Finishing isn't a thing

Alex99 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You’ve just countered your first sentence with a thought out response, which is kind of the point; more of that and less rotten fruit flinging would be nice for an “out there” thread, don’t you think? It could be conducive to some kind of discussion and gives the OP the chance to rebut, rather than get miffed because the piss is being taken at the first instance.

If it’s a WUM, it’s fair game, but I don’t think it is, which makes some of the responses needlessly caustic.
Samid said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s not a WUM thread though? Didz has struck me as a thoughtful poster and has presented reasoning for their POV, which can be refuted disputed rather than tarring and feathering as a first response.
 
sullydnl said:
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.
Click to expand...
Son is excellent. Have lauded him as an elite finisher for years.

Part of how economical he is, similar to Messi, is about only shooting when there’s a real chance (which is why Ronaldo’s stats for this are probably bad because he is so wasteful, especially from range Messi would assist if a pass is the better option).

Last season above all the big names was Giménez at Feyenoord for finishing going off pure xG.
 
troylocker said:
Troll thread?
You're quite off here I'm afraid. Finishing is of course a thing, an important thing.

Both getting there and finishing are important skills for a striker. You have good finishers (Kane, Haaland, Son, Messi) who is consistantly overt 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 consistatly 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.
Click to expand...
I think you've just argued my point for me. You have to be ridiculously good to outperform your xG on a regular basis. We can create chances til the dogs come home, but converting them is a different thing entirely.
 
Finishing is a thing but it's not what makes a great goalscorer. As an example players like Juninho, Beckham, Scholes or Chilavert had great striking technique and in the right position it was very likely a goal, they were excellent finishers, but none of them is Inzaghi who was an excellent goalscorer. Sometimes great goalscorers are also great finishers but generally they are not, they just create way more chances for themselves and aren't actually the most efficient.
 
Regulus Arcturus Black said:
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).
Click to expand...

Yeah, i can’t believe that finishing isn’t a thing.

Greenwood, for all his off-field faults, was an incredible finisher. The number of times he put it in the side netting from an improbable angle was incredible.

Also Messi had so many finishes in his bag that what became a ‘probable position’ for him just became a stupidly broad definition.
 
Fortitude said:
You’ve just countered your first sentence with a thought out response, which is kind of the point; more of that and less rotten fruit flinging would be nice for an “out there” thread, don’t you think? It could be conducive to some kind of discussion and gives the OP the chance to rebut, rather than get miffed because the piss is being taken at the first instance.

If it’s a WUM, it’s fair game, but I don’t think it is, which makes some of the responses needlessly caustic.

It’s not a WUM thread though? Didz has struck me as a thoughtful poster and has presented reasoning for their POV, which can be refuted disputed rather than tarring and feathering as a first response.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I know few will agree with me, but to me finishing is just putting the ball from point A to point B, and if you mess that up due to a lack of composure that's a different thing.
 
kind of off topic but I think Son might be the best 1v1 finisher in PL history

he pretty much always seem to select the right type of shot for the situation, left or right foot, and almost always hits it low and hard towards the bottom corner

I'd definitely put him up there with the likes of Ruud and Van Persie
 
Finishing is definitely a thing, but there's definitely an argument for it being an overrated part of the puzzle of what makes a striker great. Even someone like Halaand, who is very clinical, scores the amount of goals he does because of his absolute elite movement.

Someone like Cavani, managed to break scoring records despite being a meme at times with the chances he missed.

I feel like this season will see thi debate in microcosm. Hojlund looks a good finisher with bad movement, and Zirkzee the reverse. Which one gets more goals will be interesting.
 
Finishing is a not a thing but many things in one, power necessary to shoot, the angle, the type of the shot to take, the time to release the shot, all those are needed to align to finish a chance.

Many forwards get into positions to score, not many can score, the difference is the finishing ability
 
Tarrou said:
kind of off topic but I think Son might be the best 1v1 finisher in PL history

he pretty much always seem to select the right type of shot for the situation, left or right foot, and almost always hits it low and hard towards the bottom corner

I'd definitely put him up there with the likes of Ruud and Van Persie
Click to expand...

 
When Ruud got an opportunity for a shot in front of goal I was extremely confident that he’d score.

When a United player gets in front of goal now I’m more confident that they’ll miss.
 
I'd go further - passing isn't a thing, it isn't a skill. Beckham wasn't great at picking out teammates, rather it was his teammates positioning that allowed them to receive his deep balls
 
Samid said:
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.
Click to expand...
I do not think the biggest relevant difference is the finishing here though. If nunez had Haalands finishing he would still not be getting a goal every 88min for a team like Norway. Haalands movement is why he has a much better CL and International goal per minutes than other great finnishers.
 
Thought this was a thread about not being able to climax. Not interested
 
Pascal Quiff said:
I'd go further - passing isn't a thing, it isn't a skill. Beckham wasn't great at picking out teammates, rather it was his teammates positioning that allowed them to receive his deep balls
Click to expand...

You got to finish after receiving Beckham's balls.
 
didz said:
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.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?

How do you finish well if you've missed? That's not finishing, is it?

Fortitude said:
You’ve just countered your first sentence with a thought out response, which is kind of the point; more of that and less rotten fruit flinging would be nice for an “out there” thread, don’t you think? It could be conducive to some kind of discussion and gives the OP the chance to rebut, rather than get miffed because the piss is being taken at the first instance.

If it’s a WUM, it’s fair game, but I don’t think it is, which makes some of the responses needlessly caustic.

It’s not a WUM thread though? Didz has struck me as a thoughtful poster and has presented reasoning for their POV, which can be refuted disputed rather than tarring and feathering as a first response.
Click to expand...

Look at the response to me there. It's nonsense: "you've got players who miss chances having 'finished' well."

What?

I also didn't contradict myself. That was it. Finishing is a thing. Here's why. End thread.

There is no back and forth to be had.
 
Largely true when it comes xG.

There are a few outliers that overperform or underperform on that stat consistently over the long run but not that many and it's not as pronounved as one might have thought before xG became a thing. Not as many I personally might've thought at least, with the differecnces being smaller than I would have thought too in general. It's certainly not as many as other skills, where we could say someone is a good dribbler, or a good passer, there's much more players we could put into those categories.
 
didz said:
Thank you. I know few will agree with me, but to me finishing is just putting the ball from point A to point B, and if you mess that up due to a lack of composure that's a different thing.
Click to expand...

Even with your extremely narrow definition of what finishing is, would you accept that the ability to consistently direct the ball precisely from point A to point B is variable? And what would you call a player who is unusually good at doing this? Could you call them, maybe, a good finisher?
 
Chipper said:
Largely true when it comes xG.

There are a few outliers that overperform or underperform on that stat consistently over the long run but not that many at all. It's certainly not as many as other skills, where we could say someone is a good dribbler, or a good passer, there's much more players we could put into those categories.
Click to expand...

So what you’re saying is, that even if we get in the weeds with a purely xG approach to finishing, we can still identify players that are unusually good or bad at it? So it is a thing!
 
To the contrary of not using perceived “gods”, they are precisely what should be used to see what it is they do so differently from the rest to be as consistent and prolific as they are/were. In this instance, as OP is referring to finishing in isolation, we should be looking at those defined as the greatest finishers the game has seen. Typically, and contrary to the OP, the top 3 finishers of all time does not include C.Ronaldo (or Pele, and maybe not Messi, either*), and typically great finishers are considered for the amount of chances they need to score goals.

The typical greatest finishers of all time are said to be:

1. Gerd Müller
2. Van Basten
3. Romario

There are loads of prolific scorers not mentioned there, and even Van Basten can be slotted out for another player given this is purely about finishing and not technical brilliance to procure the chance itself, which is where the likes of Pele, Ronaldo (Brazil), Messi, Puskas, C. Ronaldo and so forth enter the fray. The arguments for goal-scoring are different from dead-eyed, reductionist finishing in isolation.

If you’ve ever seen any of the aforementioned, you’ll know they are renowned for their ball-striking accuracy, angulation and repetition. Being able to hit an ordinate amount of shots as far away from the keeper as is possible with unerring frequency. Romario’s trademark finish was hitting the inside of the uprights, giving the keeper absolutely no chance of saving the shot itself. Nevermind positioning prior to the strike; from the ball being struck to it going toward goal, he left no room for doubt that the ball was going precisely where he wanted it to go and made his reputation off the back of the frequency with which he repeated his feats. Brazil’s curmudgeonly, negative side actually relied on Romario’s ability to convert to win the World Cup and that’s when he really became globally renowned for his finishing in isolation, nevermind how brilliant a footballer he was.

The same goes for Van Basten. He shot to global acclaim for this:



The type of shot he was capable of repeating if the conditions were set exactly the same. I would classify that more in the technical brilliance category, however, the bread and butter of finishing is proving time and time again that the clean strike the ball is hit with gives the keeper either the smallest window of opportunity to save, or no opportunity whatsoever to save. This isn’t about positioning; it’s about having the time to draw back the foot and hit the ball and the likelihood of that connection nestling in the net.

Gerd Müller is perceived as the best of all because not only did he have the freakish accuracy, he had a means of twisting and contorting his body that meant that keepers were often already wrong-footed and unable to even position themselves correctly to attempt to make the save. Regardless, even if they were in position, they were not able to save his shots because of the deceptive nature and accuracy of the finish.

Michel Platini was an extraordinary finisher. His compilations would show prowess in other facets, particularly ghosting, timing of runs and reading of play, but for pure finishing, he was exceptional. Deft, accurate, composed and able.

You don’t need to use the loftiest for this kind of thing, either; Juan Mata was considered the best finisher at the club when here; most of us know that Ruud was in a league of his own when it came to finishing too. In the modern game we’re currently familiarised with, Haaland’s finishing, in and of itself is seen as freakishly good before we factor in the other advantages he has to go alongside that raw, isolated ability.

What gets conflated in the composition is all the other things that can go into making a prolific goalscorer, which broadens the field by a massive amount. Even the guys considered the greatest finishers of all time have all that they were as players to fall back on, and if you want to look at players who were only good at finishing, you need to look at the likes of Lineker, Inzaghi, Huntelaar, Mario Gomez and the like, basically players who were not considered remotely good footballers if they didn’t score.

In keeping with an abstract thread, I’d pose this question: (from a United perspective) a gun at your head and your told your life depends on it with two factors at play. The first is that you have to pick a player you most back to score a goal in the most difficult game the best United side faced, let’s say prime Chelsea or Barcelona (2 CL final opponents), the other is one single opportunity falls to your side, who do you want on the end of it? I reckon the answer is going to vary a fair bit, most likely with a Rooney, Ronaldo or Cantona type for the former and a Ruud, Mata, Ole type for the latter. Why would that be when the players in the first category are picked by virtue of being the very best your club has to offer in terms of talent?
 
This makes me wonder if Xg across the top leagues is more or less the same as goals scored over the past five years. I mean, it really should be right?
 
B20 said:
This makes me wonder if Xg across the top leagues is more or less the same as goals scored over the past five years. I mean, it really should be right?
Click to expand...

I'm interested in this kind of thing myself, I'll do the legwork, and will get back to you later if someone doesn't beat me to it.
 
B20 said:
This makes me wonder if Xg across the top leagues is more or less the same as goals scored over the past five years. I mean, it really should be right?
Click to expand...

Can't be arsed doing them all, but there were 1246 goals scored in the PL last season, and the xG was 1284.61.

A difference of 38.61 goals doesn't seem that significant, and especially not when Everton account for 20.75 of that on their own. The next biggest individual team discrepancy was Bournemouth with 9.76.
 
didz said:
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.
Click to expand...

What?
 
I think you can maybe argue that finishing is less important than the ability to get goal scoring opportunities. But it's definitely a thing.
 
I guess passing isn't a thing either then. Just swing your leg and hope there is a player in the direction in which the ball travels.
 
OP are you able to rewrite what you mean? I feel like you’re trying to isolate the specific contact on the ball and where it ends up but I can’t see how that doesn’t have variables.
 
didz said:
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.
Click to expand...
And many in the thread have said that finishing is more than that. But of course you are entitled to your opinion
 
Pogue Mahone said:
So what you’re saying is, that even if we get in the weeds with a purely xG approach to finishing, we can still identify players that are unusually good or bad at it? So it is a thing!
Click to expand...

Well it's not a completely non-thing! Put it that way. So yes, we can identify those rare players with the benefit of looking at it retrospectively.

Clubs have a much harder time when it comes to signing players if they were using it as they're seeking to buy players when they're on the up and steal a march over their rivals. Loads of players will out perfrom it for a couple of seasons before dipping back to par or even below, and other similar ups and downs happen compared to how many can sustain it which is much rarer than I once would have thought.

Noticed Nicloas Jackson's stats recently, he was ahead of his xG at Villarreal. A relatively small sample size as he only had around 1750 career minutes for them. Now, still a smallish sample size he's almost 4 goals down on his career as a whole after a poor one last year where he was about 6 goals down for the year. Trying to predict the rest of his career is tricky. One good season on that metric and can easily be back to around level again.
 
didz said:
I think you've just argued my point for me. You have to be ridiculously good to outperform your xG on a regular basis. We can create chances til the dogs come home, but converting them is a different thing entirely.
Click to expand...
So when I show you that there can be 50+% difference in conversion rate over a career towards identical xGs, you're telling me I argue your point that finishing is not a thing?
Don't let this be your hill, man. Seriously, let this one go.
 
Chipper said:
Well it's not a completely non-thing! Put it that way. So yes, we can identify those rare players with the benefit of looking at it retrospectively.

Clubs have a much harder time when it comes to signing players if they were using it as they're seeking to buy players when they're on the up and steal a march over their rivals. Loads of players will out perfrom it for a couple of seasons before dipping back to par or even below, and other similar ups and downs happen compared to how many can sustain it which is much rarer than I once would have thought.

Noticed Nicloas Jackson's stats recently, he was ahead of his xG at Villarreal. A relatively small sample size as he only had around 1750 career minutes for them. Now, still a smallish sample size he's almost 4 goals down on his career as a whole after a poor one last year. Trying to predict the rest of his career is tricky. One good season on that metric and he's back to around par.
Click to expand...

Which really just confirms what we all know, deep down. xG data needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt and the eye test about who is and isn’t a good player still matters!
 
Finishing is "the bit where you kick the ball towards the goal"... but also it isn't a thing?

This entire premise is just someone making a far too narrow definition of something so they can try to argue it doesn't exist and shame on us all for participating.
 
I'm not sure what this thread is

Is it the equivalent of saying that the best GK's are the ones who don't have to face many shots?
 
LawCharltonBest said:
I'm not sure what this thread is

Is it the equivalent of saying that the best GK's are the ones who don't have to face many shots?
Click to expand...
Don't you know? Shotstopping isn't a thing and it all evens out in the long run. In the end it's mostly just having your hands or legs at point B when the shot arrives there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.