Soccer Aerial & Ground Dribbling Percentages Compared
This evening I tried out six of my leading aerial attack maneuvers-patterns, 8 attempts per maneuver. By leading I mean they are at the top in terms of successes/ attempts, when a success is counted as me doing exactly what I intended to do prior to the start of the run.
Key to stats: FB start= I flip ball up, it bounces, I commence aerial attack pattern. SB start= I kick ball at wall, it bounces back, I stop the ball, it bounces, I commence aerial attack pattern.
First done this evening: 'Eagle' pattern was at 75% at FB start, and at 88% SB start.
Done second, 'Tiger-1' pattern was at 100% at FB start, and at 100% SB start.
Done third, 'Tiger-2' pattern was at 88% at FB start, and at 75% SB start.
Done fourth, 'Wildcat' pattern was at 100% at FB start, and at 100% SB start.
Warmups: for each segment, until a run succeeded, the runs were considered warmup-runs, and not counted in the score. All-told there were 7 'warmup' runs, and 64 counted runs, of which 58 or 91% were counted as successes. Aside from warmup-runs at the beginning of each new segment (sometimes) there was no warmup.
These results surprised me because, though the order of results was Wildcat best, Tiger-1 second best, and Eagle & Tiger-2 tied for 3rd best. Before the start of the practice I had expected that the results would be: Eagle best, Tiger-1 2nd best, Tiger-2 3rd best, & Wildcat 4th best.
I suspect analytically clownish persons, judge aerial attack maneuver the same way they judge ground-dribble maneuver, meaning that their incorrect presumption, is that if a player can perform exactly as intended an aerial attack maneuver X percent of attempts, and a ground maneuver exactly as intended Y percent of attempts, then if X is less than Y, the ground maneuver is superior.
This fails to take into account, that different dribbling maneuvers, produce different results in terms of goals scored or territorial advancement (advancing closer to opponent goal).
I can imagine some groundhog boasting that 100% of the time, he succeeds in doing exactly what he intends to do with his ground-dribbling maneuver. The groundhog's ground-dribbling maneuver consists of slowly dribbling straight at the defender, touching the ball every 4 paces. Problem is, that the groundhog fails on 100% of attempts, because the ball is easily taken from him.
By way of contrast, there are aerial maneuvers, regarding which I can achieve exactly what I intended to achieve, 67% of the time. These aerial maneuvers, when performed exactly as intended, produce a goal a higher percentage of the time, compared to the groundhog's ground-dribbling maneuvers. And then you have the fact, that even when these aerial runs are NOT performed exactly as intended, they are often sometimes high-quality runs anyway.
You can end up with a situation something like:
Me: % of time I perform maneuver exactly as intended: 67%; % of time my maneuver results in goal: 7%.
English Premier League: % of time they perform maneuver exactly as intended: 85%; % of time their maneuvers results in goals: 3%.
Groundhogs: % of time they perform maneuver exactly as intended: 100%; % of time their maneuver results in goal: 0%.
Based on such data one can encounter mistaken opinions (folly that focuses on one aspect of the data alone) such as: the Groundhogs were the best, because they were able to perform their ground-dribbling maneuvers exactly as intended 100% of the time; the English were the 2nd best because their ground-dribbling maneuvers went exactly as intended 85% of the time; and Hobbs was the worst because his aerial-dribbling maneuvers went exactly as intended only 67% of the time.
Key to stats: FB start= I flip ball up, it bounces, I commence aerial attack pattern. SB start= I kick ball at wall, it bounces back, I stop the ball, it bounces, I commence aerial attack pattern.
First done this evening: 'Eagle' pattern was at 75% at FB start, and at 88% SB start.
Done second, 'Tiger-1' pattern was at 100% at FB start, and at 100% SB start.
Done third, 'Tiger-2' pattern was at 88% at FB start, and at 75% SB start.
Done fourth, 'Wildcat' pattern was at 100% at FB start, and at 100% SB start.
Warmups: for each segment, until a run succeeded, the runs were considered warmup-runs, and not counted in the score. All-told there were 7 'warmup' runs, and 64 counted runs, of which 58 or 91% were counted as successes. Aside from warmup-runs at the beginning of each new segment (sometimes) there was no warmup.
These results surprised me because, though the order of results was Wildcat best, Tiger-1 second best, and Eagle & Tiger-2 tied for 3rd best. Before the start of the practice I had expected that the results would be: Eagle best, Tiger-1 2nd best, Tiger-2 3rd best, & Wildcat 4th best.
I suspect analytically clownish persons, judge aerial attack maneuver the same way they judge ground-dribble maneuver, meaning that their incorrect presumption, is that if a player can perform exactly as intended an aerial attack maneuver X percent of attempts, and a ground maneuver exactly as intended Y percent of attempts, then if X is less than Y, the ground maneuver is superior.
This fails to take into account, that different dribbling maneuvers, produce different results in terms of goals scored or territorial advancement (advancing closer to opponent goal).
I can imagine some groundhog boasting that 100% of the time, he succeeds in doing exactly what he intends to do with his ground-dribbling maneuver. The groundhog's ground-dribbling maneuver consists of slowly dribbling straight at the defender, touching the ball every 4 paces. Problem is, that the groundhog fails on 100% of attempts, because the ball is easily taken from him.
By way of contrast, there are aerial maneuvers, regarding which I can achieve exactly what I intended to achieve, 67% of the time. These aerial maneuvers, when performed exactly as intended, produce a goal a higher percentage of the time, compared to the groundhog's ground-dribbling maneuvers. And then you have the fact, that even when these aerial runs are NOT performed exactly as intended, they are often sometimes high-quality runs anyway.
You can end up with a situation something like:
Me: % of time I perform maneuver exactly as intended: 67%; % of time my maneuver results in goal: 7%.
English Premier League: % of time they perform maneuver exactly as intended: 85%; % of time their maneuvers results in goals: 3%.
Groundhogs: % of time they perform maneuver exactly as intended: 100%; % of time their maneuver results in goal: 0%.
Based on such data one can encounter mistaken opinions (folly that focuses on one aspect of the data alone) such as: the Groundhogs were the best, because they were able to perform their ground-dribbling maneuvers exactly as intended 100% of the time; the English were the 2nd best because their ground-dribbling maneuvers went exactly as intended 85% of the time; and Hobbs was the worst because his aerial-dribbling maneuvers went exactly as intended only 67% of the time.
posted by David Virgil at 11:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home