[Albion] Penalty Save

[Lady Whistledown]

Unfortunately that sums up 90% of the posters on here very few of us see it as it is.

How fine it must be to possess such immense wisdom and insight, the likes of which mere mortals like us 90%-ers can only dream. Does it get lonely up there on your pedestal, do you find?

By the way, it's "Caddis" and "Rowett", Mastermind.

 

[Everest]

So Colunga's pen at Fulham was a hell of a lot worse than yesterday's. Can someone remind me where that ended up?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

A chap used to sit near me at Withdean and asked where I was going to sit at The Amex as he wanted to sit next to me and to quote him " you are one of the very few Brightons fans who sees the game as it is not with Blue and White glasses" I dont know if that is true but I do consider that I am fairly accurate in my appraisal, but then I would.

Was it Hove Born & Bred, by any chance?

 

[perseus]

 

[Everest]

A chap used to sit near me at Withdean and asked where I was going to sit at The Amex as he wanted to sit next to me and to quote him " you are one of the very few Brightons fans who sees the game as it is not with Blue and White glasses" I dont know if that is true but I do consider that I am fairly accurate in my appraisal, but then I would.

Was he an away supporter?

 

[Triggaaar]

Had Caddis hit it harder DS would never have got down quick enough, so a poorly hit penalty

You could say the same about every penalty that's ever been saved. If it's put to the side of the keeper, and it's saved, then it wouldn't have been if it was hit hard enough. So you can't conclude that it was poorly hit, just by the fact that it would go in if struck harder.

 

[perseus]

So Colunga's pen at Fulham was a hell of a lot worse than yesterday's. Can someone remind me where that ended up?

That's where the trickery and deception comes in. I would have had trepidations about Colunga penalty number three.

Hard and low into the corner is the best policy. I liked Barnes penalty against Schmeichel though.

 

[Cowfold Seagull]

Not as much as everybody hates HIM, by the sounds of it.

Hey come on, the guy is entitled to his opinion, even if your disagree with him. That's what this site is all about isn't it?, opinions.

 

[Acker79]

Disagree, obviously penalties are a lottery and keepers will go the right way/wrong way a certain amount of the time.

Not really. A lottery indicates complete randomness. Players make conscious decisions where they want to shoot and where they want to dive, and this is often driven by the behaviour of the keeper and the behaviour of the taker.

Penalties are battles of will, they are psychological competition. When I did my goalkeeper training you weren't allowed to move off the line. You were taught one tactic as a keeper is to leave a larger gap to one side, it tempts a player to aim that side as there's more room, but then the keeper knows where you're going. Of course you also had to account for the player being aware of this, and that is where the psychology comes in, the battle of wills.

With keepers being allowed to move along the line now, it's a more complex situation, but the same basis is there. It's a game between keeper and taker, trying to force the other to go where they want to. I was also taught to look at the the taker's eyes, sometimes he taker eyeing up one corner, to convince the keeper to go that way then slipping it in the other side, sometimes you see them staring one way in the build up then their eyes betray them as they flick to the other side just to check before aiming it that way.

You also have to factor in player tendencies. Some players have a particular place they like to put their penalties, and if you take that into account, if you have done home work on a player you have a good idea where he tends to place his penalties.

 

[perseus]

Not really. A lottery indicates complete randomness. Players make conscious decisions where they want to shoot and where they want to dive, and this is often driven by the behaviour of the keeper and the behaviour of the taker.

Penalties are battles of will, they are psychological competition. When I did my goalkeeper training you weren't allowed to move off the line. You were taught one tactic as a keeper is to leave a larger gap to one side, it tempts a player to aim that side as there's more room, but then the keeper knows where you're going. Of course you also had to account for the player being aware of this, and that is where the psychology comes in, the battle of wills.

With keepers being allowed to move along the line now, it's a more complex situation, but the same basis is there. It's a game between keeper and taker, trying to force the other to go where they want to. I was also taught to look at the the taker's eyes, sometimes he taker eyeing up one corner, to convince the keeper to go that way then slipping it in the other side, sometimes you see them staring one way in the build up then their eyes betray them as they flick to the other side just to check before aiming it that way.

You also have to factor in player tendencies. Some players have a particular place they like to put their penalties, and if you take that into account, if you have done home work on a player you have a good idea where he tends to place his penalties.

That's is what I saw. And more.

 

[Triggaaar]

A chap used to sit near me at Withdean and asked where I was going to sit at The Amex as he wanted to sit next to me and to quote him " you are one of the very few Brightons fans who sees the game as it is not with Blue and White glasses" I dont know if that is true but I do consider that I am fairly accurate in my appraisal, but then I would.

One person, several years ago, said they thought you see the game as it is, and you pick that over the hundreds of people on here each week that tell you they disagree with you. And that's assuming the person wasn't being sarcastic, which is a fairly big assumption.

Also, I wouldn't describe the posters on NSC as having Blue and White glasses over the last 6 months. Stockdale has received plenty of negative comments. People can see that it was a good penalty save though.

 

[Triggaaar]

Hey come on, the guy is entitled to his opinion, even if your disagree with him. That's what this site is all about isn't it?, opinions.

Yeah, like the opinion that if you disagree with BG, he hopes that your family are the victims of a pedophile.

 

[sdmartin1]

Not really. A lottery indicates complete randomness. Players make conscious decisions where they want to shoot and where they want to dive, and this is often driven by the behaviour of the keeper and the behaviour of the taker.

Penalties are battles of will, they are psychological competition. When I did my goalkeeper training you weren't allowed to move off the line. You were taught one tactic as a keeper is to leave a larger gap to one side, it tempts a player to aim that side as there's more room, but then the keeper knows where you're going. Of course you also had to account for the player being aware of this, and that is where the psychology comes in, the battle of wills.

With keepers being allowed to move along the line now, it's a more complex situation, but the same basis is there. It's a game between keeper and taker, trying to force the other to go where they want to. I was also taught to look at the the taker's eyes, sometimes he taker eyeing up one corner, to convince the keeper to go that way then slipping it in the other side, sometimes you see them staring one way in the build up then their eyes betray them as they flick to the other side just to check before aiming it that way.

You also have to factor in player tendencies. Some players have a particular place they like to put their penalties, and if you take that into account, if you have done home work on a player you have a good idea where he tends to place his penalties.

You took my comment too literally, as I suspected someone would. Of course there are psychological/mind games that go on between player and goalkeeper. And you can study the takers tendencies etc, however there is still an element of chance about which way the keeper dives. That's why the best penalty takers can score even when the keeper guesses the correct way. As it happened yesterday, Stockdale guessed correctly and the ball was at savable height and not placed into the corner.

 

[Triggaaar]

As it happened yesterday, Stockdale guessed correctly and the ball was at savable height and not placed into the corner.

Indeed it was savable. Every penalty that's been saved in the history of football, was savable. That doesn't mean we can't ever say that a keeper has made a good save.

He could have hit it closer to the post, he could have put it in the top corner - no one ever saves those, but then it's hard to do that without missing the goal. It wasn't a bad penalty, it struck it well enough, and it took a good save to stop it.

 

[BensGrandad]

Yeah, like the opinion that if you disagree with BG, he hopes that your family are the victims of a pedophile.

That was one particular post that I miss worded and apologised for and shoukd be dropped or are you the next jesus christ and never made a mistake.

 

[perseus]

Even Naylor commented on the penalty: http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/11809306.Video_verdict_on_Albion_v_Birmingham/?ref=twtrec

Understatement to the point of being boring.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I think you should stop digging.

 

[sdmartin1]

Indeed it was savable. Every penalty that's been saved in the history of football, was savable. That doesn't mean we can't ever say that a keeper has made a good save.

He could have hit it closer to the post, he could have put it in the top corner - no one ever saves those, but then it's hard to do that without missing the goal. It wasn't a bad penalty, it struck it well enough, and it took a good save to stop it.

Where did I say we can't ever say the keeper made a good save? As I've stated, I didn't feel as though it was a powerful penalty, Stockdale had time to get down and got a strong hand to it, and pushed it away from the danger zone. In my personal opinion it was good goalkeeping, but i'm sure if you asked, Caddis, or the Birmingham attacking coach they would be disappointed in the quality of the penalty as it gave Stockdale a good opportunity to save.

 

[Acker79]

You took my comment too literally, as I suspected someone would. Of course there are psychological/mind games that go on between player and goalkeeper. And you can study the takers tendencies etc, however there is still an element of chance about which way the keeper dives. That's why the best penalty takers can score even when the keeper guesses the correct way. As it happened yesterday, Stockdale guessed correctly and the ball was at savable height and not placed into the corner.

It isn't about taking you too literally. You are emphasising the chance aspect of it too much, to downplay how much of the save was down to Stockdale winning that psychological battle/doing his homework. When you prepare properly, when you play the psychological game at penalties and it comes off for you, your efforts shouldn't be dismissed as "well, penalties are a lottery aren't they? Stockdale was just lucky it was put where it was".

 

[perseus]

NOT a lottery

Better keepers save more penalties:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...heory-odds-overwhelmingly-favour-shooter.html