Finishing isn't a thing

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Easy there Ouroboros

 

[Raees]

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.

One of the mistakes made here is finishing ability is almost described purely in a technical sense. Finishing is also in the mind, so there’s a mental component and obviously a tactical one in terms of positioning and understanding of where keeper is situated etc.

Yes people will have dips, as can happen in any sport ie Federer might have a bad day where his forehand misfires because he is nervous etc but you wouldn’t argue that having a good forehand isn’t a thing?

Consistency or rather having a better consistency in front of goal due to being better technically or perhaps being more cold in front of goal or better understanding of the game or all of the above, can be used to argue a player is a better finisher than another.

Arguing Gerd Muller or Haaland aren’t better finishers than say Andy Carroll is stupid imo. It isn’t just about where they put themselves that is just one component of being a forward.

 

[didz]

One of the mistakes made here is finishing ability is almost described purely in a technical sense. Finishing is also in the mind, so there’s a mental component and obviously a tactical one in terms of positioning and understanding of where keeper is situated etc.

Yes people will have dips, as can happen in any sport ie Federer might have a bad day where his forehand misfires because he is nervous etc but you wouldn’t argue that having a good forehand isn’t a thing?

Consistency or rather having a better consistency in front of goal due to being better technically or perhaps being more cold in front of goal or better understanding of the game or all of the above, can be used to argue a player is a better finisher than another.

Arguing Gerd Muller or Haaland aren’t better finishers than say Andy Carroll is stupid imo. It isn’t just about where they put themselves that is just one component of being a forward.

See, that's a post that's actually worth making. Props.

But if you do have the time to read through the thread (and I'm by no means suggesting that you have to) these arguments were made and discussed over a week ago. Gerd Muller was actually mentioned, funnily enough.

The thread was basically done, only some idiot decided to revive it for no reason other than to offer me some additional abuse. This has lead to a revival of the proverbial hurling of rotten fruit that, sadly, surrounded what was an otherwise interesting and constructive discussion, which many very good posters contributed to.

Anyway, I can't ignore my own thread, I can only unwatch it, so I would appreciate going unquoted past this point, as I've rather had enough of the mindless, moronic mudslinging from posters who live in the hope that the two brain cells they possess might breed.

 

[Raees]

See, that's a post that's actually worth making. Props.

But if you do have the time to read through the thread (and I'm by no means suggesting that you have to) these arguments were made and discussed over a week ago. Gerd Muller was actually mentioned, funnily enough.

The thread was basically done, only some idiot decided to revive it for no reason other than to offer me some additional abuse. This has lead to a revival of the proverbial hurling of rotten fruit that, sadly, surrounded what was an otherwise interesting and constructive discussion, which many very good posters contributed to.

Anyway, I can't ignore my own thread, I can only unwatch it, so I would appreciate going unquoted past this point, as I've rather had enough of the mindless, moronic mudslinging from posters who live in the hope that the two brain cells they possess might breed.

Fairs and apologies if the original post was a tad brusque.

 

[Camy89]

only some idiot decided to revive it for no reason other than to offer me some additional abuse.

I've rather had enough of the mindless, moronic mudslinging from posters who live in the hope that the two brain cells they possess might breed.

Settle. Come down off that high horse of yours and let’s all move on with our lives without this thread.