Assuming more players in circle means less time in mid-field build-up, and more actions in 23m and circle, would that also not mean more PC's are granted? And PC's having a success rate around 20% would then be more prevalent in the goals scored compared to field goals.
That would easily be testable with this dataset: how did the absolute number of PC change, does it correlate (negatively) with goals scored? And does indeed the relative number of PC versus FG change as well?
That’s a great point and question Bavo and you’re right it is certainly testable. It also links to something else I’m interested in, the decisions by attackers to take a shot or win a corner. Shot success rates are generally lower than PC success rate and shot success might decline further when teams are setting deep defences in response to the perceived threat of attacking aerials. So, if I’ve understood you correctly, there should be fewer FGs (less opportunities to shoot) but the same or higher numbers of PCs because these are more likely in a crowded circle. Then the ratio of PC goals to FG goals might have changed. I’ll have a look.
My own take on reduction in “goals scored” is that in any even competition/game these days our strikers spend much of their time in deep defence. So, I have a question please.
Would the game change and the number of goals scored increase if strikers (and maybe even some midfielders) were prevented from entering defensive field zones???
I imagine there would be an increase but it might really depends on how many defenders you restrict from the ‘defending zone’ and to a certain extent where the defending zone starts.
The closest starting point may be to look at when the defending team is number(s) down because of a personal penalty (green or yellow card) and see whether there is an uptick in goal scoring during these periods. This is actually an ongoing side project of mine. I still have to do the proper analysis but the indication from the women’s game is that goals don’t go in at a higher rate than a team with all 11 on the pitch. That’s generally for one player off though - it’s rare to find two or more off from the same team at the same time.
For the men I haven’t started collecting the data yet but can imagine a different response because scoring rates are already higher (even with the downturn in the last few tournaments) and so there may be more of an impact when defending numbers are restricted.
Also, your suggestion may result in a trade off for the attacking team, particular if it really is more than one or two defenders that are kept out of the attacking zone. Restricting the number of defenders may provide opportunities for quick breaks to the defending side when they regain the ball similar to what happens when breaking from a penalty corner. What does the attacking side do then, attack with fewer players to counteract the threat - or plough on regardless and take the risk?
An interesting idea though and maybe when I finish the personal penalty analysis it will help give an insight into (at least part) of the possible outcomes.
Great insights.
Assuming more players in circle means less time in mid-field build-up, and more actions in 23m and circle, would that also not mean more PC's are granted? And PC's having a success rate around 20% would then be more prevalent in the goals scored compared to field goals.
That would easily be testable with this dataset: how did the absolute number of PC change, does it correlate (negatively) with goals scored? And does indeed the relative number of PC versus FG change as well?
That’s a great point and question Bavo and you’re right it is certainly testable. It also links to something else I’m interested in, the decisions by attackers to take a shot or win a corner. Shot success rates are generally lower than PC success rate and shot success might decline further when teams are setting deep defences in response to the perceived threat of attacking aerials. So, if I’ve understood you correctly, there should be fewer FGs (less opportunities to shoot) but the same or higher numbers of PCs because these are more likely in a crowded circle. Then the ratio of PC goals to FG goals might have changed. I’ll have a look.
Great assessment thank you.
My own take on reduction in “goals scored” is that in any even competition/game these days our strikers spend much of their time in deep defence. So, I have a question please.
Would the game change and the number of goals scored increase if strikers (and maybe even some midfielders) were prevented from entering defensive field zones???
Hi Peter.
I imagine there would be an increase but it might really depends on how many defenders you restrict from the ‘defending zone’ and to a certain extent where the defending zone starts.
The closest starting point may be to look at when the defending team is number(s) down because of a personal penalty (green or yellow card) and see whether there is an uptick in goal scoring during these periods. This is actually an ongoing side project of mine. I still have to do the proper analysis but the indication from the women’s game is that goals don’t go in at a higher rate than a team with all 11 on the pitch. That’s generally for one player off though - it’s rare to find two or more off from the same team at the same time.
For the men I haven’t started collecting the data yet but can imagine a different response because scoring rates are already higher (even with the downturn in the last few tournaments) and so there may be more of an impact when defending numbers are restricted.
Also, your suggestion may result in a trade off for the attacking team, particular if it really is more than one or two defenders that are kept out of the attacking zone. Restricting the number of defenders may provide opportunities for quick breaks to the defending side when they regain the ball similar to what happens when breaking from a penalty corner. What does the attacking side do then, attack with fewer players to counteract the threat - or plough on regardless and take the risk?
An interesting idea though and maybe when I finish the personal penalty analysis it will help give an insight into (at least part) of the possible outcomes.