Don't get me started on save percentage vs xG conceded vs post-shot xG conceded vs actual goals conceded!
Finishing isn't a thing
- Thread starter didz
- Start date
Don't get me started on save percentage vs xG conceded vs post-shot xG conceded vs actual goals conceded!
You haven’t got any mates
Weirdly Ronaldo is not the best finisher. He is the greatest ever at getting shots on target though. Around 5 or 6 a game. That's how he gets so many goals.
What do you think finishing is? You've said finishing isn't a thing and then gone on to talk about what finishing is.
To paraphrase slightly, you've said 'Ruud Van Nistelrooy wasn't good because he scored goals'.
I'm a little bit lost here I'm afraid.
Surprised none of you have come up with examples from your own game? (I still assume there’s a few people who play football in real life on this forum)
I’m pretty decent in all-round facets of the game. My passing both long and short is precise and accurate. But I’m crap in front of goal, I literally struggle to pass the ball past the keeper into the net.
Because I’m naturally crap at finishing
I’m pretty decent in all-round facets of the game. My passing both long and short is precise and accurate. But I’m crap in front of goal, I literally struggle to pass the ball past the keeper into the net.
Because I’m naturally crap at finishing
Shot selection is a big part of being a good striker, but being a good finisher doesn't play into this?
Then you said you can actually be a good finisher, but I thought finishing wasn't a thing.
And then you said someone can only be a good finisher just to the right of the 6 yard box? Who? Name 3 players who can only finish when positioned to the right of the 6 yard box.
I hope I'm not sounding condescending or like I'm trying to put you down.
This is true. I think the OP did either very well to trigger people emotions in this thread, or used poor wording ("meaningless", " regardless of finishing ability") and sold his idea badly. Anyway, if you don't talk about extremes, finishing doesn't play that important part in grand scheme of things over a season. Of course, people to remember a single instance (game, or even a shot) where player X missed a chance therefore he's a poor finisher, but tend to ignore other games where player X actually got on the lucky side. In the end it all evens out, but imagine missing a chance in a final! Even if there was only one 3 shooting chances to their 10, we lost because of poor finishing, didn't we?
Interesting fact from last season is that Haaland was far below average for finishing. The reason why he ended up with most goals scored is supporting OP idea, shame he didn't use this argument that movement/positioning and finding those high xG situations is actually the key. In a totally made up scenario that Hojlund keeps up his scoring rate from last season, but gets the same chances as Haaland, he actually scores something like 9 goals more than him over the whole season. His finishing was very good, but he only managed to get like 10 chances compared to Haaland 30 (figuratively speaking).
Another controversial opinion is current United (last season, and this one) is suffering because of low confidence affecting the finishing composure rather than poor ability itself. And some bad luck that I'd expect to flip soon.
Well yes because it's an amazing finish from 35 yards. You're splitting hairs that don't exist.
Nobody called it a good finish because he didn't finish it. The term we would use here; is a "miss" if it went wide, and a "saved shot" if the keeper saved it.
Am I ironically missing something here?
Your definition of "good finisher is the one who can do it from improbable angles" is flawed.
Under stress, and at high speed, finishing even easy tap ins is hard. Good finisher can be somebody that converts EXPECTED chances at high percentage. It's not somebody that always scores goal of a season.
With the adjusted definition, finishing is 100% a thing and a very important thing for a striker
watch a compilation of solskjaer goals and claim finishing isnt a thing. obviously getting into positions is needed first, but the very best finishers will simply convert more of those chances than those with just good movement.
More to do with people's definition of finishing. I look at it like how they deal with the chances they do get, which is basically that xG check of if they're putting more away then "they should". It's not thaaaat important, it's far more important to be a striker who gets in chances regularly and gets shots off. To a degree. On the flipside you have guys like Darwin Nunez who generate loads of xG but is a truly horrid finisher.
I've got 20+ seasons as striker on senior amateur level and can confirm that finishing is a thing. The best finishers have more tools in their locker than the average and bad finishers and knows when to apply which tool, in addition to better accuracy and usage of shot power.
Last edited:
It's definitely a thing, though obviously you can't use it unless you've got good off the ball movement and positional sense.
Then again, since the pinnacle of tactical evolution is now working the ball for cut backs, it's a lot less important than it was 10 or 15 yeas ago I think. Maybe also why there are very few pure finishing strikers now but 15 years ago there were loads.
Then again, since the pinnacle of tactical evolution is now working the ball for cut backs, it's a lot less important than it was 10 or 15 yeas ago I think. Maybe also why there are very few pure finishing strikers now but 15 years ago there were loads.
The issue with this is that good goalcorers, more than good strikers, shoot more that's what separate them. They don't actually take better shots, there is no actual constant when it comes to goals per shots, the only thing that is consistent is that in general the best goalscorers take more shots per 90 than the rest.
Edit: In reality Gretzky waas and will be always right, you miss every shot that you don't take.
Last edited:
I find it a bit odd you have put Sparky in that group of elite finishers.....Rush was the elite finisher of that time.
Would be interesting if there were xg on historical players.
I'd love to know the xG/90 to goals/90 on players like Fowler, Solskjaer, Ian Rush, Andy Cole. Even Lampard and Gerrard.
I'd love to know the xG/90 to goals/90 on players like Fowler, Solskjaer, Ian Rush, Andy Cole. Even Lampard and Gerrard.
The argument basically seems to be that positioning is more valuable than technique, which might well be true, except OP has decided that this means finishing ability isn't a thing.
The reality is that two players can frequently find themselves in good goal-scoring opportunities, but if one is better at finding the back of the net, he's better at finishing.
OP has essentially realised that there is more to being a good goal-scorer than simply how good you are at kicking a football into a goal, and concluded that "being good at kicking a football into a goal" isn't a skill.
Eye test definitely matters, but in the case of xG and finishing, I think you can reasonably conclude that:
- A player that consistently exceeds their xG is a very good finisher
- A player that consistently (roughly) matches their xG is a decent finisher
- A player that has an inconsistent relationship between goals scored and xG is not a particularly good finisher, but likely good at getting in the right positions
- A player that consistently falls short of their xG is a poor finisher
The best goalscorers are better at a) getting into positions to take shots and b) better at scoring from those shots.
Erling Haaland's shots per 90 since joining City have been 3.95 and 4.25. He scored 35 goals and 31 goals respectively.
Darwin Nunez's shots per 90 in those two seasons have been 4.44 and 4.77, and he scored 9 and 11 goals respectively.
I don't think there is as opta didn't start recording stats until a bit later.
probably possible to get using AI in the future, assuming all the recorded games are available somewhere
Coming back to this, I've used understat for Premier League only for 5 seasons.
xG = 5612.46
Goals = 5459
Accuracy = 97.27%
The model as a whole should be accurate, it's like a a tautology. The models are designed using the top few leagues over the same 5 year period you mentioned I think. I would assume it might evolve season to season too with old data chucked out, new data incorporated so that it's up to date - well I hope they're doing that at least!
There are differing models too of course, Fbref will have slightly different numbers which come from OPTA, but they only go to 1 decimal place on their freely available stuff so I didn't look there.
Back in university the striker on my team was the best finisher I've ever seen on amateur level. He was a tall and lanky bastard who'd smoke cigarettes before and after every training session too, which made it extra annoying (and kind of cool if I'm being honest).
I remember one incident in particular. He had timed his run perfectly, but I completely miss-hit the cross. Not only was the ball stomach height but the cross was going behind him. I immediately raised my hand to apologise. So what did he do? He stopped, twisted his body, spun around (almost a 360 from start to finish) and volleyed the ball with great force from 13-14 yards out and up in the top corner. The cnut didn't even celebrate
This was on the training ground and the defenders gave him too much space, so in his head it was just a routine finish.This is what being a good finisher is all about. You can miss-time your run or receive a shitty cross, but still readjust and score in a manner that others can't. That and consistently beating the goalkeeper obviously.
Last edited:
Darwin Nunez vs Erling Haaland is the perfect example of good finisher vs bad finisher.
One has chance after chance, taking more shots per 90 than the other, but scores far fewer goals, simply because he has almost no finishing ability.
Surely it doesn’t take much to separate positioning from finishing though. You could find yourself in great positions but miss many chances versus be extremely clinical but rarely receive the ball.
I’m assuming this isn’t a wum thread but I’m struggling to see any logic so maybe didz needs to reword the question?
They are better at getting into positions to shoot. They are not better at scoring from those shots.
Now Nunez is an example of a player with bad finishing but that's not an argument demonstrating that the best goalscorers are better finishers. To illustrate this Haaland was 21st in goals per shots, 47th in goals per shots on target. An other example Palmer was 54th in goals per shot and 81st in goals per shots on target but 2nd best scorer. Nunez was respectively 97th and 146th but he was also the 19th best scorer.
There's a complete dearth of stats in general for old games which is a shame, not just xG but often basic stuff like shots attempted/shots on target. Even for big games.
Was trying to find something a little while back, the CL final when Marseille won it in the early 90s. I remembered it being boring with not many goalscoring attempts and wanted to see if I could confirm that without re-watching it and gave up after a few minutes of searching. Couldn't find even basic shot attempt stats.
Hojlund is a decent finisher, but has a lot to learn when it comes to movement, positioning and spacial awareness.This is true. I think the OP did either very well to trigger people emotions in this thread, or used poor wording ("meaningless", " regardless of finishing ability") and sold his idea badly. Anyway, if you don't talk about extremes, finishing doesn't play that important part in grand scheme of things over a season. Of course, people to remember a single instance (game, or even a shot) where player X missed a chance therefore he's a poor finisher, but tend to ignore other games where player X actually got on the lucky side. In the end it all evens out, but imagine missing a chance in a final! Even if there was only one 3 shooting chances to their 10, we lost because of poor finishing, didn't we?
Interesting fact from last season is that Haaland was far below average for finishing. The reason why he ended up with most goals scored is supporting OP idea, shame he didn't use this argument that movement/positioning and finding those high xG situations is actually the key. In a totally made up scenario that Hojlund keeps up his scoring rate from last season, but gets the same chances as Haaland, he actually scores something like 9 goals more than him over the whole season. His finishing was very good, but he only managed to get like 10 chances compared to Haaland 30 (figuratively speaking).
Another controversial opinion is current United (last season, and this one) is suffering because of low confidence affecting the finishing composure rather than poor ability itself. And some bad luck that I'd expect to flip soon.
Haaland has only had the one season where he's underperformed his xG though, so it's not just the generation of xG that makes him stand out. It's the combination of good finishing and getting at the end of chances. It's not like it's one or the other. You can also be good at both. If you do both well, your numbers will stand out.
Shooting
Per90 Stats| Standard | Expected | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Span | Nation | Pos | Squad | 90s | Gls | Sh | SoT | SoT% | Sh/90 | SoT/90 | G/Sh | G/SoT | Dist | FK | PK | PKatt | xG | npxG | npxG/Sh | G-xG | np:G-xG |
| Erling Haaland | 2024-25 | no NOR | FW | Manchester City | 4.0 | 9 | 19 | 13 | 68.4 | 4.76 | 3.26 | 0.42 | 0.62 | 13.6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4.8 | 4.0 | 0.22 | +4.2 | +4.0 |
| Erling Haaland | 2023-24 | no NOR | FW | Manchester City | 28.4 | 27 | 113 | 50 | 44.2 | 3.99 | 1.76 | 0.18 | 0.40 | 11.9 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 29.2 | 22.9 | 0.20 | -2.2 | -2.9 |
| Erling Haaland | 2022-23 | no NOR | FW | Manchester City | 30.8 | 36 | 116 | 53 | 45.7 | 3.77 | 1.72 | 0.25 | 0.55 | 12.6 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 28.4 | 23.0 | 0.20 | +7.6 | +6.0 |
| Erling Haaland | 2021-22 | no NOR | FW | Dortmund | 21.2 | 22 | 74 | 31 | 41.9 | 3.49 | 1.46 | 0.22 | 0.52 | 13.9 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 17.9 | 13.2 | 0.18 | +4.1 | +2.8 |
| Erling Haaland | 2020-21 | no NOR | FW | Dortmund | 26.7 | 27 | 89 | 47 | 52.8 | 3.33 | 1.76 | 0.28 | 0.53 | 12.8 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 23.5 | 20.3 | 0.23 | +3.5 | +4.7 |
| Erling Haaland | 2019-20 | no NOR | FW | 2 squads | 22.7 | 29 | 87 | 45 | 51.7 | 3.83 | 1.98 | 0.32 | 0.62 | 12.1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 0.26 | +4.2 | +4.2 |
Yep. Someone like Martial also, great finisher and always finished well above his xG (especially first few years). But he was pitiful at getting in the chances.
Think I read before that the best finishers get about 15-20% over xG and the worst are similar but below... So if someone can generate 30 xG between their movement and the team play over a season... The worst vs the best finishers are getting 24-36 goals from that usually. Big difference, but both preferable to the CF with shit movement.
Kind of my concern with Zirkzee before he joined, but he's been getting among the chances so far so hope that continues.
I can remember when they first started tracking assists. Because I remember thinking it was nonsense imported from ice hockey and would never catch on.
Hockey and Football have a lot in common. Interestingly years ago I learned that many hockey coaches study Football tactics and strategies.
I remember when Wayne Gretzky said in an interview once that he mostly didn’t see the players around him, he only saw the spaces.
50 years later, wordings like ‘attacking the space’ is held synonymous with ‘tinfoil hat’ in quarters like these. I guess learning is a slow process.
You did kids coaching if I remember?
Even at young ages you had some kids who just got the ball into the net.
We played a team that he this feared striker on who I’d never seen play. He’d scored loads and led the league. I remember watching him and thinking he must be ill, or nerves or something. Not just was he not amazing, I actually thought he was a poor player. He still scored twice, in fact that was his only contribution. Talked to his coaches afterwards and they confirmed that he never really did anything amazing, just he scored if he got the ball in or around the box
I thought this too. If you have played football, you are aware what your strengths are in finishing compared to others. I've always been crap in front of goal, no matter how simple the chance is.
My wife plays football in the local league where they work with one of the pro clubs who send coaches down to help them, the coach has improved her finishing, as she's now the main goal scorer of the team but a few months ago she was constantly missing chances.
The little toe-prods where there isn’t time or space to execute another shot technique are my favourites
It wasn’t Socrates was it?Back in university the striker on my team was the best finisher I've ever seen on amateur level. He was a tall and lanky bastard who'd smoke cigarettes before and after every training session too, which made it extra annoying (and kind of cool if I'm being honest).
I remember one incident in particular. He had timed his run perfectly, but I completely miss-hit the cross. Not only was the ball stomach height but the cross was going behind him. I immediately raised my hand to apologise. So what did he do? He stopped, twisted his body, spun around (almost a 360 from start to finish) and volleyed the ball with great force from 13-14 yards out and up in the top corner. The cnut didn't even celebrate
This is what being a good finisher is all about. You can miss-time your run or receive a shitty cross, but still readjust and score in a manner that others can't. That and consistently beating the goalkeeper obviously.
I think it's about not losing your head at the critical moment more than anything but finishing is most definitely a thing.
Maybe everyone else is natural goalscorers
If you’re like us…..a bit shit in front of goal, it seems very obvious that finishing is an innate ability
They're both two important parts of being a good goalscorer.
The best strikers will regularly find themselves in good positions to score, and also score from a good number of those chances.
I think they're two distinct skills but didz appears to think that because positioning is important, that means finishing ability isn't.
The thread doesn't seem to be about the best goalscorers being the best finishers though, but that "finishing" isn't a skill.
Both positioning and finishing are important. I'd probably even accept the former as more important, because ultimately you can't score if you're not in a position to do so, but if you've got two players regularly getting into scoring positions, but one is better at finishing, he'll score more goals.
Yes. Had a lad similar to that. We basically told him to play between the goal posts because he didn't really offer much else, but could score for fun if we could get the ball to him. He once scored 8 in a game and I'm not sure he touched the ball many more times than that.
Also had a lad who basically a 10-year-old Darwin Nunez. Constantly getting into great positions. Constantly hitting them high, wide or straight at the keeper.
Played with and against plenty of examples of both too.
I was always shite in front of goal, but was a pretty decent passer, which is why I don't buy this inference from some that it's just about general "technique".
That might apply if you have plenty of time in a 1 v 1, but most finished are first or 2nd touch shots in tight spots where you do what comes natural in each situation.
Yes, stats have become huge haven't they? I've been caught up in certainly.
I've dabbled with gambling at times and it always my dream to be able to crack the code as it were, to be able to use statstical modelling to beat the bookies. Now I'm not the brightest unfortuantely, my understanding of things are only on a basic level and I lack motivation too so that didn't happen!
It is though how the Brentford and Brighton owners got rich, and those 2 clubs are huge examples of how data analysis has impacted football with every team now having people trawling through stats. Those 2 clubs have famously used it to drive transfer strategy to seek out those bargains that they sell on for big money and it's no doubt influenced tactics as well.
Careful now. You'll get me up on my hobby horse about football vs field hockey. An 11v11 sport that got better as a spectacle when they did away with the offside rule!
Maybe everyone else is natural goalscorers
If you’re like us…..a bit shit in front of goal, it seems very obvious that finishing is an innate ability
I'm a decent finisher. As long as I can use my right leg and you give me space
I can turn on a dime and fire off a relatively powerful shot from a standing position. For a while I didn't think that this was special, but then I realised that much better players than me simply can't do that and it's not in their arsenal, which is why I almost never see it. And when people attempt it they almost always fail unless they are specialist strikers or actually high level players.I’ve been told that by two of the good finishers I’ve played with, “the through balls you play…..just pass it with pace into the corner of the net like that”. Never fecking works for me
But I can whip it accurately to a moving target…..which should be much harder than the stationary goal, almost every time. It’s not fair really