UEFA Champions & Europa League Football Thread ** spoilers ** [11th - 13th March 2025]
- Thread starter explicit4u
- Start date
It is a weird discussion to have. Good penalities are practically not possible to be saved aren't they? Far corner etc. Maybe these are great penalties (because they're hard to nail) but a good one is one that gives you a high percentage success rate.
And a bad penalty is a soft one that's poorly aimed.
If you slip before kicking the ball but the ball ends up going in then it's hardly a good penalty?
And a bad penalty is a soft one that's poorly aimed.
If you slip before kicking the ball but the ball ends up going in then it's hardly a good penalty?
Last edited:
The difference is that over time statistically a good penalty will go in more than a lucky one. A good penalty is one that gives the keeper the smallest chance of saving it. The same as any shot really. You can shoot from 25 yards straight at the keeper and he might have a howler and let it in. That doesn't mean that was a good shot and that you should do that at every opportunity. Same is true of penalties. If your penalty going in relies on a large amount of luck, its objectively a bad penalty.
I'm surprised so many penalties are hit so low. I know it's traditional to hit low and hard to the corner as supposedly the keeper takes time to "get down" to it. But I feel pens are less likely to be saved when they are hit hard in to the top corners as when the keepers do guess correctly and cover a side, it is rarely the TOP corners. They also lose height whilst in the air jumping to a side.
I also realise this is more risky indeed....but these are the best in the world supposedly. If I was paid what they were, I'd hit top bins on demand.
I also realise this is more risky indeed....but these are the best in the world supposedly. If I was paid what they were, I'd hit top bins on demand.
I suppose its a case of you cant go under a net but can very easily sky one. Hitting it low kills one part of potentially missing. My advice would be to hit it as hard as you can down one side, hit it fast enough and no keeper is getting to it low or high.
They will get it if they move early and guess correctly though. That's the lottery of it and why loads of players now step up not actually knowing which way they will hit it. Their method is to stutter the run up and react to the way the keeper dives. Risky practice imo.
I caught a clip of Zola talking to Palmer about kicking a football etc taking free kicks. Zola would visualise everything about the ball as he was playing. Palmer less so bit obviously still has an approach. It was really interesting and you can see why Zola was so good, would love to hear more from him and other greats.
Here is the clip:
Ok perhaps there was a bit of hyperbole earlier, he used to split the ball into quarters for free kicks (12:40 in the video) but also listening earlier to how he improved as a player by practicing after training etc. I remember Beckham doing the same. Do modern players do this or do they go straight onto titkok in the dressing rooms? To the barber?
Last edited:
Let me put it another way, would you say that Salahs penalty was better than Nunez's , or worse, or the same?
The issue here is a confusion between Good and Bad and Better/Worse....if you look back at my original post on this I didnt at any point say that Salahs pen was "Good" , I said that he did his job and put his pen away , which the others didnt, I still stand by that, he scored, the others didnt, therefore in my books his penalty was better than the others. I didnt bring good/bad into it, I only ever used the term "better" and for me the better penalty is the one which goes in when compared to the one which doesnt. Somewhere along the line the discussion has moved from better to good and as a dictionary definition of "better" is "more effective" and as the effect here was one pen went into the net and the other didnt, I'm going to say that was a more effective, and thus better, pen
And nothing I read will change my mind lol
Last edited:
Thats what youtube is forCan't say as I didn't watch it
Somewhere along the line the discussion has moved from better to good and as a dictionary definition of "better" is "more effective" and as the effect here was one pen went into the net and the other didnt, I'm going to say that was a more effective, and thus better, pen
And nothing I read will change my mind lol
Thats because you can't untangle the idea of "better" from good and bad. If you want to be very simplistic then yes, the better penalty is the one that goes in. If the keeper makes a world class save to deny one penalty and then inexplicably trips over his feet and lets in the worst penalty you will see on target and it goes in, by your metric the latter was the better and more effective penalty. By any sensible logic however, the first one was objectively a better taken penalty and thats what matters most when it comes to scoring penalties statistically.
Just watched them and Sarah's penalty was better, even if the keeper went the right way that was much harder to save.Well I am a very simplistic person, so I will settle on Salahs pen was better than Nunez and Jones pens because it went in. Job done
Even if all three had been saved Salah's was better.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,123
- Location
- Surrey
Vitinha's was the worst, I'm surprised Allisson didn't get to that.
Team looking pretty much as expected apart from the young winger and striker still not getting on the pitch. They must be pretty bad for Sterling, Tierney and Merino to keep starting ahead of them. Going to be a rough watch.
Last edited: