Finishing isn't a thing

I’m amazed that this thread has reached 7 pages. Is there any ability in the world where everyone is equal?
 
amolbhatia50k said:
I’m amazed that this thread has reached 7 pages. Is there any ability in the world where everyone is equal?
Click to expand...

I think it's fascinating, hence my stats diving.

Of course everything isn't going to be equal but at one point in time I'd have thought that forwards, seeing as they're being paid to be the players to shoot and score more often would be further ahead of average than they actually are when it comes to xG. That a legendary goalscorer like Lewandwski can score so many while being somewhat under xG was/is a bit of an eye-opener, even more when it comes to Dzeko who is a million miles off yet has scored loads.

While xG in itself is taken from the average outcome of all shots so includes all players, forwards do take more shots so the stat itself is built more around what they do than it is full-backs that can't hit a barn door from 3 yards away who only shoot a few times a season. Still, would at one time have thought that certain players would be ahead rather than behind, and some further ahead than they actually are. Practically no difference between Haaland and Ayoze Perez for example, or Danny Ings being better than Mo Salah at actual finishing. Nils Petersen (almost a who?) actually a great finisher, better than all the world-class forwards shows that finishing in itself isn't enough to be great, and back to Lewandowski, he shows that you can very much be great while finishing not being a particular strength.

Then there's the relative closeness of it all. Someone like Lukaku, often a figure of fun will actuallally only score 1 or 2 goals a season fewer than Haaland based of their xG if given same chances. This assuming xG modelling has any value and is accurate. I'd have thought the difference would be considerably bigger at one point in time. A lot of forwards are closely grouped like that, some regarded as fantastic, some not so much.
 
Last edited:
NotThatSoph said:
Other players do get their shots in the same positions, that's exactly how xg is calculated.
Click to expand...
Let's agree that if a player get's a shot away, then they will accumulate the same xG from the same position, that is clear.

Not every player get's a shot away from where Haaland scores his first on Saturday, so with other players in Haaland's shoes on Saturday there might not even be registered a chance in that case. That goal is a great example of how his finishing ability also accumulates xG because his finishing "toolbox" contains tools that makes him able to get that shot off, where many other forwards never gets to finish. Another example is his second goal on Saturday(which is not down to finishing, but his phisique and movement), where you safely can say that many other forwards doesn't get a shot off from that Ederson pass, hence wouldn't accumulate that xG.
Another very obvious example is Haaland's goal against Dortmund in the CL a couple of years ago. With any other player in his shoes that day, that's a goalkick (0,00xG). The chance (xG) and goal was created by his physique and finishing ability alone. Hence better finisher usually also accumulate more xG than not so good finishers.
 
Last minute of the CL final and a United player is put through clear on goal. You have your choice of Van Nistelrooy or Weghorst to get that chance.

Now tell me you don’t think finishing is a thing.

A huge part of finishing is composure.
 
simonhch said:
Last minute of the CL final and a United player is put through clear on goal. You have your choice of Van Nistelrooy or Weghorst to get that chance.

Now tell me you don’t think finishing is a thing.

A huge part of finishing is composure.
Click to expand...
Are we playing Liverpool or a random club? I’d probably pick Weghorst against the scousers because it would be so much funnier if he scores and brings us the win.
 
If you've ever played football you'd know finishing is a real thing. I've missed golden goal-scoring opportunities because I panic and don't have the composure and focus to score. Getting into the correct position was the easy part for me...
 
So if two players each get 5 chances that are near enough identical in a game (1v1, open header from a cross, one timer at edge of the box, 5-yard tap in, freekick) where both players both have space and time to fini...ehm, direct the ball towards the net using their preferd bodypart, and player A scores 5 goals and player B scores none, you're telling me that the reason one went 5/5 and the other 0/5 has nothing to do with finishing?
 
Last edited:
The propositional content in the OP "I don't think finishing is a thing." is absurd.

Is shooting baskets in basketball a thing? Is throwing the football in American football a thing? Is fishing in the sport of fishing a thing?
 
Next up…..”passing isn’t a thing, it just the ability to be in one place and see a player in another place. What’s actually important is the ability to be in one place and see a different player in the other place. Law of average dictates that everyone will end up with the same passing stats anyway. Eric Djemba-Djemba is as good at passing as Paul Scholes.”
 
Pace doesn’t exist.

It’s just how fast the world rotates under their feet.
 
Not gonna go deep into this topic, but you guys do realize that (G - xG) value has nothing to do with finishing right?

Consider this example: player A is Robben-like meaning, that he improved his cutting inside and curler shots to perfection (better than Messi freekicks let's say) and he does that all the time very game. Outside of that he doesn't take a lot of other shots.
Player B is super versatile finisher. He takes free kicks, he takes headers, he takes volleys, he attempts shots from distance etc. At all these things he's among the world's elite but he doesn't surpass the world's elite.

Now the (G - xG) value for player A will not regress to the mean because he's better than world class at what he does. For player B the value will regress to the mean because he's "only" world class at all the things he does. But player B is definitely better finisher because he's way more versatile finisher and can convert much bigger variety of chances at world class level. The problem with (G - xG) statistic is that it only measures chances that the player took in reality, and players (most of them) only take those chances that they're confident in. And they consciously try to create those kinds of situations that they're confident in.
A player that sucks at headers will not even be inside the penalty box for corners, for example. So his (G - xG) won't suffer because of that because he's not taking chances which he knows he would suck at converting. A player whose left foot sucks will try to not shoot with it. So a player with great left and right foot will not get any advantage in terms of (G - xG) over a player who has only one good foot.

TLDR: G - xG is a crappy statistic for measuring finishing.
 
Olmer said:
Not gonna go deep into this topic, but you guys do realize that (G - xG) value has nothing to do with finishing right?

Consider this example: player A is Robben-like meaning, that he improved his cutting inside and curler shots to perfection (better than Messi freekicks let's say) and he does that all the time very game. Outside of that he doesn't take a lot of other shots.
Player B is super versatile finisher. He takes free kicks, he takes headers, he takes volleys, he attempts shots from distance etc. At all these things he's among the world's elite but he doesn't surpass the world's elite.

Now the (G - xG) value for player A will not regress to the mean because he's better than world class at what he does. For player B the value will regress to the mean because he's "only" world class at all the things he does. But player B is definitely better finisher because he's way more versatile finisher and can convert much bigger variety of chances at world class level. The problem with (G - xG) statistic is that it only measures chances that the player took in reality, and players (most of them) only take those chances that they're confident in. And they consciously try to create those kinds of situations that they're confident in.
A player that sucks at headers will not even be inside the penalty box for corners, for example. So his G - xG won't suffer because of that because he's not taking chances which he knows he would suck at converting. A player whose left foot sucks will try to not shoot with it.

TLDR: G - xG is a crappy statistic for measuring finishing.
Click to expand...
I kinda see what you are saying, but can we please not introduce a level that is better than world class?
 
Thought this thread was about something entirely different tbh....
 
Olmer said:
Not gonna go deep into this topic, but you guys do realize that (G - xG) value has nothing to do with finishing right?

Consider this example: player A is Robben-like meaning, that he improved his cutting inside and curler shots to perfection (better than Messi freekicks let's say) and he does that all the time very game. Outside of that he doesn't take a lot of other shots.
Player B is super versatile finisher. He takes free kicks, he takes headers, he takes volleys, he attempts shots from distance etc. At all these things he's among the world's elite but he doesn't surpass the world's elite.

Now the (G - xG) value for player A will not regress to the mean because he's better than world class at what he does. For player B the value will regress to the mean because he's "only" world class at all the things he does. But player B is definitely better finisher because he's way more versatile finisher and can convert much bigger variety of chances at world class level. The problem with (G - xG) statistic is that it only measures chances that the player took in reality, and players (most of them) only take those chances that they're confident in. And they consciously try to create those kinds of situations that they're confident in.
A player that sucks at headers will not even be inside the penalty box for corners, for example. So his (G - xG) won't suffer because of that because he's not taking chances which he knows he would suck at converting. A player whose left foot sucks will try to not shoot with it. So a player with great left and right foot will not get any advantage in terms of (G - xG) over a player who has only one good foot.

TLDR: G - xG is a crappy statistic for measuring finishing.
Click to expand...
I kind of get this point but the flip side is, xG is actually the perfect tool because you can simply look at who outperforms the mean across a pre set number of areas.

A player like Robben would only then spike in one specific area on one side.
 
Watching the highlights of the Southampton game over the weekend, safe to say finishing isn't a thing for Cameron Archer.
 
I’m astonished this thread is still open. I was hoping it’d be locked and fired into the sun where it belongs.
 
Camy89 said:
I’m astonished this thread is still open. I was hoping it’d be locked and fired into the sun where it belongs.
Click to expand...
Yes, let's close all the threads that you don't agree with or aren't willing to engage with in any meaningful way.

For the record, I do believe that some people are going to be better at putting the ball in the back of the net than others. However when we talk about the top strikers, the difference in their finishing ability is negligible enough to be completely meaningless.

When data analysts are assessing players, I very much doubt they bother looking exclusively at the set of players who outperformed their xG. For one thing, it would be an incredibly small set. For another, it would give you a false perspective.

We get loads of players who go on a hot streak with their finishing, then suddenly they can't seem to hit a barn door. Do they just suddenly turn into bad finishers, or is there something else at play?

I'd argue for the latter, and I would say that the players who score goals consistently don't do so because they are great finishers, but rather they're great receivers.
 
GoodTimes said:
Maybe we should start scoring games by who gets in better positions.

Contender for worst Caf post ever.
Click to expand...
I don't understand responses like this. Even if you disagree with the post, which I do, at least it's aim is to generate an interesting discussion. There's no hating or negativity or anything like that. So why slag it off? Just state why you disagree.
 
To me, it’s not so much that finishing ‘isn’t a thing’, but my position is that its importance is a bit overstated. It’s importance in making a great goalscorer is less than people imply I think. Sterling got 29 in a season at City despite not being a class finisher. Ruud, despite the narrative that suggests otherwise, was not the most amazing finisher, in my opinion. He was fairly decent, but not as good as Solskjaer or perhaps even Greenwood. 7/10 times, the goal was scored before he even touched it. He was a better striker than he was a finisher. Drogba was also not a great finisher.

Some of the best finishers I can think of off the top of my head are not great strikers. Arsenal had a Croatian/Brazilian Edouardo who was an exceptional finisher. Cool, great accuracy, dispatching into the corner very cleanly. I’m sure if I found a compilation of all of his goals for Arsenal, most would be top finishes. Jordan Rhodes is somewhere in League 2 now I suspect, but he’s one of the best finishers I’ve ever seen. Unfortunately for him, finishing was his only ‘trick’, so to speak.
 
jem said:
I don't understand responses like this. Even if you disagree with the post, which I do, at least it's aim is to generate an interesting discussion. There's no hating or negativity or anything like that. So why slag it off? Just state why you disagree.
Click to expand...
I agree that the tone some of us have used in this thread wasn't all that constructive, to say the least. But it is a ludicrous take, at least as it was formulated in the OP, and most of the relatively interesting discussion and points made afterwards have been in my opinion completely above and beyond the scope of the OP, which was simplistic and, quite frankly, rather clickbaity.
 
cafecillos said:
I agree that the tone some of us have used in this thread wasn't all that constructive, to say the least. But it is a ludicrous take, at least as it was formulated in the OP, and most of the relatively interesting discussion and points made afterwards have been in my opinion completely above and beyond the scope of the OP, which was simplistic and, quite frankly, rather clickbaity.
Click to expand...
You're right on the bolded, certainly. If you want my non-clickbaity view, it's a view posts above. But my intention was to create discussion rather than provide a treatise. And I think that was largely achieved, at least in the sense that there have been some great posts on either side.

Then you have the likes of the following:

Camy89 said:
I’m astonished this thread is still open. I was hoping it’d be locked and fired into the sun where it belongs.
Click to expand...
And might I add, this poster bumped the thread from page 3 of the football forum to add absolutely nothing but needless derision. What kind of day must a person be having to do such a thing? What must the inside of their mind be like? Do we need to get somebody to check on them?
 
didz said:
Yes, let's close all the threads that you don't agree with or aren't willing to engage with in any meaningful way.

For the record, I do believe that some people are going to be better at putting the ball in the back of the net than others. However when we talk about the top strikers, the difference in their finishing ability is negligible enough to be completely meaningless.

When data analysts are assessing players, I very much doubt they bother looking exclusively at the set of players who outperformed their xG. For one thing, it would be an incredibly small set. For another, it would give you a false perspective.

We get loads of players who go on a hot streak with their finishing, then suddenly they can't seem to hit a barn door. Do they just suddenly turn into bad finishers, or is there something else at play?

I'd argue for the latter, and I would say that the players who score goals consistently don't do so because they are great finishers, but rather they're great receivers.
Click to expand...

Dont you dare make a thread trying to ascertain if ‘Form’ is real.
 
didz said:
You're right on the bolded, certainly. If you want my non-clickbaity view, it's a view posts above. But my intention was to create discussion rather than provide a treatise. And I think that was largely achieved, at least in the sense that there have been some great posts on either side.

Then you have the likes of the following:


And might I add, this poster bumped the thread from page 3 of the football forum to add absolutely nothing but needless derision. What kind of day must a person be having to do such a thing? What must the inside of their mind be like? Do we need to get somebody to check on them?
Click to expand...
This isn't all that nice either, tbf.
 
didz said:
And might I add, this poster bumped the thread from page 3 of the football forum to add absolutely nothing but needless derision. What kind of day must a person be having to do such a thing? What must the inside of their mind be like? Do we need to get somebody to check on them?
Click to expand...
Are you ok?

First you make this thread on an utterly bonkers take and now this?

Just have a break.
 
One of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever seen. If you play or coach football you will know this is an actual thing.
 
Raees said:
One of the most ludicrous arguments I have ever seen. If you play or coach football you will know this is an actual thing.
Click to expand...
Feck sake another one.
Here is the post that outlines my actual view on the subject. It ain't hard to find, but I've made it easier anyway because apparently it's required.

For the record, I do believe that some people are going to be better at putting the ball in the back of the net than others. However when we talk about the top strikers, the difference in their finishing ability is negligible enough to be completely meaningless.

When data analysts are assessing players, I very much doubt they bother looking exclusively at the set of players who outperformed their xG. For one thing, it would be an incredibly small set. For another, it would give you a false perspective.

We get loads of players who go on a hot streak with their finishing, then suddenly they can't seem to hit a barn door. Do they just suddenly turn into bad finishers, or is there something else at play?

I'd argue for the latter, and I would say that the players who score goals consistently don't do so because they are great finishers, but rather they're great receivers.

I don't believe this view to be 'ludicrous' or 'ridiculous' or any of the other derisory term that have been thrown my way over the course of the last 8 days.

My mistake was clearly using my OP as a platform to generate discussion. Clearly, I should have written out a treatise instead so that a couple of people could go "yeah, good job" and leave it at that. But then we wouldn't have gotten some pretty good posts on either side.

On the other hand, we also wouldn't have gotten posts that want to do nothing more than shout out for the thread to be 'fired into the sun.' I had thought the discussion was worth it. I'm finding I was badly wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.