One more stat - never mind - no momentum (edit)

Right now, only one stat gets reported each game - the score. Right afterwards, a discussion breaks out about who played well vs who got lucky, who played pretty passes vs who went long ball or fast break. People disagree about what's better. Worse yet, there is often no discussion at all, as we see in the recent AFC Adidas tournament posts.

We can fix this if everyone cooperates just a little bit. We could collectively improve the interest and value of these forums and everyone's collective understanding of the competitiveness of teams if we all made a small effort to keep and report just one statistic beyond the score: Shots-on-Goal (SOG).

Shots-on-goal is a good measurement of how well a team is working at what it is trying to accomplish (score). It takes away the discussion of pretty passing versus more direct long ball and what's better right now. When Team A plays Team B and Team A wins 1-0, it matters if we know that Team A won on the basis on 2 SOG while Team B had 15 SOG but failed to stick one in. Passing teams with no shots-on-goal are not inherently better than direct teams with no shots-on-goal.

Lets start counting shots-on-goal and reporting shots-on-goal in addition to the score. It would really make our forums better and more interesting. If all teams / parents started reporting shots-on-goal for each game in north Texas, the collective understanding of competitiveness and where teams stand would improve dramatically.

What do you think? Please comment.

The success of this idea is that A) we work together and B) keep it super simple. Can we work together or must everything always degrade to an argument?

Two issues to consider. 1. What is a shot on goal? Hard shot that goes wide isnt really on goal. Long weak shot the goalie picks up that may not have even rolled in? Every time a player winds up? I just think it is a subjective stat that every parent will report differently. 2. There are teams that beat my DDS team regularly where we always win SOG. Certain styles make for high quantity low quality shots where other styles are designed to create fewer, but higher percentage chances.

Ahem, verily the argument begins, which answers your question of working together and not arguing.

butt3r wrote:Two issues to consider. 1. What is a shot on goal? Hard shot that goes wide isnt really on goal. Long weak shot the goalie picks up that may not have even rolled in? Every time a player winds up? I just think it is a subjective stat that every parent will report differently. 2. There are teams that beat my DDS team regularly where we always win SOG. Certain styles make for high quantity low quality shots where other styles are designed to create fewer, but higher percentage chances.

A shot on goal should be counted as a shot that results in a goal, keeper save on a ball that would have gone in or a shot off the post. No ball that goes high or wide is a shot on goal.

I think it is a good idea.

SOG as an official stat can be very misleading. It's defined as a shot on net with the intent to score and must result in either 1) a goal or 2) a save.

Things that are not officially SOG's:
1. balls that hit the frame
2. beautifully taken chances that barely miss

I'd say expand the definition to include the above and call it LSC, legitimate scoring chance.

Now, Diogenes, your search for an objective parent begins.

Gunner9 wrote:SOG as an official stat can be very misleading. It's defined as a shot on net with the intent to score and must result in either 1) a goal or 2) a save.

Things that are not officially SOG's:
1. balls that hit the frame
2. beautifully taken chances that barely miss

I'd say expand the definition to include the above and call it LSC, legitimate scoring chance.

Now, Diogenes, your search for an objective parent begins.

Yep, this has a great chance of working.

Let's say everyone tries to give an honest appraisal of their shots on goal (forgetting for a moment the ever present overzealous parent that counts anything that goes in the general direction of the goal a "shot"). Any time you start adding subjective items such as "beautifully taken chances that barely miss", you've screwed the pooch.

If their little Debbie winds up with a strong wind at her back from the midfield line and the ball carries into the box, yards ahead of the highest forward, and rolls out beside the net as the keeper watches it, but has to make no effort, that will become one of the "beautifully taken chances that barely miss".

Stats are really meaningless unless there is a finite definition of exactly what those stats mean.

My point exactly. Apparently sarcasm is tough to portray in this medium.

I have an idea! I vote we just track the balls that go in the net. I know it won't show all that goes on during the match like ToP on SoG, but it would be easy to track objectively. Maybe we can get all chip in and hire few objective people to attend the games and keep track of this stat? One thing to avoid, trust me on this, is letting these objective paid attendees try and interpret the laws of the game...that should be left to the ones that really understand the game - the parents.

Was that successful gunner9?

Sure, there are plenty of reasons that it might not work. There are plenty of reasons to believe people will be unable to overcome their personal biases. There are plenty of reasons why some may count a slow roll up as a shot even if it had no chance of scoring. But why not try and see? There could be a miracle where both teams report the similar numbers plus or minus a couple of shots.

It is frustrating when you have a holiday weekend out of town visiting grandma and the best you see when you visit the forum is "the wind was not a factor" even though it was 25 gusting 40. Right now, the forums are darn near pointless, offering nothing more than the tourney website does. Is that what all of us - yes, like it or not, these forums are a reflection of all of us - want?

Why not try and see how close the two sides are in real life in their SOG reports? I personally don't care much if the stat tracked is the number of punts and goal kicks. Those two are not ideal but are less subjective. It is still better than the score alone. Sure, I prefer shots-on-goal, even if it is an opinion, but anything is better than nothing at all.

Why do you guys argue for doing nothing at all? I would be happy to participate with any suggestion that made the current situation better. Please offer a suggestion that would work if you have one.

If we could just get shots, shots on goal, and who had more possession that's all we really would need to get a good feel of what happened in the match. Time of possession does not have to be perfect just close as possible. Unfortunately most, not all but most are just watching their kid. Or checking the watch for amount of time their kid played.

deepthoughts wrote:Sure, there are plenty of reasons that it might not work. There are plenty of reasons to believe people will be unable to overcome their personal biases. There are plenty of reasons why some may count a slow roll up as a shot even if it had no chance of scoring. But why not try and see? There could be a miracle where both teams report the similar numbers plus or minus a couple of shots.

It is frustrating when you have a holiday weekend out of town visiting grandma and the best you see when you visit the forum is "the wind was not a factor" even though it was 25 gusting 40. Right now, the forums are darn near pointless, offering nothing more than the tourney website does. Is that what all of us - yes, like it or not, these forums are a reflection of all of us - want?

Why not try and see how close the two sides are in real life in their SOG reports? I personally don't care much if the stat tracked is the number of punts and goal kicks. Those two are not ideal but are less subjective. It is still better than the score alone. Sure, I prefer shots-on-goal, even if it is an opinion, but anything is better than nothing at all.

Why do you guys argue for doing nothing at all? I would be happy to participate with any suggestion that made the current situation better. Please offer a suggestion that would work if you have one.

It seems that you're looking for more dialogue on a given game. What meaningful dialogue are you expecting to get from those that weren't at the game by providing some stats, that no matter how honest anyone tries to be honest, is still somewhat subjective and open to interpretation?

The people that were at the game don't need these stats, they were there. Those that weren't at the game won't have much luck trying to discern what happened by these "stats". The likelihood that anyone is going to take a clipboard to a game so that they can record these and enter them here to facilitate discussion, is minimal, so at best you're likely to get someone's estimate.

If you don't like the lack of discussion here, and consider the forum "darn near pointless", I can't imagine what you propose will make it any better, except now perhaps everyone can get into huge arguments about how incorrect the stats were for Team A in that game.

ballhead wrote:

deepthoughts wrote:Sure, there are plenty of reasons that it might not work. There are plenty of reasons to believe people will be unable to overcome their personal biases. There are plenty of reasons why some may count a slow roll up as a shot even if it had no chance of scoring. But why not try and see? There could be a miracle where both teams report the similar numbers plus or minus a couple of shots.

It is frustrating when you have a holiday weekend out of town visiting grandma and the best you see when you visit the forum is "the wind was not a factor" even though it was 25 gusting 40. Right now, the forums are darn near pointless, offering nothing more than the tourney website does. Is that what all of us - yes, like it or not, these forums are a reflection of all of us - want?

Why not try and see how close the two sides are in real life in their SOG reports? I personally don't care much if the stat tracked is the number of punts and goal kicks. Those two are not ideal but are less subjective. It is still better than the score alone. Sure, I prefer shots-on-goal, even if it is an opinion, but anything is better than nothing at all.

Why do you guys argue for doing nothing at all? I would be happy to participate with any suggestion that made the current situation better. Please offer a suggestion that would work if you have one.

It seems that you're looking for more dialogue on a given game. What meaningful dialogue are you expecting to get from those that weren't at the game by providing some stats, that no matter how honest anyone tries to be honest, is still somewhat subjective and open to interpretation?

The people that were at the game don't need these stats, they were there. Those that weren't at the game won't have much luck trying to discern what happened by these "stats". The likelihood that anyone is going to take a clipboard to a game so that they can record these and enter them here to facilitate discussion, is minimal, so at best you're likely to get someone's estimate.

If you don't like the lack of discussion here, and consider the forum "darn near pointless", I can't imagine what you propose will make it any better, except now perhaps everyone can get into huge arguments about how incorrect the stats were for Team A in that game.

Well said ballhead. OMG who gives a rats a$#&!. Is your dd improving as a player, growing as an individual, staying healthy, learning to love the beautiful game or is this about your ego and being able to tell co-workers around the water cooler how amazing "your" soccer team is.

Tracking SOG? Not going to happen. Besides, that 'stat' doesn't mean much to who's passing. Rather, it speaks to who got past the defense.

How about tracking passes that connect? Seems to me that that would better tell the story of who's passing. Of course, as you'll soon see, all that really matters in the end is the score....

How about tracking the following stat(s):

- who's daughter is still playin at 15 and at what level?

Most parents run their child into the ground too early too fast.

Passing does not always mean winning. I watched Chelsea make it past Barcelona and they were probably the best passing team in years. Some teams are going to kick it past the D and beat them to the ball and score. Some are going to try and pass the ball 100 times and make it past. It really depends on how the team is built. You cant make a passing team all of a sudden a running team and vice versa. The SOG stat would be good if you could find an unbiased way to report it.

What is to be gained by having this stat? I just don't see it. I mean it would be great if official stats were kept for all games. I'd loved to be able to look at that, because when you watch a game, you're often watching your own player, and not noticing a lot of the detail that goes on.

My dd's team used to keep all those stats, but over time, they just fell off the radar. The stat keeper used to complain about not really getting to enjoy the game, because he was keeping stats.

What would having the SOG stat do for us? What will we do differently on this forum, if we had that stat to go with the score?

I just don't get it.

Given that the majority of topic respondents either a) firmly believe it can not and will not happen and b) don't see how any stat other than score matters, I withdraw my suggestion. I felt out the parental waters and it seems pretty clear that this idea stumbled out of the starting gate and fell dead before the first furlong was completed.

Thanks to all who gave the suggestion a few minutes consideration.

fliptc wrote:Passing does not always mean winning. I watched Chelsea make it past Barcelona and they were probably the best passing team in years. Some teams are going to kick it past the D and beat them to the ball and score. Some are going to try and pass the ball 100 times and make it past. It really depends on how the team is built. You cant make a passing team all of a sudden a running team and vice versa. The SOG stat would be good if you could find an unbiased way to report it.

This is (at least) the 3rd time in the last week someone on the forum referenced Chelsea's UEFA result as if it validated the style they played. Hey - I'm a Chelsea fan. I can appreciate barca's skill, but I truly can't stand the serial diving bunch of over-hyped, midget whiners. I'm still gloating Chelsea sent them home. But the reality is Chelsea were VERY LUCKY to have beaten barca and Bayern...they were thoroughly DOMINATED in every facet of the game - except final score.

The massive SOG disparity in both of the games tells the story. The other teams didn't finish, and Chelsea capitalized on the few chances they created. Drogba's regulation header against Bayern was a thing of beauty that I've replayed over a dozen times. But there's no way on God's green earth I'd want my kid on a team trying to play this style at young ages. Those guys are fully developed pros and did what they had to against a superior opponent. If your academy team won a game where you were outshot 22 to 2, you probably played a superior opponent and got lucky too.

I like the SOG idea. Like most things on here posted in Academy threads, it's already been tried. Just FYI - didn't turn out well.

Deepthought, I'm with you and think the scores alone don't even begin to tell you what happened in a game. Thing is, like those who came before you, in another 3 months you won't care anymore.