281 down to 3294, Serie A 5050 to 4423, Bundesliga (fewer teams) 3991 to 3357.
Last edited:
I know you jest, but top teams now have more rigid systems and don't make too many low probability efforts at goal.
Pretty sure this is down to team's analysis departments using xG - the xG to score from a long range shot is very low and therefore teams have become more clever to stop it. Analysis is improving the quality of players but also making football a bit more sterile - IMO.
I remember Messi scoring an absolute screamer against PSG just a few weeks ago, but maybe we are only talking about the PL. I think maybe in general we've seen a huge decline in great strikers. Nearly all the great forwards and strikers are in their 30's now. There was a time we had Torres, Drogba, Rooney, Agüero, Ronaldo, Messi, Lewandowski, Zlatan, David Villa etc. all in their prime. Atm the striker best striker in his mid 20's seems to be Lukkaku. Apart from Haaland and Mpabbe we are a bit short on elite upcoming forwards.
Vidic blood and sand: Why we dont have 40 yards screamers?
Fred: Hold my beer..
Fred: Hold my beer..
I mean I just watched someone score a rabona goal the other day, not sure if that’s spectacular enough.
Long shot goals are still scored, but yes coaches probably try encourage players not to take them. I remember Pep’s Bayern never shooting from distance. It can be just as satisfying though seeing an amazing run of play with intricate passes and runs - footballs just changed a bit. Perhaps it is overcoached now but I’ve not noticed a huge drop in goal quality.
Long shot goals are still scored, but yes coaches probably try encourage players not to take them. I remember Pep’s Bayern never shooting from distance. It can be just as satisfying though seeing an amazing run of play with intricate passes and runs - footballs just changed a bit. Perhaps it is overcoached now but I’ve not noticed a huge drop in goal quality.
There's still a sprinkling of spectaculars, what you don't really seem to see any goals from these days is a striker sprinting through the centre and rounding the keeper.
So you see a similar dynamic in basketball, where inefficient midrange shot frequency has declined massively, and shots are predominantly taken at the rim (high probability of success) or from 3 pt range (high expected value). And similarly you have some basketball purists bemoaning the demise of the midrange game that in their eyes epitomized the beauty of the game years ago (think MJ's fadeaway).
But can you blame managers? The stakes have never been higher. And if the data says more pot shots will decrease your chances of winning, you'd be a fool to go otherwise. The fans may suffer but would they take more individualism and beauty in exchange for a smaller chance of winning? I doubt it.
One of two things happen here. Either the game adjusts and defenses get really good at defending shots closer to the box, making long distance sharpshooters extremely valuable. Or, maybe, goals from distance are worth twice that of a tap-in. Or ban clubs from hiring data analysts. Short any of those, this is how the game will continue to evolve. Refinement culture, or trying to optimize given the information we have.
Nowadays if that happened, something went horribly wrong. Keepers are quicker off their lines, defenses are better at springing the offside trap, defenders are quicker, strikers play deeper to facilitate wide forwards and link up play...
I've been told that players are now advised not to shoot with their laces as much and encouraged more to caress it with the side of their foot as it reduces injuries. It makes sense. I had the most powerful shot at every team I played for and also in my shool team, despite being average size. My doctor told me that my metatarsals were showing signs of wear and tear due to the fact I would just leather a football for hours each day.
I remember Rooney seemingly went from shooting with his laces to these pathetic side foot attempts with no power whatsoever. There is a reason behind it. Obviously there are occasions when hitting the ball with so much power straight on is required but I've noticed that it is much more uncommon than it used to be.
Having said that, there are many ways to score spectacular goals.
I remember Rooney seemingly went from shooting with his laces to these pathetic side foot attempts with no power whatsoever. There is a reason behind it. Obviously there are occasions when hitting the ball with so much power straight on is required but I've noticed that it is much more uncommon than it used to be.
Having said that, there are many ways to score spectacular goals.
Leicester with a handful of scorchers. That Muzzy Izzet one is just silly.
Interesting perspective there.
I just remember Rooney insisting on trying a stupid chip really often even though he probably scored about 1 in his whole career.
It was frustrating at times, especially in his later years with us, when he would do anything other than unleash an aggressive laced shot because we all know how disgracefully good he is at it. Having said all this, I'm biased as feck, because I love nothing more than seeing a ball hit so clean it knuckleballs with a slight wobble and zero spin.
It takes it's toll though if you do it alot. If they train not to do it then they will soon enough resist the urge to use such a technique.
Sometimes after I would shoot with everything I had, I would almost feel my tibia disjoin from my femur.
Top level players are definitely more thoughtful in their technique when striking the ball than the likes of me playing 5 a side against 43 year old plumbers.
I switched from football to running seriously mid to late 20s, and after that age I wouldn't have fancied leathering a ball full on as I'd expect my hamstring would have gone with it
This is very true and it's the direction every sport is going when more and better data becomes available.
You could even make an analogy to poker where solvers are now freely available. You'd be a fool not to use them to play as close to GTO (game theory optimal) as humanly possible. And the exact same discussion is happening there. There was a highly-publicised heads-up match (no limit holdem, 25,000 hands) between Daniel Negreanu (one of the most well-known live pros) and Doug Polk (online HU specialist and owner of a training site) which recently came to its conclusion. Polk won as expected but Negreanu did a lot better than many thought and was clearly using solver-approved ranges and lines as he would not stand a chance otherwise. Polk just has the best data team available behind him. When both players shared some insights into their preparation, many people and fellow players where shocked by the extent the game has become dominated by GTO and solvers. Polk himself said that he hates poker these days (he only plays these challenges for financial reasons as there is a lot of money to be made for him on the tables as well as with prob bets) as it's not about figuring out things yourself and outplaying your opponent anymore but rather who has the best solver data and is best at finding heuristics to help applying it at the tables. That's ignoring bots and real-time assistance which are not allowed. His outlook for online poker was pretty bleak.
Last edited:
Very fascinating. Stupid question: do poker players memorize these heuristics? I imagine they are prohibited from consulting a team or algorithm during a live game.
Side note: game theory is definitely something I want to learn at some point, especially under uncertainty. I imagine it's extremely valuable in business strategy. Soul destroying when applied to sport at all levels, of course.
On that basis I guess we should be scoring wonder goals every week.
Lamela's rabona against Arsenal last week was amazing. Son's goal against Burnley won the 2020 Puskas award.
Well the first thing you need is some sort of randomiser and both players admitted to using them. I'm not an expert on Hold'em (only play Pot Limit Omaha) but there are only 169 distinct starting hands so many hands are mixed strategies (e.g. A7 suited could be a raise 64% of the time, a call 25% of the time and a fold 11% of the time in a particular spot). Mixed strategies can also happen in PLO but are
a) not really relevant as nobody is going to exploit you if you play one of the 16,432 possible hands a certain way in a certain spot and
b) often the result of solver output which hasn't fully converged.
Computing power is still an issue with a game as large as PLO. I have rented a server with 512 RAM in the past and even then you work with abstractions ("strength buckets") and simplified postflop lines (e.g. only allowing one or two bet sizings). Though once you have solid preflop ranges (preflop converges relatively quickly) you can set up postflop scenarios using these ranges and run them with mainstream hardware. But heads-up NL Hold'em which is what they were playing is solved for all practical purposes.
Strength buckets bring us to heuristics. A practical example from PLO: You hold AKKx with the ace of spades and get called by a player in position. Flop comes down Kxx with two spades giving you top set and a blocker to the nut flush draw. You check (the out of position player checks almost their entire range here as K high boards are much more favourable to the preflop caller), your opponent bets and you have to decide whether to raise or just call. From playing around with solvers I have found top set with the nut flush draw blocker virtually never raises here and always calls as raising sacrifices the value of your blocker which you want to use on future streets to potentially turn your hand into a bluff if another spade rolls off. This is my reading of the solver output of course. The solution doesn't come with explanations, it is merely the result of iterating through the game tree millions of times and see which strategy yields the highest EV. On the other hand loads of other KK combinations want to raise here and get as much money in as possible. Including top set with say a 9-high flush draw as the value of calling these mediocre draws out of position is marginal. These sort of heuristics can be studied (there is training software now as well which can process the raw data and make it visually appealing and comprehendable for humans) but it takes a lot of effort and anyone trying to get into the game at this point really has to be willing to grind a lot of hours. Don't think it's worth it and it's not getting better. Any type of live assistance is prohibited of course but there have been bots for as long as there's been online poker and the only thing that stands in the way of true GTO bots is the availability of sufficient computing power imho.
Don't know how well versed you are in poker. Hope that wasn't too confusing.
Last edited:
I remember when Hernandez scored by blasting the ball up in his own face. And Ronaldo scoring with his cock.
I'd say the bigger overall issue is the move towards collective tactical movements are starting to choke the flair and style out of the sport. We are firmly in an era of physical, fast pressing football. Guys like Neymar, with old fashioned Samba style, aren't really excelling at the top levels like they used to. Even Messi and Ronaldo have turned the game into statfests where absolute "on paper" productivity is more important than Ronaldinho style back passes and balancing the ball on your earlobe or whatever.
This actually makes everything make a lot of senseWell the first thing you need is some sort of randomiser and both players admitted to using them. I'm not an expert on Hold'em (only play Pot Limit Omaha) but there are only 169 distinct starting hands so many hands are mixed strategies (e.g. A7 suited could be a raise 64% of the time, a call 25% of the time and a fold 11% of the time in a particular spot). Mixed strategies can also happen in PLO but are
a) not really relevant as nobody is going to exploit you if you play one of the 16,432 possible hands a certain way in a certain spot and
b) often the result of solver output which hasn't fully converged.
Computing power is still an issue with a game as large as PLO. I have rented a server with 512 RAM in the past and even then you work with abstractions ("strength buckets") and simplified postflop lines (e.g. only allowing one or two bet sizings). Though once you have solid preflop ranges (preflop converges relatively quickly) you can set up postflop scenarios using these ranges and run them with mainstream hardware. But heads-up NL Hold'em which is what they were playing is solved for all practical purposes.
Strength buckets bring us to heuristics. A practical example from PLO: You hold AKKx with the ace of spades and get called by a player in position. Flop comes down Kxx with two spades giving you top set and a blocker to the nut flush draw. You check (the out of position player checks almost their entire range here as K high boards are much more favourable to the preflop caller), your opponent bets and you have to decide whether to raise or just call. From playing around with solvers I have found top set with the nut flush draw blocker virtually never raises here and always calls as raising sacrifices the value of your blocker which you want to use on future streets to potentially turn your hand into a bluff if another spade rolls off. This is my reading of the solver output of course. The solution doesn't come with explanations, it is merely the result of iterating through the game tree millions of times and see which strategy yields the highest EV. On the other hand loads of other KK combinations want to raise here and get as much money in as possible. Including top set with say a 9-high flush draw as the value of calling these mediocre draws out of position is marginal. These sort of heuristics can be studied (there is training software now as well which can process the raw data and make it visually appealing and comprehendable for humans) but it takes a lot of effort and anyone trying to get into the game at this point really has to be willing to grind a lot of hours. Don't think it's worth it and it's not getting better. Any type of live assistance is prohibited of course but there have been bots for as long as there's been online poker and the only thing that stands in the way of true GTO bots is the availability of sufficient computing power imho.
Don't know how well versed you are in poker. Hope that wasn't too confusing.
I'm sure there are people who've used this info to make a killing off of whales that play at Macau and Vegas.
Someone probably asked that question already but were there that common in the past or are we compiling decades of spectacular goals and comparing that time frame with one or two seasons?
a mate of mine used a solver to solve short stack NLHE, he developed a program that basically read the hand on the screen and then posted a chart with GTO ranges on the screen so you could quickly make a perfect (shove/fold) decision
he made it like that so it didn't break any of the PokerStars rules
he then had a stable of guys using it who paid him 20% of profit, they all played short stack NLHE and didn't need to know anything about the game to make about ~$100k a year from it.
PokerStars eventually found out who he was and approached him, and asked to see his program promising they wouldn't expose him or detail how he did it. They said they just wanted to double check he wasn't breaking any rules. Anyway, they lied. Posted all about it on 2+2, and changed their rules to make it definitely against the T&Cs. They eventually bought the software from him and hired him, so he did alright out of it.
anyway back on topic