Good for you and good luck with your illogical reasoning. First "low percentage shots" are related to other long range shots (post 382) but now it becomes contrasted with tap-ins from close range (without seeing that James contrasts it with other midfielders). This kind of rhetoric ends it for me. "And would you rather have a player aim for the corners or shoot the ball weakly at the keeper?" I want to have a player who shoots on target. If he can consistently aim to the corners, the better it is. If he doesn't do that (and hopefully he'll then recognize that his shots are without purpose) then I still prefer it over someone who misses the target altogether. Because there is still a chance that a goalkeeper mishandles the ball and grants a rebound, or so. "Great shooting touch" does not equal trying youtube shots and once in a while succeeding.
Unless your keeper is Robert Green or Valdir Peres, a shot that goes right at the keeper is not causing any damage to the opponent. As long as they don't abuse the privilege, a shooter that places them to the angles is always preferable, even if it will cause more shots off target.
Don't get me wrong. I think stats are a good tool for analyzing data. But stats have to be used correctly, as a compliment to what we see on the field. Otherwise you run the risk of saying things that frankly, those who watch the games will consider foolish. For example, look at these two shots: Both are off-target, but one is a very good shot, and another one is not. I'll let you look at them and decide which is which. Obviously, to the statsman, they are both "shot off-target". But the same statman will tell you correctly that the following is a "shot on-target". But if that is how you determine in a vacuum which shots are good shots and which are not, then you might as well be blind. I am a believer that you judge players based on what you see, and ideally what you see for a whole game, and for many games. If a player can strike the ball well, it's something you appreciate when you see it, regardless of whether the ball goes in, the goalie saves it, or it misses the target. Likewise, if a ball is poorly stricken, it can also be appreciated, regardless of what the stats say. So, if you tell me you've watched a player over his whole career and he can shoot, I'm not going to try to refute you with blind stats. If I have an issue with you based on the stats, I'd first want to look at how he plays and the type of shots he takes, and see as many of the shots as I can, to put the stats in context. And if I can't do that, I would not argue with you. Having said that, let me be a bit blunt: To say that Riquelme doesn't strike the ball well is the statement of a blind man. I can understand if you argue that he doesn't shoot enough or doesn't play close enough to the goal to take better advantage of his ability (as Maradona argued). I can even understand -though I disagree- if you argue that he shouldn't be taking those low percentage shots from distance or bad angled. But if you argue that he doesn't shoot well, then I know you're not watching his games.
I think the assumption should be that long range shooters want to shoot on target. There is a clear disincentive in the game to just shoot on sight. It will take at least a minute before you get the ball back. If there is a too big risk that a ball towards the corner will miss the desired effect (one in a hundred balls resulting in a goal isn't a good pay-off I'd say), we have to assume that a player will pass this opportunity. In fact, with the modern balls shooting on goal there is a big chance that the goalkeeper makes an error, and provides a rebound. Cannot find the study at the moment but read once that when shooting from long distance, it is indeed better to prefer certainty over difficulty. That not every shot is the same, is evident. Not every goal is the same too. Not every pass is the same, and not every foul is the same. There are leg breaking fouls and slight pushes. The problem is that you substantiated the "great shooter" claim with a handful of youtube videos. Later on you yourself said that he goes for difficult angles, so the balls that make youtube.
Well it's hard to say ... in general you're right, but at the end of the game ... there is NO DIFFERENCE. Since people only remember who scored and howmany ... Look at CR7 stats ... he got an impressive goals record but often most fans or media do not care how many shots he made in a game ... Deep down goal = goal ... and such stats is only important when we try to compare him to another great shooter!
You're right and psot on this "delicate issue" that many might disregard. I never said Riquelme (or Zidane, Ronaldinho ...) are bad in shooting.... but as FACT they did not have a very good stats in shooting ... to be "claimed as great shooter"! It maybe bc by the way to shoot (like you mentioned) or the "timing" when they shoot. I remember someone (Vegan?) also mentioned of how Maradona used todo his freekick: always aiming to the far top corner and very close to the bar ... and that "hurts" his stats ... but they are truely "wicked shot"- that's deadball ... now at "live ball" , the two most great shooter in recent time were Romario and Ronaldo. They often shot with soft to medium power but the way they shot is to "aim to wrongfoot the GK" or "aim for a fartehr low corner". That's how you can beat most GK ...
That is disingenuous and you know it. I used YouTube to provide examples only because of the obvious limits we have here. I substantiate my opinion not based on a handful of videos, but rather based on the fact that I've watched most of Riquelme's matches live or on screen (more on screen) since he made his debut at Boca in 1996 at age 18 until his last match so far a couple of weeks ago at age 35. I've seen his first goal and his last. Here: First Last I've seen most of the shots he took during his career, and when I say the guy can shoot and has great touch I don't say it lightly. and im not making an extraordinary claim, the most credible experts in Argentine football will agree that his shot is indeed one of his attributes. Frankly I am not familiar with his on target ratio, over the years, but I've seen him shoot time after time, I've seen lots of players -great and small- shoot, and I know Riquelme can shoot. To claim otherwise i believe is a sign of not watching him play.
Fair enough, but when I say he's a great shooter I'm not saying he is better than Ronaldo and Romario. I will also say that I think Ronaldinho is a good shooter, although I've not seen him quite as much as Ive seen Riquelme over the years. Now if you compare them only with the very best of the best, we are talking a different issue. I mean, I can tell you that Martha Argerich is a great pianist, but if you bring up Vladimir Horowitz...
Understood. we can not compare many especially players form MF to have a great shooting and finishing like R9 R11 ... But in otehr hand, one can not compare their "passing skills" against the likes Zidane Riquelme or Ronnie ... So to be fair we shoudlcompare the same type against each other. I do not consider Ronaldinho as 'good shooter". He maybe a bit better in closer distance, than Riquelme but his long shooting was lousy (Riquelme was more accurate surely)
I lived in Argentina briefly but am not Argentine. Why did you think I am Italian? I have lived in Argentina (although my love for their football goes much before that) but am not Argie. I'm not Italian, not sure why many have asked me that? I don't think you need to be Italian to understand Italy owns Germany in football.
I thought you were Italian because "Pipiolo" sounds Italian, and because despite many epic Italy vs Argentina matches in history, including the 1990 semifinals, Argentina is a nation which received huge numbers of Italian immigrants, to the extent that the main dialect of its capital city and the surrounding region has a very Italianized intonation - something unseen in Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico, and Spain itself, and because many Argentine players have had Italian last names (Batistuta, Sensini, Zanetti, Pochettino, Giusti, etc) - and that therefore, an Italian person who saw Maradona play in Naples might have a bit of sympathy towards Argentina.
well look at what I said earlier ... Riquelme was among the so called great talents or so .. and you are not comparing with with those "half #9" in this era - the #9 are dying! If you got the stats of those top strikers in last decade or two ... like R9, Nisterlooy, Etoo, Sheva, Henry Batistuta Owen ... or even back to Romario, Shearer, Cantona, Papin ... They surely had much betetr stats than that Like Argentian spot on: there are two stats: Accuracy % (shot on goal) and Goal conversion (goals/shots). Some could have good accurace but not so good in conversion, and others had good conversion but less in accuracy. For example, R9 Etoo had similar stats with Messi shooting stats now more like ~ 30% or even higher and we simulated Riquelme to have like <10% as big difference in SAME ERA This Era: Messi had good accuracy and conversion, while CR7 had good accuracy but less in conversion Suarez, Bale also had a good stats last season ... and we'll see. ========================================== Riquelme was like Roanldinho , Neymar type ... talented in ball skills but not so much in shooting ... no shame ... just their natural gifted like that. In other hand, Kaka Kempes or Rivaldo were surely better in shooting skills than them,
Sounds Italian but it's actually a Spanish word. Pipiolos were actually a one time political party in Chile.
I think (after having looked for it) "Pipiolo" is lunfardo for "rookie/novice" or "inexperienced boy". And many lunfardo words have some italian origin or influence, so... PS: Lunfardo is like slang, but old slang... from the 19th and early 20th centuries inmmigrants (a big chunk of them italians). Some of the lunfardo still survives on current daily argentinian speech. Not "pipiolo" though. And BTW, tango is loaded with lunfardo on its lyrics, and i actually had heard "pipiolo" before on a Tita Merello's song but only now that we're discussing it I took the time to search its meaning.
That is also correct and considering the posters following of Argentina and Argentine players that makes the most sense though historically Pipiolos were a part of the political process after O'Higgins ousting. edit: I wonder if any connection exists between the two.
most people think like what you said but for me, no.......... i always think in detail when i give my opinion
Sandinista and you are both correct. The term originated in Chile as a derogatory term for the supporters of the left wing, derived from "pipi" to mimic the sound of chickens after crumbs. It then spread to Argentina and the rest of the Spanish speaking countries as a nickname usually for a skinny kid/young man. Besides Chile and Argentina, I have heard it used in Colombia, Ecuador and Dominican Republic.
To say several times that I didn't watch him play is a bit of an insult. Although I appreciate that the consensus can be wrong, apparently the general consensus does agree with me that it is one of his least developed aspects in a attacking sense. http://pesstatsdatabase.com/viewtopic.php?t=3681 Btw, the values pesstats give him makes him one of the best (creative) players in the world (still at age 35). So he isn't underrated, and it isn't made by haters. It is just that the Argentina/Boca fans also see it as not a special attribute. And the statistics support this. Fact: he doesn't score a lot Fact: many of the goals are penalties or free kicks (in Spanish league about 50% are penalties) Fact: if he does score many spectacular goals with low percentage shots, why is it so difficult to score 10 times more 'easy' shots? Something is wrong here with the proportions. Maybe a video with all of his goals will do?
Indeed that's interesting. So there is some thought put behind your screenname, unlike mine. I remember when I registered at BigSoccer a few years back I had no intentions to stick around for long and thus used a word that had crossed my mind at that moment with absolutely no meaning.