It does give an insight into penetration vs possession. Think it was the villa game where they beat Liverpool 7-2, they had less than 40% of the game, only about 10 shots and scored 7. So it indicates to me they st back, hit on the break effectively and with pace. So if I was playing them as a better team, I’d potentially review my tactics knowing they have some strikers in a rich vein of form.
But the number of shots on target (by a team) has no relevance because it doesn't affect whether or not a goal is achieved on the next shot - just like knowing the outcomes of 100 coin flips give no insight into what the next outcome will be. It's only useful as a stat when comparing 2 different players.
I’m always banging the drum for the idea that the keepers are the most important player on the pitch. Obviously I’m biased because my son is one but it’s nice to see that borne out somewhat scientifically. Re: corners - I’ve been saying that for a while too as defenders are too tall in comparison to strikers these days and if an attacking player challenges the keeper in a remotely physical manner, referees tend to blow for a foul.
Only American football teams value goalkeepers, my lad plays in goal prefers it to any other position. He was asked to trial for some of our local teams when he was much younger but just wanted to play with his mates for fun. wasn’t it Mourinho who stated he was baffled by English fans getting as excited by corners as if it was actually a goal. Was an interesting read tbh a real eye opener as to how I perceived the game to be and how it should be really played. Worth reading if you have the time and inclination.
Funny you mention American football.... My dad was a semi-pro goalie in the 60s until he got kicked in the back and lost a kidney. Then, I was also good at jumping and catching etc but never took to goalkeeping as I was too short so I played various outfield positions and I was a good slip fielder in cricket too. However, I did get into and played 5 seasons of American football as a free safety which is about the closest position to goalkeeper in that sport. And then after it had missed a generation, my son picked up the gloves and the number 1 jersey again. We are like a family of Poundshop Schmeicels! Goalkeeping can be very boring in 11-a-side. Try and get your son into fustal (which my boy now much prefers to the regular game), as he'll constantly be in the thick of it. EDIT: By American football, do you mean American soccer (ie: MLS) teams? If so, my son and one of his coaches have been looking into the possibility of a soccer scholarship at an American college, so that's really interesting useful info
He doesn’t play the 11 a side game so much, it’s usually more like 5 aside on his schools 3G pitches or table tennis when it raining. He prefers boxing out of all the sports he does as he doesn’t have to speak so much to the other kids as he’s not very out going. I’m using football in the English use of the word, soccer in American.
He plays 5-a-side on table tennis tables? He sounds like my older boy, who is also into boxing and is a man of very few words but lots and lots of extremely hard punches.
Yep, he’s that good. He has a very hard punch, loves his boxing although due to these idiotic covid restrictions he’s not been much these last few weeks. A lot of the pupils at his school are using the fruit juice trick to bunk off school so their flow tests give a positive. I had to pick him up from school this morning due to this stunt again he’s more off school than in.
Well even though I am genuinely pleased that England won the game, I have to say IMO, they looked utterly clueless, disorganised and completely lacked any creativity. It was only when Denmark retreated into a totally defensive mode midway/late into the second half, that England decided to take the game to them and even then, other than a sporadic venture out on the wings by either Saka or Sterling, which guess what, ended up passing the ball to no-one in particular, we actually looked like we might, just might win the game. To me the style of play hadn't altered since the previous 1996 debacle, with defensive players thinking they can play a long ball game, when their accuracy is frequently 50/50 at best and with midfield 'playmakers' who still don't know or understand what this role constitutes, so as I see it, incredibly retrograde. The penalty really wasn't and the mess that Kane made of it, albeit he did convert the rebound, gave England a way out that up to that point in the game, wasn't merited. The Italians will categorically wipe the floor with England and if I am wrong, which sincerely I hope I am, I will willingly accept my faux pas and take all of the stick I may well deserve..... In summary the way that England "played", completely infuriated me, it lacked just about anything other than mis-placed energy, of which there was loads.
Overall I think England deserved the win pressure wise. But an own goal and a crap penalty call! Hope you lads beat Italy tho, it will be fun to watch.
It’s an own goal but no doubt it was forced on Denmark by Kjaer having to play the ball it wasn’t like some random deflection. Sterling would have undoubtedly put that into the back of the net. I agree though that the penalty was a wrong decision by the ref, although he made the wrong decision when Kane was bought down in the box. Hopefully we can do a number on the Italians.
