Yeah put me in the "this is nonsense" camp.
Finishing is very obviously a thing.
Finishing is very obviously a thing.
Finishing isn't a thing
- Thread starter didz
- Start date
Good post. I disagree, but good post.
If we're talking about shot selection, then I think we're largely in agreement. But finishing as a technical ability?
When I talk to people about finishing they usually mean the bit where you kick the ball towards the goal. That's why I brought up the 35-yarder analogy - sorry if it was weird. I just don't agree that the ability to put the ball into the net inside 8 yards is relevant - me and you could do it.
Or you could say something relevant. No? Fine just carry on being you.
I dont really agree with this. Not every striker's goals match expected goals; some are slightly above some slighty below. The reason is one is better than the other at scoring - when both are in similar positions. Of course RVN was a better striker than most because of his positioning and anticipation - but it was also because he was a great goalscorer.
Another thing is; there is a difference between averages and things averaging out over the course of a season (reverting to an XG mean) and a good finisher scoring a low XG goal in a very important moment. Only good finishers tend to do that - and they win trophies for their clubs when they do - OGS was a master of it. Look at Oli Watkin's goal against Netherlands in the Euro semi-final - extremely low XG chance - but a clinical striker scores it anyway winning a huge game. Its hugely important.
Ronaldo and Messi are fake just like how football is fake. They're designed by global elites to be the best footballers. It's all match fixing and actors. If the middle class stopped watching football they'll be richer. It's all part of conspiracy to control the worlds economy.
If you reduce this "idea" to its most basic form you are suggesting all strikers have the exact same finishing ability, or close to it, which sounds absurd. I've heard similar thoughts on this before and I get where the logic comes from because there is often times little deviation from the norm as xG stats show. Variance and statistics are not intuitive and can easily be misleading though (as anyone who plays poker might have learned)
Firstly we're already discussing the elite of the elite, so the 99%+ who are just bad finishers have already been filtered out.
There is a deviation in finishing at the top level however which becomes clearer over adequate sample sizes. The gap is there, it's just smaller than you'd expect, and has to be analysed closely over larger sample sizes with a good understanding of statistical deviations to comprehend properly.
The topic is often confused by using small sample sizes. Even a season long sample size is kinda meh in my opinion, but people often analyse xG stats on a game by game basis. A tiny difference of 0.05 in xG looks like nothing, but over a season is maybe the difference between a good and great striker. And 0.1 maybe the difference between good and elite.
You also have to add in a tonne of complex nuances to the equation, such as purple patches, injuries, and good/bad luck, which you just can't quantify easily, so it quickly gets really murky.
Making up a random example, let's say Salah's actual finishing is 10% better than Nunez's. Perhaps this is as big a difference in professional strikers as you could get (i have no idea) but it doesn't sound like much to me. Then you might have a season where Salah underperforms (due to luck, injuries, poor form etc..) and Nunez over-performs. And the resulting stats show they have equal finishing ability, which to anyone who watches them just seems ridiculous.
tldr it's a thing, just not as much of a thing as you'd intuitively expect (IMO)
Firstly we're already discussing the elite of the elite, so the 99%+ who are just bad finishers have already been filtered out.
There is a deviation in finishing at the top level however which becomes clearer over adequate sample sizes. The gap is there, it's just smaller than you'd expect, and has to be analysed closely over larger sample sizes with a good understanding of statistical deviations to comprehend properly.
The topic is often confused by using small sample sizes. Even a season long sample size is kinda meh in my opinion, but people often analyse xG stats on a game by game basis. A tiny difference of 0.05 in xG looks like nothing, but over a season is maybe the difference between a good and great striker. And 0.1 maybe the difference between good and elite.
You also have to add in a tonne of complex nuances to the equation, such as purple patches, injuries, and good/bad luck, which you just can't quantify easily, so it quickly gets really murky.
Making up a random example, let's say Salah's actual finishing is 10% better than Nunez's. Perhaps this is as big a difference in professional strikers as you could get (i have no idea) but it doesn't sound like much to me. Then you might have a season where Salah underperforms (due to luck, injuries, poor form etc..) and Nunez over-performs. And the resulting stats show they have equal finishing ability, which to anyone who watches them just seems ridiculous.
tldr it's a thing, just not as much of a thing as you'd intuitively expect (IMO)
Last edited:
I think you are redefining finishing to suit your agenda. If you can’t technically use your left foot to hit the bottom corner then you cannot kick the ball towards the bottom corner with your left foot. That is one of the reasons finishing is a technical ability. Kicking and heading the ball is a technical skill that players have to variable levels.
And your technical ability quite obviously constrains shot selection.
Finishing is a thing. It's a fact that some players are better at it than others. A good striker needs to get into good positions, then he needs to finish. This shouldn't be a controversial topic.
https://www.premierleague.com/stats/player-comparison
Compare Haaland and Darwin all seasons. If you somehow still come to the conclusion that "finishing isn't a thing" then I can't help you.
I'm not very happy with your accusation of me moving goalposts. I've e been clear all along that I believe that finishing is a technical ability, born of the bit where you kick the ball towards the goal.
Go on you tube and search good finishing v bad finishing . Watch it and then delete the thread.
You know that link just leads to nothing, right? I'm happy to have a conversation with you, so long as you're honest.
It’s actually interesting to use them as well, because are they the best pure finishers? I wouldn’t say either is because they have weaknesses like everyone.
This is separate to what the OP intended but I wonder who is the best all round finisher ever? Take away everything else about the game and who is the person you’d trust to convert a random array of chances in the box. Lewa? Benzema? Ruud? Bergkamp?
Did you read the post? Compare Haaland to Darwin all seasons. Here's the full tutorial.
1. Click on the link.
2. Click on the + to add player.
3. Add Haaland in one.
4. Add Darwin in the other.
5. Filter by all seasons.
It's not exactly rocket science.
Is it the mission of some of you to enter threads and post like sassy 14-year olds on 4chan?
Overextending yourselves in an attempt to ridicule instead of discuss isn’t a good look.
Overextending yourselves in an attempt to ridicule instead of discuss isn’t a good look.
No. The link is fine. It leads to the premierleague.com website where you select which two players to compare. You were told to select Haaland and Nunez and compare the results. Though why anyone would need a website to tell them that 'finishing isn't a thing' is misguided is anyones guess.
I think you make an valid and strong argument, given that your numbers are right.
Though, "bar Messi and Ronaldo" seems to challenge your point as they are both excellent finishers, so why do they outscore their xG if finishing was not a thing?
But, to try and counter your argument. The best players play in the best leagues and thus meet the best opponents (defenders and goalkeepers). Thus, they will have less time on the ball and the opponent will be more likely to block or save the shot. I assume that the xG is based on average defenders and goalkeepers. So actually scoring your xG should be more difficult in thougher games. Unless I am missing something?
Furthermore, if for example Haaland gets the ball, the defence will be very focused on him. This will mean tighter marking which is probably covered by xG, but they are probably expecting a shot making them more prepared such that it would be even more difficult to score.
I did read the post. That's how I responded to it. We can be civil to each other, right?Did you read the post? Compare Haaland to Darwin all seasons. Here's the full tutorial.
1. Click on the link.
2. Click on the + to add player.
3. Add Haaland in one.
4. Add Darwin in the other.
5. Filter by all seasons.
It's not exactly rocket science.
What I see is that Haaland has a lot more chances. And having chances is infinitely better than not having them.
What's the difference between this and shot selection, power, balance or accuracy? Finishing is an umbrella term that covers multiple skills that are employed when you "kick the ball towards the goal" It's like, as someone else pointed out, passing is an umbrella term covering, vision, accuracy, pace etc. Would you say passing or goalkeeping or defending are not technical skills?
Nah it was nonsense in the other thread too. You basically explained you didn't know what 'finishing' was and ended up in a thought experiment cul de sac where nothing meant anything.
It kinda gets wrapped up in his overall greatness, dribbling, technique, etc., but Messi is an absolutely incredible finisher.
What is there to discuss, to be fair?
Finishing is obviously a thing.
Loads of players are great at finding themselves in scoring positions. The fact that we know certain players to be "wasteful" is a testament to their poor finishing ability. The fact that we know certain players to be "clinical" is a testament to their excellent finishing ability.
You can argue that the ability to find yourself in such a position with great frequency is also a very important skill, because it is, but that doesn't mean that finishing isn't a thing.
Even the mention of xG is nonsense. A better finisher will find their goal output more closely aligned with their xG at any given point in time. A poorer finisher may find it aligned over a large time-frame, but closer inspection will see them differ as they fluctuate between over- and under-performance.
What do you think finishing is then?
Jaden Smith talks ball.
How can finishing be real if our feet aren't real?
But not as all round as others I think. Right foot and aerially he’s weaker, that’s the point of my question. If you put 100 chances of all different types into the box, who would you choose to be on the end of them if you want the highest % of goals? I don’t think that’s Messi as great as he is.
I think you can argue he’s got the best left foot finishing ability we’ve seen, I guess he’d be in competition with guys like Robben or RVP etc for pure finishing.
OP sets the tone for the thread. In this case this is where we're at:
"I don't think finishing is a thing. It's meaningless when we talk about strikers."
What next? Defending isn't a thing? Creating isn't a thing? Football isn't a thing? It's a WUM thread and the replies are always going to reflect that.
The ability to consistently convert chances.
You brought up xG with a fundamental misunderstanding of what that stat would show.
xG for a good finisher will be more closely aligned with goal output at any given point in their career. xG for a poorer finisher may well end up aligned with goal output over the span of their career, but if you looked at it across smaller spans of time, you're far more likely to see periods of over- and under-performance.
What do you think finishing is (or isn't)?
How can you watch this and say finishing isn't a thing?
If finishing isn't a thing, Wout Weghorst would have scored about 20.
If finishing isn't a thing, Haaland would have scored 2.
If finishing isn't a thing, Haaland would have scored 2.
Why are you conflating the ability to end up with a chance to score with the ability to convert that chance? Surely you would accept that some footballers are better at one than the other? And the really elite strikers are good at both.
To deny that finishing is a thing is to deny that composure, decision making and the ability to kick/head a football consistently exactly where you want it to go are things. Which just seems mad to me.
Side note. The Zirkzee miss in the second half wasn’t a poor finish. It was mainly just good defending.
Some players are really good at converting chances from specific areas. Haaland, for an example is great two yards away from the 6-yards box
Meanwhile you've got other players who miss chances having 'finished'; well.
Would you prefer Messi or Maguire in a 1v1 with a keeper?
If we're using consistent overperformance on xG as the measure, Messi is but Ronaldo isn't. Whereas someone like Son Heung Min has been an absolutely elite finisher over the years.
The Son v Ronaldo comparison underlining the point that while finishing is definitely a thing, it's typically a much less important thing that the ability to get chances.
Aerially definitely, for obvious reasons. I think he ends up not using his right foot that much, because he often has the ability to shift it to the left to take the shot. On chances that others might finish first time with the right, Messi might take two touches and score with his left.
But good question on the overall scoring chances a random selection of chances in the box. Ronaldo at his peak would be a shout, Kane is really good all-round, and Lewandowski the same.
Well you've picked a bad example there because I've already mentioned Messi.
This thread must be a wum. It's just impossible that someone who likes football genuinely has such a ludicrous opinion about what undebatably is one of if not the single most important skill in the sport.
Switch Messi for anyone else then....Lewandowski? Kane? Haaland? prime Ruud?
Troll thread?
You're quite off here I'm afraid. Finishing is of course a thing, an important thing.
Both getting the chances and finishing them are important skills for a striker. You have good finishers (Kane, Haaland, Son, Messi) who is consistantly over time outscoring their xG and you have bad finishers (Solanke, Watkins, Jesus etc.) who consistantly underperforms their xG. Consistantly scoring 1,15 goals from 1,0 xG is better than consistantly scoring 0,85 goals from 1,00 xG.
Take for example these two strikers who has produced the same xG/90 in their careers:
Jesus:
0,66 xG/90
0,48 goals/90
Kane:
0,66 xG/90
0,76 goals/90
Kane's scored 58% more than Jesus from the identical generated xG/90.....over a career.
Please explain to me how finishing is not a thing?
And no! Not everyone will end up around their xG eventually. Good finishers will outscore their xG (Haaland, Kane, Son), bad finishers will underperform it (Solanke, Watkins, Jesus, Mbeumo, Toney etc.). Most strikers in the top 5 leagues are "average" finishers (+/- 3-4% of their xG) though, but that doesn't mean the outliers doesn't exist or is a thing.
Fun facts:
Messi was an elite finisher his whole career, but also had great shot volume (5,46 shots per 90 for Barca) and 87% of his open play goals came from inside the box.
Messi averaged 0,89 non penalty goals/90 from 0,72 npxG/90 for Barca in LaLiga between 2014 and 2021
Ronaldo underperformed his xG in 6 out of his last 8 seasons in Spain, Italy and England. He was an extreme shot volume guy. Noone's had more shots per 90 while that's been recorded (averaging 6,4 shots per 90 for Real Madrid the last 4 seasons he was there) and 93% of his open play goals came from inside the box.
Ronaldo averaged 0,88 non penalty goals/90 from 0,84 npxG/90 for Real Madrid in LaLiga between 2014 and 2018
To put that in perspective:
Haaland has averaged 4,15 shots per 90 so far for City and 89% of his open play goals came from inside the box in the PL.
Haaland has averaged 0,90 non penalty goals per 90 from 0,80 npxG in Bundesliga and the PL since he moved to Dortmund in 2020.
Kane averaged 3,93 shots per 90 for Spurs and 89% of his open play goals came from inside the box in the PL.
Kane averaged 0,60 non penalty goals per 90 from 0,52 npxG in the PL.
Messi and Ronaldo both had direct freekicks though, which inflated both shots and goals numbers a bit.
Last edited: