Community Shield, lol. I rest my caseWe beat Liverpool in the community shield and league cup on penalties. All I did was google the answer, not hard to do, and not quite sure why you find it so difficult to accept facts, there is no denying we've been good at penalty shoot outs in recent years, take a look for yourself if you must.
This was the first result on google:
The comparison is completely apples/oranges. Sterling's figures are boosted by the number of tap-ins he gets. Now he deserves credit for his movement and getting into those positions but if you exclude those (the same way as you excluded penalties), his stats become immeasurably worse. I am not sure what question you are trying to answer, but arguing that Sterling is a more clinical finisher than Kane is worse than a dead-end1. I understand where you're coming from, but it wasn't the question I was answering. If I'm assessing Ederson's ability as a shot stopper, then his ability to kick the ball 100 yards is irrelevant. I was replying to a post suggesting that we had poor finishers at City, and my main point is that the differences, even with the players we were looking to buy were minimal.
2. Compared with Kane and Ronaldo, Sterling still comes out as the most clinical finisher with or without penalties.
3. We have other players who have a penalty record similar to Kane/Ronaldo, so it's not a huge loss. If we had Ronaldo taking penalties instead of De Bruyne/Gundogan, then he would score on average one extra penalty every four years.
4. Have a look at the maths again. Ronaldo, takes almost 9 shots before he scores a goal. City's "poor" penalty record over the same period was scoring 2 goals for every 3 shots (1.5 shots per goal). It's a different order of magnitude. That's why it skews the stats - particularly Ronaldos, because he takes pretty much every penalty.
The simple conclusion is that the magic "number 9" doesn't exist. The gain would be marginal at best, and too many people are looking at single missed chances in big games and thinking "Kane would have scored", when the truth is that even the best miss much more than they score.
How are you comparing all of the technical ability that goes into "scoring a tap-in" with a dead ball situation from 12yrds with just the keeper to beat.The comparison is completely apples/oranges. Sterling's figures are boosted by the number of tap-ins he gets. Now he deserves credit for his movement and getting into those positions but if you exclude those (the same way as you excluded penalties), his stats become immeasurably worse. I am not sure what question you are trying to answer, but arguing that Sterling is a more clinical finisher than Kane is worse than a dead-end
While they break Twitter and Insta records, we are breaking records on the pitch. They can have their Twitter and Instagram Glory. We talk on the pitch.
Understat doesn't consider the location of other players when shot is taken, which is an important feature while training any xG model. Use the data from fbref.No stat is perfect, but surely the best available to judge the finishing ability of strikers is xG. It takes into account the difficulty of each shot, which pure shots v goals doesn't. Using all the data available at Understat.com (only league games since about 2014) Kane is streets ahead of Sterling, Ronaldo, and even Aguero.
Kane: xG = 139, Goals = 163, 17% higher than average for the same difficulty of shots
Sterling: xG = 92, Goals = 86, 7% lower than average
Ronaldo: xG = 210, Goals = 215, 2% higher than average
Aguero: xG = 126, Goals = 132, 5% higher than average
Torres: xG = 13.7, Goals = 15, 10% higher than average - very small sample size, so this one should be taken with a pinch of salt
There have been some fucking awful posts on this thread in the last few weeks. This one is top of the pile. Twitter and Instagram champions? Get to fuck.
Don't have an account?Register now!