Jump to content
CityCentre

Aberdeen 1 - 0 Kilmarnock

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by redone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, redone said:

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

Clarice.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RUL said:

I haven't. 

Ok. If you had to put a percentage probability of that chance being converted to a goal, at the moment the pass was made and immediately before the attacker first touched it, what number would you stick on it?

In general, for every striker or midfielder in the top division in Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Wright's first touch was excellent but the keeper did his job really well. The dink over the top was never an option but whilst I was convinced at the time that the shot from 15 yards was definitely the right option, I'm now thinking that the best footballers would've taken it round the keeper, either by feigning to go left and a quick move right and bang or more easier by going left where the keeper was fully committed, where he was never going to be caught because of shocking defending, the Killie boy on that side giving up on the run in (which Wright never knew of course).

Because of good goalkeeping, the gap at the left post - the right, where Scott was aiming - was very small but he could have stuck it in the keeper's right hand post... if he had been quick enough in the head. I was going to introduce you to the 10% Tolerance of Utter Incompetence in relation to shot accuracy but that's not relevant now because I don't think he should've hit it from there but should've rounded the keeper.

Aye it was a bad miss but given his game-winning contributions, as I said pages ago, he gets full pass marks for this game.

From 3:10 >

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, WesthillWanderersFC said:

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

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dazzy_deff said:

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

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dazzy_deff said:

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 😜

Did you understand my point though?

And do you know WW personally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dazzy_deff said:

Negative

Negative

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dazzy_deff said:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, nowhere close to all people coming from single parent families are losers. More frequently, from intellectually defective parents. Losers is nothing to do with material wealth. The majority are losers.

Edit: 3 of you, not 2, all of whom felt the need to be heard in a conversation you spectacularly failed to contribute to. At least you two today weren't pretending you knew more than the rest of us. 

Edited by rocket_scientist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dynamo said:

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.

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). 

It's ok to analyse, it's not ok to do it unintelligently.

The principal objective of any analysis needs to be articulated and known first of all and for this, I can't see a possible objective beyond something slightly interesting to fans who themselves don't have the intellect to examine anything with care and attention-to-detail. Plus there will be ego involved, the analysts coveting "fame" on Twitter but obviously not fortune which begs the question why do it at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

If I had information that you and the poster known as RUL have messaged each other, by PM on this public forum, would I be lying?

Totally lost me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dazzy_deff said:

Totally lost me

If you look above on this very page, you will see a poster who has posted more than 13,500 times so it's impossible for you not to have noticed his existence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...