The Famous Aberdeen - Season 2022/23

[Afc69]

17 minutes ago, Baldie1980 said:

26 minutes ago, Afc69 said:

It’s a winger whose signing today, a bit surprised at both that and who it is.

A nice surprise or a shit surprise.

Underwhelming surprise but I’m a person that needs whelmed.

[Frank Grimes]

That name has been doing the rounds for a while so not a massive surprise

Know nothing about him 

[Afc69]

8 minutes ago, Frank Grimes said:

That name has been doing the rounds for a while so not a massive surprise

Know nothing about him 

Another project signing. Great, you need a few of those but we have signed loads of those  this window and in Jan; in a era where we have a serious (for Aberdeen) wedge to spend, on what should be more established players.

I hope this new stradagee all works out but I’m starting to have some doubts.

Edited August 3, 2022 by Afc69

[Bogbrush1903]

11 hours ago, Spectre said:

There's an article in the athletic that covers this, which I have linked. https://theathletic.com/2861228/2021/10/05/why-players-are-no-longer-on-the-posts-when-defending-corners/

 

If you're too lazy to click the link, the important bit states that if you don't have players on the posts, there is a 2.1% chance of conceding a goal, but if you do put players on the post, then there's a 2.7% chance of conceding a goal. This makes sense because the defenders on the post are passive, and only become part of the defence if the opponent get a shot at goal, whereas if they are involved in the defending of the corner, then the opponents are much less likely to have a shot at goal, and in turn score.

 

They took this stat from here: https://spielverlagerung.com/2019/12/06/tactical-theory-set-pieces/ which in turn took it from the sloan sports conference in 2018, which I can't find anywhere (I didn't look for very long), so I'm not entirely sure how much data they have sifted through to get to that conclusion. 

All players are passive apart from those in the immediate area where the ball arrives.

I''m not overly concerned about sticking a player on the near post as you usually have a host of players attempting either the flick-on or defending the potential flick-on. Also the keeper should have his near post covered. 

However, I would always have a player on the far post. This gives the attacking player less area to hit and the keeper can't possibly cover the whole goal from such close range.

I haven't seen Welsh's goal or the Union goal last night. Were they scored at the far post from where the corner was taken?

Did this study measure the likelihood of conceding when you put a defender only on the far post?

Edited August 3, 2022 by Bogbrush1903

[Bogbrush1903]

38 minutes ago, Afc69 said:

Another project signing. Great, you need a few of those but we have signed loads of those  this window and in Jan; in a era where we have a serious (for Aberdeen) wedge to spend, on what should be more established players.

I hope this new stradagee all works out but I’m starting to have some doubts.

I think we've got to trust the prawcess.

If we compare Morris to Boyle then Morris is nine years younger with, hopefully, potential.

I know nothing about Morris so I'll place my trust in Mowbray and the team that this guy is the real deal and we might have a good player for 3 or 4 seasons before selling him on for a whacking big profit.

Boyle we might only get a year or two out of, no sell-on potential and could well slow as he reaches his 30s, and costs a fortune in wages. Let Hibs buy up all the has-beens like McGeady, Marshall and Boyle.

[tarapoa]

2 hours ago, Bogbrush1903 said:

I haven't seen Welsh's goal or the Union goal last night. Were they scored at the far post from where the corner was taken?

Welsh goal on Sunday was at the far post.  Well-taken corner, but Welsh needed just to get there first (which he did ahead of Polvara) and direct it into the huge empty void without too much power.

USG had an almost identical effort at the end last night, but Tavernier was on the far post to clear. 

However, the stats tell us that there was a 0.6% more chance we would have conceded a goal with someone on the post - and the reverse for Sevco last night with Tavernier positioned in a zonal/man-marking role elsewhere.

Edited August 3, 2022 by tarapoa

[Spectre]

42 minutes ago, Bogbrush1903 said:

All players are passive apart from those in the immediate area where the ball arrives.

I''m not overly concerned about sticking a player on the near post as you usually have a host of players attempting either the flick-on or defending the potential flick-on. Also the keeper should have his near post covered. 

However, I would always have a player on the far post. This gives the attacking player less area to hit and the keeper can't possibly cover the whole goal from such close range.

I haven't seen Welsh's goal or the Union goal last night. Were they scored at the far post from where the corner was taken?

Did this study measure the likelihood of conceding when you put a defender only on the far post?

I can't find the methodology, but I did find another study looking into both posts, front post, back post, and no post. There were differences in the percentages but the article said no clear differences found. It's nearly 10 years old though, so I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is today.

 

I think it's an interesting discussion, different coaches will have their own beliefs, based on principles of play, and currently, the differences are quite small in how teams set up at corners. The placing of players on posts, is something that is visible to fans.

 

On this issue, I dislike when people cherry pick instances and highlight a particular goal where if the team had a player on the post they wouldn't have conceded. In that situation, it appears to be the case but you would then have to consider how changing all other corners might impact all of the other games as a whole. I also dislike pundits being dismissive of the tactic when the numbers suggest that at the very least it is as good a tactic in the long run as having players on the posts. I would also question why they think the way they do. Is it purely because that's how they were taught, so they assume it to be optimal?

 

The question comes down to, is it better to reduce the size of the goals, or reduce the chance of winning a header.

 

 

 

[Steve_Wilkos]

A nice surprise or a shit surprise.

I have just walked past Todders and there was a dude with a fake moustache hanging round with his Lambo engine still running.

He told me his name was Big Barios Bogkmpoe.

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, tarapoa said:

Welsh goal on Sunday was at the far post.  Well-taken corner, but Welsh needed just to get there first (which he did ahead of Polvara) and direct it into the huge empty void without too much power.

USG had an almost identical effort at the end last night, but Tavernier was on the far post to clear. 

However, the stats tell us that there was a 0.6% more chance we would have conceded a goal with someone on the post - and the reverse for Sevco last night with Tavernier positioned in a zonal/man-marking role elsewhere.

We don't know who would have been on the post, so any cleared cross from a corner could potentially have been a shot/header on target had the player clearing it been at the post. 

[CO2000]

1 hour ago, Spectre said:

I can't find the methodology, but I did find another study looking into both posts, front post, back post, and no post. There were differences in the percentages but the article said no clear differences found. It's nearly 10 years old though, so I'm not entirely sure how relevant that is today.

 

I think it's an interesting discussion, different coaches will have their own beliefs, based on principles of play, and currently, the differences are quite small in how teams set up at corners. The placing of players on posts, is something that is visible to fans.

 

On this issue, I dislike when people cherry pick instances and highlight a particular goal where if the team had a player on the post they wouldn't have conceded. In that situation, it appears to be the case but you would then have to consider how changing all other corners might impact all of the other games as a whole. I also dislike pundits being dismissive of the tactic when the numbers suggest that at the very least it is as good a tactic in the long run as having players on the posts. I would also question why they think the way they do. Is it purely because that's how they were taught, so they assume it to be optimal?

 

The question comes down to, is it better to reduce the size of the goals, or reduce the chance of winning a header.

 

 

 

Shorter player who is unlikely to win any headers on the post maybe?

[naegoodinthedark]

Didn’t someone say we were signing someone today?

[kingjoey]

5 minutes ago, naegoodinthedark said:

Didn’t someone say we were signing someone today?

Still loads of time. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but quite a few of our recent signings have been very late in the day.

[Afc69]

1 hour ago, naegoodinthedark said:

Didn’t someone say we were signing someone today?

Rumoured to have failed his medical 

[DrewDon]

Failed his medical due to high blood pressure. Neil Godwin signing from Swindon Town instead. 

[Thenorthernlight]

14 minutes ago, Afc69 said:

Rumoured to have failed his medical 

Hope so.

We don’t need another winger.

 

[Hoose Rice]

How come Davenport bumped you boys for Hertz?

[Rodhull]

10 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said:

How come Davenport bumped you boys for Hertz?

Not sure if he's been seriously linked with us since the January window when Glass was still in charge. 

Not hard to see why someone would pick Hearts at the moment anyway. Much less of a gamble what the team will be like this season than Aberdeen and the chance of a decent amount of European football too. 

[lubo_blaha]

Failed his medical due to high blood pressure. Neil Godwin signing from Swindon Town instead. 

Amazing what a couple of months of working under Scott Brown will do to your health.

[Rodhull]

Scott Burns saying the deal is close for what that's worth now. Makes no mention of a failed medical. 

[DukDukGoose]

9 hours ago, Hoose Rice said:

How come Davenport bumped you boys for Hertz?

Don't think we've e had any interest in him since Glass left.