4 ms·

Welcome to HN. You see these kind of posts on every topic (I have had first-hand knowledge of a certain event, and you come on here and someone will tell you wi

Welcome to HN. You see these kind of posts on every topic (I have had first-hand knowledge of a certain event, and you come on here and someone will tell you with authority that you are wrong...and actually X/Y/Z happened...this place is very unique). What people also underestimate is how hard professionals hit the ball, without looking like they are hitting it hard. I had a relatively hard shot, I have injured GKs in pens, I trained with a guy who was once a reserve keeper for a lower division professional side (retired a few years)...I didn't come close to scoring because my shots were nowhere near hard enough. Free kicks are the same, you see the shot in slow-mo, it looks like they are swatting the ball softly...in reality, their technique is so good/efficient that they are crushing it whilst aiming it carefully. Most professional clubs employ people who just look at penalties. They look at techniques, they look at strategies...saying that the keeper should wait for the ball when it is going 70mph and you have under 100ms to decide is...ludicrous.

canuckintime 5y ago
C'mon, I literally said the same conclusion that keeper's reactions aren't good enough. > I assume that keepers don't have faith in their nerves/reactions and thus have to force their bodies to dive before the shot is taken.
- hogFeast 5y ago
  Yes, and I am saying no-one has reactions that fast. Professionals hit the ball 70-80mph...up the chain someone said that keepers should just wait and see where it is going: this isn't humanly possible, there isn't enough time. What they do is: statistical analysis of every penalty taker to see what preference they have (what corner, what they do home/away, what they do when they are facing a goal at a certain end, etc.) and most professional goalkeepers are pretty much experts in watching how players run up to the ball, how the taker's eyes move, how they position their body, how they position their non-striking leg (and strikers counter this: you will notice that most professional takers will look at the ball when they put it down, turn away from the keeper when they walk back, usually keep looking at the ball or directly at the keeper before they start running, and not look away from the ball when running up...there are reasons for this). And clubs will analyse videos of taker tendencies, and keeper tendencies.
  - canuckintime 5y ago
    We're talking at cross purposes. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256085 Also fwiw just because > Most professional clubs employ people who just look at penalties. They look at techniques, they look at strategies < doesn't always result in professionals choosing the best technique or strategy. Here's an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/sports/ncaabasketball/underhand-free-throw-rick-barry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/sports/ncaabasketball/und...
arcturus17 5y ago
You and the parent you are replying to are right - pro clubs know the ins and outs of penalties and select and train players (keepers and takers) accordingly. You are being distracted from the meat and bones of the argument though - the whole premise that most penalties are poorly taken is blatantly wrong. Most penalties end up in goals - which is how it's intended to be.
- canuckintime 5y ago
  By poorly taken, I mean aesthetics not effectiveness. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256085
- daleharvey 5y ago
  If the goals were smaller and most penalties did not result in goal that would not mean they are poorly taken. These people are obviously the best in the world at what they do, they are picked specifically and paid generously in order to be able to kick a ball into a net. Discussing casually how they could improve without any apparent indepth knowledge is a level of hubris that hackers news is known for breeding.
  - arcturus17 5y ago
    > If the goals were smaller and most penalties did not result in goal Then they arguably wouldn't be penalties. But there's no need to argue with me, I've been watching football for some odd 30 years and playing for a good subset of that. It has never occurred to me that penalties are taken poorly at the pro level - I've seen absolute dross at the amateur level, but I concur that most pro penalty takers are phenomenal, both from a statistical and aesthetical perspective. Not that I think there is that much value in the latter - by design, a penalty kick is the most aesthetically boring of all set pieces. A penalty kick ensues higher emotions due to the odds at play, but from a purely aesthetical point of view, I'd argue that even a corner kick has a much higher potential (a volley, a bicycle kick, a header, a fine-tuned "chess play" that cracks the defense open, etc.) And a penalty kick doesn't compare to the myriad other open plays in football which have infinitely more aesthetic appeal. A penalty kick is about creating a certain balance of odds, simple as. Every other consideration is secondary.

canuckintime 5y ago

C'mon, I literally said the same conclusion that keeper's reactions aren't good enough. > I assume that keepers don't have faith in their nerves/reactions and thus have to force their bodies to dive before the shot is taken.

hogFeast 5y ago
Yes, and I am saying no-one has reactions that fast. Professionals hit the ball 70-80mph...up the chain someone said that keepers should just wait and see where it is going: this isn't humanly possible, there isn't enough time. What they do is: statistical analysis of every penalty taker to see what preference they have (what corner, what they do home/away, what they do when they are facing a goal at a certain end, etc.) and most professional goalkeepers are pretty much experts in watching how players run up to the ball, how the taker's eyes move, how they position their body, how they position their non-striking leg (and strikers counter this: you will notice that most professional takers will look at the ball when they put it down, turn away from the keeper when they walk back, usually keep looking at the ball or directly at the keeper before they start running, and not look away from the ball when running up...there are reasons for this). And clubs will analyse videos of taker tendencies, and keeper tendencies.
- canuckintime 5y ago
  We're talking at cross purposes. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256085 Also fwiw just because > Most professional clubs employ people who just look at penalties. They look at techniques, they look at strategies < doesn't always result in professionals choosing the best technique or strategy. Here's an example: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/sports/ncaabasketball/underhand-free-throw-rick-barry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/sports/ncaabasketball/und...

arcturus17 5y ago

You and the parent you are replying to are right - pro clubs know the ins and outs of penalties and select and train players (keepers and takers) accordingly. You are being distracted from the meat and bones of the argument though - the whole premise that most penalties are poorly taken is blatantly wrong. Most penalties end up in goals - which is how it's intended to be.

canuckintime 5y ago
By poorly taken, I mean aesthetics not effectiveness. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256085 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27256085
daleharvey 5y ago
If the goals were smaller and most penalties did not result in goal that would not mean they are poorly taken. These people are obviously the best in the world at what they do, they are picked specifically and paid generously in order to be able to kick a ball into a net. Discussing casually how they could improve without any apparent indepth knowledge is a level of hubris that hackers news is known for breeding.
- arcturus17 5y ago
  > If the goals were smaller and most penalties did not result in goal Then they arguably wouldn't be penalties. But there's no need to argue with me, I've been watching football for some odd 30 years and playing for a good subset of that. It has never occurred to me that penalties are taken poorly at the pro level - I've seen absolute dross at the amateur level, but I concur that most pro penalty takers are phenomenal, both from a statistical and aesthetical perspective. Not that I think there is that much value in the latter - by design, a penalty kick is the most aesthetically boring of all set pieces. A penalty kick ensues higher emotions due to the odds at play, but from a purely aesthetical point of view, I'd argue that even a corner kick has a much higher potential (a volley, a bicycle kick, a header, a fine-tuned "chess play" that cracks the defense open, etc.) And a penalty kick doesn't compare to the myriad other open plays in football which have infinitely more aesthetic appeal. A penalty kick is about creating a certain balance of odds, simple as. Every other consideration is secondary.