Reading this after having watched an incredible NBA finals game makes me sad for football fans. What a sluggish, broken sport they have the misfortune of following.
What amazes me is how new rules are introduced with little testing or scrutiny. This handball rule, which is beyond terrible, should've been tried for a year in a less important competition like the league cup.
It's broken in so many ways. Still the most entertaining sport by a mile though.
It awards penalty kicks even for unintentional touches of the ball, as far as it is not a ricochet. Before that the hand had to be in unnatural position to signal intend by the player.
Absolutely ridiculous. Unless you want defenders to run around with their hands on their backs, what's the point? Were teams ever really robbed of goals and titles by unintentional handball? Now there will be titles awarded to those winning the penalty lottery instead. I expect this will be changed back in the coming seasons.
I sort of get the argument for not having the rule based on intent - the game's faster than it's ever been, and even with VAR reviewing it, it's nigh impossible to determine intent. At least this gives some clarity to the refs and players. I see it as similar in a way to players going down like a sack of bricks with a light (But legitimate) foul - it's a way to clearly signal to the ref that contact was made (as well as, you know, get a pen) in a game with such tiny margins at the highest level of play.
O, yes, handplay has been crucial in many matches and the correctness in awarding a kick or not is a favorite passtime for many fans discussing historical games.
My suspicion is that it will open the game because teams would prefer to attack and keep the ball away from the danger zone. If penalty kicks become to successful though, FIFA might decide to make it more difficult for the kicker instead of going back to the previous chaos. Examples are:
1. if the goalkeeper reflects the ball, nobody can approach it and try again.
2. the goalkeeper could be allowed to leave the goal line and meet the ball.
I guess rules will be changed, too, but some pro footballers also are fairly good actors, and can intentionally place their arms in the ball’s trajectory so that it looks unintentionally (one way to get there is by not moving it out of the way)
What surprises me is that, for the VAR, they didn’t do what was done in other sports (tennis, field hockey, cricket): only review actions on request by a team (or the referees), and give each team a limited number of times their requests can be rejected.
IIRC, American football has that now, too, after a period in which about every play got reviewed.
The other important thing that predicates when the panenka can be brought out of the locker is the pressure on the goalkeeper. If the keeper doesn't dive for a penalty, they end up looking a bit silly. To hold your ground as a keeper until the last minute (through the strikers run-up) is a game of chicken.
There was a suggestion that Jorginho (Chelsea midfielder) unique technique (similar to Bruno Fernandes from Manchester United) can be countered by the keeper playing a double dummy.
There's the old managers adage of "when in doubt, go for power" which has always worked well.
It’s funny how this has become such a weird art form.
There are plenty of players (mostly strikers) who don’t do anything fancy but score 99% of the time by just picking top left or top right corner and hitting it so fast it’s impossible to save. Harry Kane is a good modern example, but Alan Shearer also never really missed penalties with the same idea.
Jamie Vardy, also mentioned in the article, just hoofs it in most of the time. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's how he scored the 2 pens against man city in the article.
To me, with a limited data set, Vardy does seem to have got smarter over the past few years. Still pace and power, but a little more skill even if it slows the ball down (perhaps as he gets older, or just wiser?).
Trying to hit it in the top left or right corner is so risky though - for a high-profile example of what can go wrong take a look at Baggio's penalty miss in the 1994 World Cup final or when Beckham skied his against Portugal in 2004. In a high pressure situation like a penalty it's so easy to get under it and send it soaring over the bar.
I think it's more about going with what you are confident with, and having the resolve to not change your mind just before you hit the ball. I had a pretty solid right footed drive, so I'd just crack it low and hard into the bottom left. That way I didn't have to be particularly accurate to get a good chance of converting it (it didn't have to be tucked JUST inside the post) but the keeper had to:
1. guess the right side
2. know I was going low
3. dive very quickly
4. dive quite far
I know that any time I missed I doubted myself or changed my mind at the last minute and tried something different or fancy. I was not a famous footballer facing an opponent who had studied my stats though - so I doubt this is a strategy that works outside Sunday League :-)
edit: I went back to check Beckham's penalty against Portugal to check my memory wasn't misleading me ... man that was some shootout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlEUdZgH0gc
- David Beckham kicks his penalty over the crossbar, out of the stadium and into orbit
- Rui Costa kicks his penalty over too, not quite as high
- Nuno Gomes (I think?) does a Panenka
- Ricardo saves a penalty for Portugal without his gloves, then proceeds to take penalty himself ... and scores, winning the game
I still remember the pain of this (and many other england) shoot outs.
Apparently it was team policy back then not to practice penalties. No wonder we always lost.
It wasn't until Gareth Southgate took over as england manager (who infamously had his terrible semi final penalty saved in Euro 96) that we started practicing - and guess what, we won the next penalty shoot out. Who'd have thought?
Good grief that is bonkers. I wonder if it was justified like - if you prepare for penalties the players will aim for that instead of trying to win in 90 minutes or in Extra Time. Like an old antiquated training strategy I read about where a team would train without a ball, so that they’d be more hungry for it during the game.
I cannot imagine what it feels like to be an England fan. With Scotland it’d be an achievement if we even reached a major finals, and we’re kinda prepared for disappointment in every game. But England are a genuinely good team who are capable of winning the Euros or the World Cup if they don’t bottle it.
The sad thing about being an England fan over the last few decades has been managers pandering to the egos rather than playing the best strategy. Can never forgive the run of managers who decided playing Gerrard and Lampard next to each other every match was a great idea.
Southgate in that regard does feel like a small breath of fresh air.
That show is truly one of the biggest "happy" surprises of the year for me. I had low expectations watching the first episode or two, but was blown away.
From what I've read, I seem to have a unpopular opinion as it regards Jorginho and Bruno Fernandes technique (the little skip before shooting).
Skipping before shooting is really dangerous in my eyes. First off, you lose shot power (much more notable in Jorginho's case). Second, the goalkeepers get familiar with it, and start waiting for the skip (Bruno Fernandes changed his technique recently in the Europa League due to this, the goalkeeper almost saved it, only he couldn't due to shot power. If BF skipped, the power would not have been enough).
It could be argued that the panenka is the same thing - if the goalkeeper waits, he saves. However, the panenka does not require the run to be changed, adding to the surprise factor.
All that being said, powerful shot to the side netting is still my go to.
Conventional thinking is (or was? I don’t follow this closely) that hard shots into the side netting either low to the ground or high up are unstoppable. The goalkeeper cannot reach the high corners, and will not fall fast enough to catch low shots, if the shot is fast enough.
Mid-high shots close to the side of the goal are catchable, if the goalkeeper guesses (possibly with over 50% chance, if he knows the player or can tell from his approach) the direction of the shot.
Problem of course, is maintaining accuracy while shooting hard under pressure. Many players seem to be able to do that nowadays (most of the time)
> Conventional thinking is (or was? I don’t follow this closely) that hard shots into the side netting either low to the ground or high up are unstoppable. The goalkeeper cannot reach the high corners, and will not fall fast enough to catch low shots, if the shot is fast enough.
It still is.
When I said that I have an unpopular opinion, it was just referring to the skipping technique.
The book Soccernomics [0], has a whole chapter dedicated to both the psychology and game theory of penalty kicks.
Long story short:
- Let's simplify to the options being: you kick either left or right
- The goalie has to pick which side BEFORE you kick b/c by the time you kick, it's too late for the goalie to react
- Your basic strategies are: always left, always right, alternate left/right or try to be as random as possible (which is assumed to be hard for humans)
The most fascinating part of their analysis was that elite level soccer players are, essentially, random. I believe they also mention that it's one of the few times in human studies where humans have been this close, statistically, to be able to generate random outcomes.
They also go on to wonder if being able to generate random outcomes leads to you being an elite penalty kick specialist or if, over time, you develop that skill as part of the basket of abilities needed to compete at that level
(At less elite levels, paradiddles are a great low-budget pseudorandom. At more elite levels, using outside signals for an entropy pool has been attested.)
I think this is a simplification that in some ways is ignoring the main point of this article -- the Paneka kick described in the article is a kick up the middle; relying on exactly that sort of decision process by the goalkeeper.
And the new-style kick being touted is also a meta game -- trying to telegraph a still-likely-to-succeed-on-power-alone kick and changing it up for a less powerful less reliable kick to the opposite side.
If the telegraphed kick were less of a threat (that is, if the anticipated speed of the kick were slower) then the goaltender would not have to commit as much. The subtleties here are interesting, though the article is missing a discussion of failed attempts at the Paneka and the Tielemans-style kick.
This reminds me of elite poker players purposely creating certain play tendencies over years (reducing returns) and waiting to change them for specific high rewarding opportunities.
Some do stand a bit outside center, to lure the kicker to pick one side. You can’t do that by a long distance, though. The goal is 8 yards wide, so if you move a yard from the center, one goal post is 5 yards away. That leaves too large an opening.
“We asked whether a goalkeeper can, by standing marginally left or right of goal center, bias a penalty taker implicitly to kick to the side with greater area, thus allowing the goalkeeper to dive in that direction to make a save. We show that the penalty taker is unlikely to be mindful that the goalkeeper is off center, but nevertheless can identify the side with greater area and will be more likely to direct the penalty kick to that side than to the other side.”
“implicit influences of the goalkeeper’s position on goal side selection were overridden by the (conscious) perception of the direction of the goalkeeper’s dive, but only if the penalty takers deliberately monitored the goalkeeper’s action and the goalkeeper committed early enough for penalty takers to respond. In all other combinations of penalty kick and goalkeeper strategies more than 60% of the kicks were directed to the side of the goal with more space”
I wish this article had more embedded examples. I'm not really a big soccer fan, but this sort of intersection of athletics and game theory are always interesting to see.
As a tip, if you are watching a YouTube video, you can use "." and "," to go backwards and forwards by one frame when paused. It lets you see to what degree the goalkeeper is anticipating vs. reacting.
The other issue with the article is that it focuses on successful attempts -- it would be very interesting to see what the unsuccessful attempts look like as well to get a feel for how close to a randomized decision matrix the process is.
Here is Mario balotelli. His technique is about shooting late. After the keeper has made his decision. One of the best I believe. https://youtu.be/G01KHew43qU
At the very highest level of soccer (or any game for that matter), it is not down to physical skills anymore. It becomes a matter of mental games- reading your opponents, making anticipations and react in the moment under immense pressure. The only sport in which I progressed the most is FIFA online "weekend leagues"; it is easy to reach "Gold 2" but after that you have to master reading the game and your opponent.
47 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 18.1 ms ] threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olL9NOcCOTk
Itself reminiscent of this Cruyff number:
https://onefootball.com/en/news/goal-of-the-day-genius-johan...
Sócrates, with an even bigger F U than a Panenka, although the secret appears to have died with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zelMbnH-DEE
https://youtu.be/LjX7okJH-lQ
It's broken in so many ways. Still the most entertaining sport by a mile though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kLR38byaoE&t=15
My suspicion is that it will open the game because teams would prefer to attack and keep the ball away from the danger zone. If penalty kicks become to successful though, FIFA might decide to make it more difficult for the kicker instead of going back to the previous chaos. Examples are:
1. if the goalkeeper reflects the ball, nobody can approach it and try again.
2. the goalkeeper could be allowed to leave the goal line and meet the ball.
3. the goals could be made narrower.
What surprises me is that, for the VAR, they didn’t do what was done in other sports (tennis, field hockey, cricket): only review actions on request by a team (or the referees), and give each team a limited number of times their requests can be rejected.
IIRC, American football has that now, too, after a period in which about every play got reviewed.
Also, we just had a weekend with the Premier League champions losing 7-2 to a mid-table club. Football is fine...
There was a suggestion that Jorginho (Chelsea midfielder) unique technique (similar to Bruno Fernandes from Manchester United) can be countered by the keeper playing a double dummy.
There's the old managers adage of "when in doubt, go for power" which has always worked well.
There are plenty of players (mostly strikers) who don’t do anything fancy but score 99% of the time by just picking top left or top right corner and hitting it so fast it’s impossible to save. Harry Kane is a good modern example, but Alan Shearer also never really missed penalties with the same idea.
I think it's more about going with what you are confident with, and having the resolve to not change your mind just before you hit the ball. I had a pretty solid right footed drive, so I'd just crack it low and hard into the bottom left. That way I didn't have to be particularly accurate to get a good chance of converting it (it didn't have to be tucked JUST inside the post) but the keeper had to:
1. guess the right side
2. know I was going low
3. dive very quickly
4. dive quite far
I know that any time I missed I doubted myself or changed my mind at the last minute and tried something different or fancy. I was not a famous footballer facing an opponent who had studied my stats though - so I doubt this is a strategy that works outside Sunday League :-)
edit: I went back to check Beckham's penalty against Portugal to check my memory wasn't misleading me ... man that was some shootout: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlEUdZgH0gc
- David Beckham kicks his penalty over the crossbar, out of the stadium and into orbit
- Rui Costa kicks his penalty over too, not quite as high
- Nuno Gomes (I think?) does a Panenka
- Ricardo saves a penalty for Portugal without his gloves, then proceeds to take penalty himself ... and scores, winning the game
Apparently it was team policy back then not to practice penalties. No wonder we always lost.
It wasn't until Gareth Southgate took over as england manager (who infamously had his terrible semi final penalty saved in Euro 96) that we started practicing - and guess what, we won the next penalty shoot out. Who'd have thought?
I cannot imagine what it feels like to be an England fan. With Scotland it’d be an achievement if we even reached a major finals, and we’re kinda prepared for disappointment in every game. But England are a genuinely good team who are capable of winning the Euros or the World Cup if they don’t bottle it.
Southgate in that regard does feel like a small breath of fresh air.
The last world cup was a lot of fun to watch. Him winning England's first penalty shootout (I think ever?) felt like the circle of life completing.
Skipping before shooting is really dangerous in my eyes. First off, you lose shot power (much more notable in Jorginho's case). Second, the goalkeepers get familiar with it, and start waiting for the skip (Bruno Fernandes changed his technique recently in the Europa League due to this, the goalkeeper almost saved it, only he couldn't due to shot power. If BF skipped, the power would not have been enough).
It could be argued that the panenka is the same thing - if the goalkeeper waits, he saves. However, the panenka does not require the run to be changed, adding to the surprise factor.
All that being said, powerful shot to the side netting is still my go to.
Mid-high shots close to the side of the goal are catchable, if the goalkeeper guesses (possibly with over 50% chance, if he knows the player or can tell from his approach) the direction of the shot.
Problem of course, is maintaining accuracy while shooting hard under pressure. Many players seem to be able to do that nowadays (most of the time)
It still is.
When I said that I have an unpopular opinion, it was just referring to the skipping technique.
Long story short:
- Let's simplify to the options being: you kick either left or right
- The goalie has to pick which side BEFORE you kick b/c by the time you kick, it's too late for the goalie to react
- Your basic strategies are: always left, always right, alternate left/right or try to be as random as possible (which is assumed to be hard for humans)
The most fascinating part of their analysis was that elite level soccer players are, essentially, random. I believe they also mention that it's one of the few times in human studies where humans have been this close, statistically, to be able to generate random outcomes.
They also go on to wonder if being able to generate random outcomes leads to you being an elite penalty kick specialist or if, over time, you develop that skill as part of the basket of abilities needed to compete at that level
0 - https://amzn.to/3jKr4RK
Shannon's Mind Reading Machine used three bits worth of address space to model humans for a very similar game: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23475069
(At less elite levels, paradiddles are a great low-budget pseudorandom. At more elite levels, using outside signals for an entropy pool has been attested.)
And the new-style kick being touted is also a meta game -- trying to telegraph a still-likely-to-succeed-on-power-alone kick and changing it up for a less powerful less reliable kick to the opposite side.
If the telegraphed kick were less of a threat (that is, if the anticipated speed of the kick were slower) then the goaltender would not have to commit as much. The subtleties here are interesting, though the article is missing a discussion of failed attempts at the Paneka and the Tielemans-style kick.
Luckily, you don’t have to do it by a large distance. https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Imperceptibly_off-ce...:
“We asked whether a goalkeeper can, by standing marginally left or right of goal center, bias a penalty taker implicitly to kick to the side with greater area, thus allowing the goalkeeper to dive in that direction to make a save. We show that the penalty taker is unlikely to be mindful that the goalkeeper is off center, but nevertheless can identify the side with greater area and will be more likely to direct the penalty kick to that side than to the other side.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...:
“implicit influences of the goalkeeper’s position on goal side selection were overridden by the (conscious) perception of the direction of the goalkeeper’s dive, but only if the penalty takers deliberately monitored the goalkeeper’s action and the goalkeeper committed early enough for penalty takers to respond. In all other combinations of penalty kick and goalkeeper strategies more than 60% of the kicks were directed to the side of the goal with more space”
As a tip, if you are watching a YouTube video, you can use "." and "," to go backwards and forwards by one frame when paused. It lets you see to what degree the goalkeeper is anticipating vs. reacting.
The other issue with the article is that it focuses on successful attempts -- it would be very interesting to see what the unsuccessful attempts look like as well to get a feel for how close to a randomized decision matrix the process is.
They should make a rule that you have to play barefoot for the next five minutes if you're caught acting.