Match Thread Aberdeen 1 - 0 Kilmarnock

[afc1903mad]

3 hours ago, redone said:

Don’t think it’s fair to say he chose the wrong option , as the one he took should still have resulted in him scoring , and minimised the risk of the chance being lost by , for instance , a heavy second touch or one of the defenders getting back to impede him.

 

 

Never min.

with his pace and the space behind him from an advancing keeper he should have rounded Rodgers.

The defenders were never getting back to impede Wright.

You say he might have had a heavy touch, well his shot was heavy, resulting in the miss

Rogers coming out narrowed the angle, he did well in that respect (Rogers), meaning he was increasingly blocking the goal. Wright could have increased his chances by opening up the goal again by going down the side of Rodgers

[Tord31]

how many goalies were there?

[Redmist1903]

3 hours ago, redone said:

Don’t think it’s fair to say he chose the wrong option , as the one he took should still have resulted in him scoring , and minimised the risk of the chance being lost by , for instance , a heavy second touch or one of the defenders getting back to impede him.

 

 

He took the right option, just didn't quite execute. Very similar to the goal he scored against Livi, no one was complaining about the wrong option then. He shoulda scored but hey ho it never cost us this time and it's pleasing to see an attacking midfielder actually get into a position like that and threaten which wouldn't have happened last season.

[Simply Red]

Love the forensic dissection of Wright’s miss and what he shouldve done to score it. Keyboard Ronaldinho’s

[Simply Red]

4 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

And we love your cynicism, your insults, your non-contribution and your self-styled sense of superiority.

Just fuck off somewhere else eh.

Oh the irony. 

[afc1903mad]

47 minutes ago, Redmist1903 said:

He took the right option, just didn't quite execute. Very similar to the goal he scored against Livi, no one was complaining about the wrong option then. He shoulda scored but hey ho it never cost us this time and it's pleasing to see an attacking midfielder actually get into a position like that and threaten which wouldn't have happened last season.

Quite similar but with distinct differences.

The Livingston’s keeper McRorie had not advanced as far and as quickly off his line like Rogers had.

The livi goal was more central and was being closed down closer by the defenders.

It would not have been the correct decision in the Livi game to try and go round the keeper

[afc1903mad]

1 hour ago, Tord31 said:

how many goalies were there?

Depends how many pints you’ve had ?

[muttonhumper]

4 hours ago, afc1903mad said:

Depends how many pints you’ve had ?

Or if Goram had been in goal.

[maryhilldon]

8 hours ago, strachanmcgheegoal said:

Actually think Wright second guessed himself.  I’ll give him credit for beating the keeper.  

? He missed the goal though?  How is that beating the keeper? 

[strachanmcgheegoal]

7 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

 

If I come across a thread of a subject I don't care about, I wouldn't slag others who do.

You might want to give the Coronavirus thread a miss then!

[strachanmcgheegoal]

I mean if slagging others opinions bothers you...

it wasnt a go at you FFS.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

Hoping the above is genuine, and on that basis...

"^^^ this" was to indicate that I agreed with the poster above's view (cant even remember who it was if that helps your suspicion re protecting someone).  He wrote (having checked back) that Wright should have scored, he didnt, we shouldnt lose sleep over it and we should move on, all of which I whole heartedly agreed with, hence "^^^this"

And to clarify re "he should have scored" my interpretation is that I would like to think that given the opportunity a number of times, that he would score in the majority of those times.  I don't expect him to score every time else he wouldn't be with us.  I dont expect him to not score the majority of the chances presented either in so far as if that was the case over an extended period that I do feel we could do better.

Hope that helps.

Oh, and yes "^^^this" is dangerous given posting times and rate, but I keep making a cunt of the quote function and for the life of me I still cant do multi quotes. 

 

[RUL]

Whether it was a sitter or not, all a fine change from those games in January wondering if we'd ever create a chance again.

[strachanmcgheegoal]

34 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

 

 

You will forgive us for thinking that you were supporting his view in his first two lines also, particularly when nobody on the whole thread (other than RUL, stude having backed down/removed himself from the equation) was stupid enough to argue with the obvious, his third line. His was an attempt to shut down debate and you also completely missed his "you cunts ever kicked a ball?", which you might have seen as inflammatory, as well as a disgusting self-aggrandisement.

You "checked back" and you "can't even remember who"? You also parroted his "move on". No worries. Thanks for clarifying. 

So the first line identifies that he is referring to the lengthy "should Wright have scored the sitter" debate.  Nothing more, certainly no view to support there. 

His second line simply identifies that he is writing it from the perspective of someone who feels he knows football.  Given that some (dont care who) proclaim that Wright should have scored, period, and seem to think that if/when he didn't he should be taken round the back and shot allows me to identify with being closer to the original writer's view.  And can I just clarify here that I am someone who was monumentally shite at football and who would have then and now given an arm to be "a cunt who's kicked a ba."  But 40 years at Pittodrie tells me that if Wright netted every time in that position then Wright wouldn't be at Pittodrie.  Period.  Thats the perspective I took it from.

And I stand by, and in particular agree with his last line.  Apologies if I should have made that clearer to improve your understanding.  He should have scored (important game settler, one of very few chances to do so off a fantastic through ball) but he didn't, we move on.

I checked back what the writer said to be as informed as possible in my response to you.  I apologise for not confirming that in particular it was the third element that I agreed with.  I couldn't give a monkeys arse who wrote it other than a cursory check that it was not someone who I thought was deliberately steering, splitting, diverting or extending a pointless debate.  Something that regrettably is all too common on this forum at the moment.

        

[Big Hat Logan]

1 hour ago, rocket_scientist said:

Good point... but hud on: -

Have you changed your tune?

Totally no problem if you have but when you were so quick to jump in, it wasn't a question of whether or not it was even a sitter for you, it was a "total" sitter.

What made you change your mind?

Did you get banned from here or did you flounce off in a hissy fit? I’m thinking the latter, given your “performance” over the last few pages.

[RUL]

10 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

Good point... but hud on: -

Have you changed your tune?

Totally no problem if you have but when you were so quick to jump in, it wasn't a question of whether or not it was even a sitter for you, it was a "total" sitter.

What made you change your mind?

I haven't. 

[redone]

9 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

No apologies required min. Chill and relax. You're a good cunt. 

A reprieve for smg......Shades of Hannibal Lecter taking a shine to Clarissa Starling

[ollie1903]

1 hour ago, redone said:

A reprieve for smg......Shades of Hannibal Lecter taking a shine to Clarissa Starling

Clarice.....

[redone]

8 hours ago, ollie1903 said:

Clarice.....

Cheers min !.... I was thinking when I posted it that Clarissa didn’t sound right but I couldn’t be arsed looking up the right name.

[Dynamo]

6 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

Since I asked you the question, I've watched that incident more than a dozen times. It's actually a worse miss than I originally thought although I wouldn't call it a sitter, whatever definition we agree to put on what a sitter is 

I was thinking it was a 55% or 60% chance of scoring but on further review, it should be a minimum 62.5% - 5 out of 8 - and I would say it should've been as much as a 75% chance of scoring for a good Aberdeen footballer.

Look up the xG and you'll find out what the Data Analysts put for the chances of converting the goal. 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

I can’t believe the amount of debate & posts, over a chance missed in a game we won 4 days ago 

[RUL]

29 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

Look up the xG and you'll find out what the Data Analysts put for the chances of converting the goal. 

Where do you get information like that?

[pocrawred]

35 minutes ago, WesthillWanderersFC said:

I can’t believe the amount of debate & posts, over a chance missed in a game we won 4 days ago 

Im glad we won but I had Aberdeen -1 and part of an acca! The tv got a shoutin at tho!! 

[WesthillWanderersFC]

24 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Did it offend you?

Nothing that faceless, anonymous people that I’ll never meet on a forum offends me.

 

[dazzy_deff]

39 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

Not sure I understand you. Let me ask another;

What was your objective with your first post? Why did you express disbelief that many were discussing an aspect of football arising in that game?

Probably because 4 days on it's a bit boring now.

[dazzy_deff]

Just now, rocket_scientist said:

Did it occur to you that it might not be boring to the many who were commenting?

Or do you object to posting that YOU find boring, posts that nobody has forced you to read?

Doesnt bother me one way or another - just answering why WW may be querying why its still under discussion. Post ahead - and dont be getting upset at posts that nobody has forced you to read ?

[dazzy_deff]

Just now, rocket_scientist said:

Did you understand my point though?

And do you know WW personally?

Negative

Negative

[dazzy_deff]

Just now, rocket_scientist said:

You found it "a bit boring" and you felt the need to express this.

This reminds me of the culture in Scottish schools and a major contributor why most Scottish people are losers. It's not as big a contributor as having very thick parents of course, or being brought up by a single mother who's stressed and struggling to put food on the table but it's a contributor nevertheless.

Public forum min. If you don't want feedback to your posts, aim them via direct message going forward. 

[dazzy_deff]

2 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

It's nothing to do with feedback and it's more than obvious that the forum is public.

The issue is that some people - you two in this instance - revealed something about yourselves without even knowing what and why.

Sound min.

[Dynamo]

3 hours ago, RUL said:

Where do you get information like that?

I've just had a look and can't see anything yet, but there's usually a few twitter accounts that post it. Modern Fitba I think is one.

3 hours ago, rocket_scientist said:

I didn't know that they did this in football but this is where I think it's impure. In some sports, it's black and white. In football, it needs a human judgement. One man's 62.5% is another man's 77.5%. It's more subjective than factual. The quality of the goalkeeper also makes a huge difference.

Scott Wright might have been rated 70% by the analysts for that chance but if it was Schmeichel in goal, it would've been 38%. Against Clangers, the worst one-on-one keeper in football history, it was 99%. If that chance had fallen to Diego Maradona - aye, in his prime, not on Saturday - I would say 99.47% v. all keepers. Joey Harper was the best Don in that situation, 99.51%.

Do the analysts even know to increase the chance conversion percentage the less straight on the chance is? If the ball is received when the player is at an angle - even taking it when directly opposite the line of a goalpost is better than dead straight - the chance is better. I would guess the perfect angle for converting to goal in that exact scenario would be to receive it when 2 or 3 yards outside the keepers right hand post (for Wright) or at an angle outside the left hand post for Messi or Maradona and any left footer.

I totally agree, it doesn't take in to account quality of player/goalkeeper, even the surface, or the conditions, but it works it out based on an average throughout the league (I think - i'd have to look in to it further).