Finishing isn't a thing

didz

Full Member
Joined
May 17, 2014
Messages
3,529
I was having what I thought was an interesting discussion the other day and I thought opening it up to the forum might be fun.

I don't think finishing is a thing. It's meaningless when we talk about strikers. RVN wasn't good because he was able to put the ball in the net from improbable angles, he was good because he got into probable positions

XG kind of backs this. Everyone bar Messi and Ronaldo reverts to their average over time. Why? Because unless you're a god, you'll score what you're expected to over time, regardless of any supposed finishing ability. Getting there is much more important to putting it where.
 
You need to provide more sources and statistics based evidence to back this up as it sounds absolutely bonkers.

“Both Ruud van Nistelrooy and Andy Cole were incredible at getting in goalscoring positions, but Ruud scored more due to being more clinical.”

I’ll be incredibly impressed if you can prove the above statement to be false.

(No doubt Andy Cole scored much more than Højöund so far though due to how much more important it is to get into goal scoring positions mind so I’m in complete agreement on that).
 
Couldn't disagree more, if you take the top strikers in the world or indeed the top strikers at any level, their finishing is better than almost everyone. Yes positioning means a lot as it improves their odds but a great finisher has the unique ability to select the best option to get the ball to its destination.

Look at players like Robbie fowler, David villa, ronaldo, r9, messi, van Basten, Mark hughes, ruud, haaland, kane...etc. they way they finish a chance it's all about the selection and more oftenthan not they get that selection right.
 
I just don’t understand the logic. Hypothetically what you’re saying is that if Ruud and Wellbeck (picked because he’s always been an inconsistent finisher) get an equal number of chances over a season, they will score an equal amount of goals. Well surely that’s nonsense. Obviously if you give Ruud and Welbeck 100 chances each, Ruud will score significantly more. That’s finishing….
 
i only talk about how many birds we’ve smashed with my mates.
 
redflash said:
Couldn't disagree more, if you take the top strikers in the world or indeed the top strikers at any level, their finishing is better than almost everyone. Yes positioning means a lot as it improves their odds but a great finisher has the unique ability to select the best option to get the ball to its destination.

Look at players like Robbie fowler, David villa, ronaldo, r9, messi, van Basten, Mark hughes, ruud, haaland, kane...etc. they way they finish a chance it's all about the selection and more oftenthan not they get that selection right.
Click to expand...
You're talking about shot selection, which is absolutely a big part of being a good striker. Being a good finisher doesn't really play into that.you can be a good finisher just to the right of the 6-yard box and shit everywhere else.
 
It's true that positioning and timing probably are more important than the finishing strike itself, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think that there is a huge difference between a good finisher and a bad finisher.

The ability to twist your body, to generate power from a standstill, the finesse to make last second adjustments and the awareness to know where the goalkeeper is and predict his next move... All of these are included in the art of finishing and it's a real (and important) skill.

To use a negative example of a player I rate highly: Bruno. He has the movement and timing of a top level striker, but his finishing is clearly lacking. So while his total career output is quite good for an AM, he is also quite wasteful. Especially in the last two years.
 
TrustInJanuzaj said:
I just don’t understand the logic. Hypothetically what you’re saying is that if Ruud and Wellbeck (picked because he’s always been an inconsistent finisher) get an equal number of chances over a season, they will score an equal amount of goals. Well surely that’s nonsense. Obviously if you give Ruud and Welbeck 100 chances each, Ruud will score significantly more. That’s finishing….
Click to expand...
This kind of captures my point. Chances aren't given, they're earned. Ruud will earn more than Welbeck.
 
Xg isn't worked out from the position on a pitch, it's got everything such as where opposition are and how you are striking the ball.

A lethal finisher will position themselves to be in a better angle than a poor one. Hence increasing the xg of the chance which is why they score more. But I agree the most important is getting those chances and being in those positions.
 
didz said:
I was having what I thought was an interesting discussion the other day and I thought opening it up to the forum might be fun.

I don't think finishing is a thing. It's meaningless when we talk about strikers. RVN wasn't good because he was able to put the ball in the net from improbable angles, he was good because he got into probable positions

XG kind of backs this. Everyone bar Messi and Ronaldo reverts to their average over time. Why? Because unless you're a god, you'll score what you're expected to over time, regardless of any supposed finishing ability. Getting there is much more important to putting it where.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should start scoring games by who gets in better positions.

Contender for worst Caf post ever.
 
didz said:
I was having what I thought was an interesting discussion the other day and I thought opening it up to the forum might be fun.

I don't think finishing is a thing. It's meaningless when we talk about strikers. RVN wasn't good because he was able to put the ball in the net from improbable angles, he was good because he got into probable positions

XG kind of backs this. Everyone bar Messi and Ronaldo reverts to their average over time. Why? Because unless you're a god, you'll score what you're expected to over time, regardless of any supposed finishing ability. Getting there is much more important to putting it where.
Click to expand...
Elite strikers do both. Score from impossible angles and positions and position themselves well. How you can watch a player like Darwin Nunez and then say finishing is not a thing is crazy

Also the xG comment is a bit odd, since it takes quality of chance into account by definition. Elite strikers by your account will have higher xG than non elite ones because they get into better scoring positions
 
didz said:
You're talking about shot selection, which is absolutely a big part of being a good striker. Being a good finisher doesn't really play into that.you can be a good finisher just to the right of the 6-yard box and shit everywhere else.
Click to expand...
I don't get this, what is finishing, if it isn't the shot a striker takes?

Surely being a good finisher means a good percentage of your shots end up in goals, that's a mix of skills, including positioning, shot selection, body movement, pace etc if you're great at those attributes, your a good finisher.
 
Positioning is half the battle, but finishing is the final nail. If that final nail didn't need to be hammered correctly, Welbeck and Nunez would be considered world class strikers. Finishing ability does absolutely matter.
 
Scandi Red said:
It's true that positioning and timing probably are more important than the finishing strike itself, but you're fooling yourself if you don't think that there is a huge difference between a good finisher and a bad finisher.

The ability to twist your body, to generate power from a standstill, the finesse to make last second adjustments and the awareness to know where the goalkeeper is and predict his next move... All of these are included in the art of finishing and it's a real (and important) skill.

To use a negative example of a player I rate highly: Bruno. He has the movement and timing of a top level striker, but his finishing is clearly lacking. So while his total career output is quite good for an AM, he is also quite wasteful. Especially in the last two years.
Click to expand...
This is a good post and the first one to give me me pause in my view. I do think that you're mostly talking about shot selection and composure though. Finishing, to me, is just the action on putting the ball in the net - a technical ability that isn't really much of a factor.
 
didz said:
This is a good post and the first one to give me me pause in my view. I do think that you're mostly talking about shot selection and composure though. Finishing, to me, is just the action on putting the ball in the net - a technical ability that isn't really much of a factor.
Click to expand...
Shot selection is part of the art of finishing…

Edit: also technical ability not really much of a factor?
 
didz said:
This is a good post and the first one to give me me pause in my view. I do think that you're mostly talking about shot selection and composure though. Finishing, to me, is just the action on putting the ball in the net - a technical ability that isn't really much of a factor.
Click to expand...
You're kind of redefining what finishing is to fit this idea you have though?
 
didz said:
This is a good post and the first one to give me me pause in my view. I do think that you're mostly talking about shot selection and composure though. Finishing, to me, is just the action on putting the ball in the net - a technical ability that isn't really much of a factor.
Click to expand...

I mean sure... If you remove every part of the finish apart from the strike of the ball itself then yeah, the difference between top players is marginal. But by using this logic you have broken down the skills required of a footballer into hundreds of subcategories. You could also say that being a good passer is nothing special if you remove vision, creativity, quick thinking, balance etc. I'm not sure how helpful that is though...
 
didz said:
I think you need to explain how it's 'woke.' Maybe I could call all women facists to help?
Click to expand...
Its certainly giving off football hipster to be fair. Especially when shot selection is not considered part of finishing and technical ability is a non factor
 
Cassidy said:
Shot selection is part of the art of finishing…
Click to expand...
Is it? When Bruno bangs one in from 35 yards do we applaud his finishing? No, when a player gets the ball in the box and converts it's a good finish. If they miss it's a bad one so how is that useful?

Zirkzee say the keeper down and had a shot primed for the bottom corner. But nobody is calling that a good finish. Why? Because it didn't finish with a goal. So what use is the term?
 
This thread is giving proper international break vibes when people have too much time to think because there's no proper football on. Should have saved it for October.
 
Cassidy said:
Its certainly giving off football hipster to be fair. Especially when shot selection is not considered part of finishing and technical ability is a non factor
Click to expand...
Sure even the hipsters don't agree with me. But that still leaves me open to any insult, cheers.
 
Finishing is definitely a thing. You just need to play as a striker to understand this. Words like calm, composed, clinical are usually used to describe a goal (or a striker) for a reason - and it's not just to do with "being in good positions all the time".

Imagine if you put Darwin & Ruud in the exact same positions 100 times, do you think they'll both score the exact same amount of goals? Or how else would you describe the differences if you didn't believe they would?
 
didz said:
This is a good post and the first one to give me me pause in my view. I do think that you're mostly talking about shot selection and composure though. Finishing, to me, is just the action on putting the ball in the net - a technical ability that isn't really much of a factor.
Click to expand...
Surely shot selection is essentially 'finishing' ?
 
Have a look at somebody like R9 absolutely hammering a shot with either foot into the bottom corner, time and time again, before you say finishing doesnt matter.

Having the calmness of thought to pick where you want to put the ball and then the talent to do it aka finishing is a huge part of being a top striker.
 
didz said:
Is it? When Bruno bangs one in from 35 yards do we applaud his finishing? No, when a player gets the ball in the box and converts it's a good finish. If they miss it's a bad one so how is that useful?

Zirkzee say the keeper down and had a shot primed for the bottom corner. But nobody is calling that a good finish. Why? Because it didn't finish with a goal. So what use is the term?
Click to expand...

Maybe Zirkzee didn’t choose the right finish given there was a player on the line….

I mean when you are one on one with the keeper you can round them, place shot low past them, place shot through legs, chip the keeper. There are many options. When the ball comes in from wide, you can head the ball, volley, control and shoot. You can take first time finishes without getting the ball under control, you can finish with either foot etc etc

Some of the options require certain levels of technical ability to pull off. Some of the options give a higher percentage chance of scoring

Making the right choice in the split second and having the ability to execute seperates strikers. Some will have less options available to them because they cannot consistently pull off all types of finishes due to their technical limitations.

The comment about a 35 yard shot is a bit odd but at the end of the day not every player can shoot on target consistently from 30 yards. If they could they would be a weapon like Alan Shearer or Rooney
 
Last edited:
Ish said:
Finishing is definitely a thing. You just need to play as a striker to understand this. Words like calm, composed, clinical are usually used to describe a goal (or a striker) for a reason - and it's not just to do with "being in good positions all the time".

Imagine if you put Darwin & Rudd in the exact same positions 100 times, do you think they'll both score the exact same amount of goals? Or how else would you describe the differences if you didn't believe they would?
Click to expand...
This
 
Finishing is (simply put) kicking the ball with the proper combination of precision and power to beat the goalkeeper in all kinds of various situations (distance, angle, body position, etc.). It's obviously something some strikers do better than others.
 
Darwin Nunez gets in good positions but he can't finish.

Forget finishing, not sure the OP is good at starting
 
Also, the argument that we can't use Messi and Ronaldo in this analysis, because they are "gods" is plainly stupid. They are footballers like everyone else, but just happen to be two of the best ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.