The mancityfans.net football forum

This is how I remember it.
Kolarov took a corner and an Aris player headed it out and it fell to Yaya.He then shot and the ball was going towards the goal and their goalie started of diving towrds it.The ball then took quite a large deflection and changed direction and ended up in the net with the goalie going the wrong way.
It seemed as there was a large slice of luck involved in this goal which originated in a set play.However some of the experts on the site have told me that luck has nothing to do with it and its cos we are shit at set pieces this is the reason why apparently we never score from them.
Silva's goal against them was a result of a defelection aswell and I think there was an element of luck in that but as the experts have told me luck has fuck all to do with any teams play so I am confused as to how these events could have happened.

The source of your confusion is clear.

You believe that people who are expressing an opinion are experts. That appears to me to be where you made your mistake!

blues-clues wrote:The source of your confusion is clear.

You believe that people who are expressing an opinion are experts. That appears to me to be where you made your mistake!

Well I keep being told by the experts that I know Fuck All.However I do know FOOTBALL is played with a round ball and I can comment on what I see.

I'd suggest letting it go Rag_Hater. Yes the goal last night from a set piece was 'lucky' in that it took a couple of deflections but that doesn't mean every goal ever scored from a set piece requires luck to score it.

the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do

sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do

Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.

Rag_hater wrote:

sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do

Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.

That goal was a bit lucky as the keeper MAY well have saved it. What wasn't lucky was Kolarov hitting the 1st man with every corner or blazing over the bar from free kcks when we had 5 players lined up to head in v a small team. That was shite & most other teams would do better.

If a goal is deflected, it has an element of luck about it, whether it's a set piece or not. If the ball is passed & someone intentionally hits it on target & scores without a lucky deflection etc, then obviously it's not lucky, irrespective whether it's a set piece or not. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, as it's obvious.

You don't need to be an 'expert' to know this stuff, everyone bar you & your mate knows it. Ask them.

Rag_hater wrote:

sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do

Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.

The late, great Brian Clough was a big believer in his sides breaking down the flanks and firing the ball hard and low into the box, where anything could happen and the ball could easily ricochet into the net from forwards and defenders alike.

If that was lucky, at least his sides played for it and any ball hit into a crowded box always has the possibility of deflections.

If Brian Clough was quite happy to take such gifts as they fell his way, so should we.....the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

: 3 headers in one game
by Ted Hughes » 22 Feb 2011 22:01

Rag_hater wrote:
Bridge'srightfoot wrote:
Rag_hater wrote:
Bridge'srightfoot wrote:
Rag_hater wrote:
Out of 103 goals Chelski scored last year the 8 or 9 they got from headers made the champs.
Cahill pretty dangerous from set pieces.Where are Toffees?
Lets make a bid for him so we can be as dangerous and Delap while were at it.

You just don't give in.
there are no two ways about it. Becoming more dangerous from set pieces = more goals.
Simple.


Having better players becoming a better team = more goals.
Simple.
If you took the scum's 14 goals this year they would still be on the same as us its hardly changed their season.

Just take the point. If you are more dangerous from set pieces you will score more goals.
You're almost saying you want us to be crap from set pieces.
Stop being f'cking difficult.

I'm not saying that at all.I'm saying we are like every other fucker sometimes your'e lucky most of the time your'e not.Scoring from set pieces is luck,and we have had shit luck at this year.Its fuckall about being more dangerous at them we are doing everything right.We just haven't had the luck.


What you're saying is nonsense, & everyone who knows the slightest thing about football knows this. We try to have polite and amiable discussions with you but you insist on coming out with rubbish like this & it's childish & fucking stupid & annoying & just proves to everyone that you don't know what you are talking about. It's the football equivalent of believing that the Moon is made of cheese; EVERYONE knows for a fact that it's bollocks apart from you.

If you have any friends who watch football, ask them if they think scoring from set pieces is purely down to luck. If you know anyone who's ever played pro football, ask them. If you have any radio stations with football phone ins with ex footballers/managers, ask them. Even if you know the manager of a children's team, ask him or her. Failing that, read up on it via the internet etc.

You are making a fool of yourself.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When I said that it is luck that enables team you made a list of people who should confirm I am a fool and now you are saying that it was a stroke of luck from a set play that got us our third goal.So if I am such a fool what are you

Oh dear God

Original Dub wrote:Oh dear God

hahaha

Ted Hughes wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:

sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do

Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.

That goal was a bit lucky as the keeper MAY well have saved it. What wasn't lucky was Kolarov hitting the 1st man with every corner or blazing over the bar from free kcks when we had 5 players lined up to head in v a small team. That was shite & most other teams would do better.

If a goal is deflected, it has an element of luck about it, whether it's a set piece or not. If the ball is passed & someone intentionally hits it on target & scores without a lucky deflection etc, then obviously it's not lucky, irrespective whether it's a set piece or not. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, as it's obvious.

You don't need to be an 'expert' to know this stuff, everyone bar you & your mate knows it. Ask them.

I'd say you have it wrong again and someone with your expertise shouldn't make such basic errors.You say if the is no deflection and its on target and a goal is scored then its obviously not lucky.I'd say your wrong,lets take goalkeepers for this example.
Lets begin with the case of:
Paul Robinson in England vs Croatia,
Scot Carson against England vs Croatia
David Seaman the WC game and Goofy did him,no bobbles,no deflections just a soft shot.
David James against they mighty Austria,
I'm sure there's more, like the own goals our own legedary Richard scored and all are examples of bad luck in this case.Luck nontheless.
Luck and skill are linked.
And there are some teams and players who are luckier than others.
To dismiss it in an aim to make me look foolish ain't doing you any favours.
There's examples of some kind of luck in every game.

Divine Intervention!!!. Thats all it was, YaYa struck it a spirit of Jesus scooped it towards opposition players leg, Mother Nature then pushed the deflection away from the goal keeper an it went in. All else is shit, and people are kidding you.

I really shouldn't bite but as I said in the other thread -

Yes there was an element of 'luck' to Yaya's goal last night, however not every goal scored from a set piece is lucky. If you do the basics (such as beating the first man) then you are more likely to score - there is not just 'luck' behind a good set piece routine.

Rag_hater wrote:

I'd say you have it wrong again and someone with your expertise shouldn't make such basic errors.You say if the is no deflection and its on target and a goal is scored then its obviously not lucky.I'd say your wrong,lets take goalkeepers for this example.
Lets begin with the case of:
Paul Robinson in England vs Croatia,
Scot Carson against England vs Croatia
David Seaman the WC game and Goofy did him,no bobbles,no deflections just a soft shot.
David James against they mighty Austria,
I'm sure there's more, like the own goals our own legedary Richard scored and all are examples of bad luck in this case.Luck nontheless.
Luck and skill are linked.
And there are some teams and players who are luckier than others.
To dismiss it in an aim to make me look foolish ain't doing you any favours.
There's examples of some kind of luck in every game.

Attacking players job is to create the chances and to strike on target, its their job. Its not about luck. If you dont strike the ball towards to goal, then you are not going to score many in a season, are you?

Defending players job is block and clear the ball from danger, its their job. if they dont cleanly clear or block the ball, they are leaving themselves open to a goal being scored against them.

Seems simple to me

If my memory servers me right (no guarantee included). 1955, FA Cup Semi Final, City v Sunderland.

City are awarded a free kick...a laced old fashioned case ball whish was tied with a lace. Boots over the top of the ankles, fashioned in quarter inch thick leather and a rounded toe cap harder than steel. Forget bending that bastard with those bastards.
Roy Clarke steps up and wellies it hard and low into the area. Deflections...GOAL...We are in the Cup Final.

When asked later, Roy said that he knew if he hit it hard and low, there was a chance of a deflection and posiibly a goal. Luck or calculated gamble. Every shot is a risk, playing the calculated odds game is a relevent part of football now, as it always has been.

luck or no luck, it was a goal ffs. end of

Wonderwall wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:

I'd say you have it wrong again and someone with your expertise shouldn't make such basic errors.You say if the is no deflection and its on target and a goal is scored then its obviously not lucky.I'd say your wrong,lets take goalkeepers for this example.
Lets begin with the case of:
Paul Robinson in England vs Croatia,
Scot Carson against England vs Croatia
David Seaman the WC game and Goofy did him,no bobbles,no deflections just a soft shot.
David James against they mighty Austria,
I'm sure there's more, like the own goals our own legedary Richard scored and all are examples of bad luck in this case.Luck nontheless.
Luck and skill are linked.
And there are some teams and players who are luckier than others.
To dismiss it in an aim to make me look foolish ain't doing you any favours.
There's examples of some kind of luck in every game.

Attacking players job is to create the chances and to strike on target, its their job. Its not about luck. If you dont strike the ball towards to goal, then you are not going to score many in a season, are you?

Defending players job is block and clear the ball from danger, its their job. if they dont cleanly clear or block the ball, they are leaving themselves open to a goal being scored against them.

Seems simple to me

Well if you think that there is no luck then we have a differing view on how games pan out. I think I have given examples of how I think luck has affected games.
Your point about shooting I understand but for me how the point is reached is sometimes down to good fortune sometimes down to skill.However to say that scoring chances are down to what the attackers do IMO is ignoring what else may have happened to arrive at that opportunity.

john68 wrote:If my memory servers me right (no guarantee included). 1955, FA Cup Semi Final, City v Sunderland.

City are awarded a free kick...a laced old fashioned case ball whish was tied with a lace. Boots over the top of the ankles, fashioned in quarter inch thick leather and a rounded toe cap harder than steel. Forget bending that bastard with those bastards.
Roy Clarke steps up and wellies it hard and low into the area. Deflections...GOAL...We are in the Cup Final.

When asked later, Roy said that he knew if he hit it hard and low, there was a chance of a deflection and posiibly a goal. Luck or calculated gamble. Every shot is a risk, playing the calculated odds game is a relevent part of football now, as it always has been.

I didn't know that thanks.
However, I would have asked Roy that what he thought the chances were of his shot being deflected over the bar or going wide or even coming straight back at him if he hadn't struck it so sweetly.Calculated gamble it may have been however without it being perfect (in that case it was) a degree of luck would have been needed to couteract the strike not being perfect. So for me a degree of luck is required everytime a perfect connection is not attained.And despite how good these players are reaching that level only happens once in a BLUE MOON

The only point I am making is that there is a calculated factor in many of these lucky shots.

Rag_hater wrote:

Ted Hughes wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:

sweenyuk wrote:the technique was spot on, hit it hard and low in to a crowd of players and likley hood is it will get through and probably pick up a deflection on it's way. If we were 0-0 or losing you could question the decision, 2-0 up it was the right thing to do

Probably assumes nothing definate,so whether it was the right thing to do or not in your opinion does not deflect from the fact a certain amount of luck was needed to achieve hitting the ball with spot on technique and luck is the issue that is up for debate.

That goal was a bit lucky as the keeper MAY well have saved it. What wasn't lucky was Kolarov hitting the 1st man with every corner or blazing over the bar from free kcks when we had 5 players lined up to head in v a small team. That was shite & most other teams would do better.

If a goal is deflected, it has an element of luck about it, whether it's a set piece or not. If the ball is passed & someone intentionally hits it on target & scores without a lucky deflection etc, then obviously it's not lucky, irrespective whether it's a set piece or not. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, as it's obvious.

You don't need to be an 'expert' to know this stuff, everyone bar you & your mate knows it. Ask them.

I'd say you have it wrong again and someone with your expertise shouldn't make such basic errors.You say if the is no deflection and its on target and a goal is scored then its obviously not lucky.I'd say your wrong,lets take goalkeepers for this example.
Lets begin with the case of:
Paul Robinson in England vs Croatia,
Scot Carson against England vs Croatia
David Seaman the WC game and Goofy did him,no bobbles,no deflections just a soft shot.
David James against they mighty Austria,
I'm sure there's more, like the own goals our own legedary Richard scored and all are examples of bad luck in this case.Luck nontheless.
Luck and skill are linked.
And there are some teams and players who are luckier than others.
To dismiss it in an aim to make me look foolish ain't doing you any favours.
There's examples of some kind of luck in every game.

I was hoping that you wouln't be so pedantic & would stick with the discussion we were having which was relative to the difference between set piece (particularly corners) type goals & goals from open play. I'm not trying to make you look foolish by saying luck doesn't play a part, as that isn't my opinion. We weren't disagreeing that luck can affect games, of course it can, the disagreement is relative to your claim that set pieces are down to luck. Of course goalkeeping could come into it, as could the weather, acts of God, whether the sriker has an attack of the shits as he's about to kick the ball, whether nuclear war breaks out or the player is put off by a shapely pair of tits in the crowd or the goalkeeper could be distracted by a pelican landing on the roof of the Kippax.

However, none of those things would make a set piece any luckier than a goal from open play as they could all apply to both, equally. They are both subject to the same laws of fortune, good or bad & neither is any more or less lucky than the other, a deflection is a deflection, a clean strike is a clean strike, whether from open play or from a set piece. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

I on the other hand, am unlucky or stupid enough to have allowed myself to once again get into a discussion with you. It has now become social work & I'm not getting paid for it.