Lack of penalties for, plenty against

[grefstad 0]

http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2016/01/06/a-conspiracy-theory-in-reality-city-paying-the-penalty-for-low-tempo-approach-and-individual-errors/?

Excellent article from Steve Cook (@stevocook)

NCFC are bottom of the stats over the last 4 seasons for penalties conceded compared to penalties given. The table shows teams that have played in the Premier with NCFC in these 4 years.

Manchester City………………..+18

Manchester United……………..+16

Chelsea………………………….+14

Liverpool…………………………+11

Tottenham Hotspur………………+3

Swansea City………………………0

Stoke City………………………….-2

Arsenal…………………………….-3

Sunderland………………………..-3

Everton…………………………….-5

Newcastle United…………………-9

Aston Villa………………………..-10

West Bromwich Albion………….-12

Norwich City……………………..-15

Stevo claims it is not a surprise that dominant teams with a lot of possession claim more penalties.

Maybe, maybe not, but Arsenal is way down the ladder, and they certainly got enough possession. Same with Everton as well, and Tottenham have not gained many more penalties than they have conceded over the 4 years.

But NCFC stand out, and I believe it has a bit to do with playing style (rather slow passing, side to side, not looking for direct breakthroughs, etc), but probably more to do with quality of the players in both ends of the team.

Teams near the lower end of the table tend to have a bit slower defenders, and a bit slower forwards (or technically less canny players). Over time, this may well accumulate enough situations which in the end makes us concede more penalties than we get.

Interesting though, teams like Leicester and Watford have got a lot of penalties in 2015/2016 (they are not in this table for obvious reasons), and their style is very direct.

Welcoming a discussion over this.

[cornish sam 944]

This was discussed in another thread where someone rolled out the frankly astonishing statistic that we hadn''t had a penalty away from home in the PL since 2004 or something, it was 104 matches! Our playing style and player attributes can''t be the only reason especially considering some of the shouts we''ve had this season alone...

[birchfest 397]

We need players like VOO to be making those aggressive runs into the box more... You put yourself in the mix like that and the chances of a bad tackle increase significantly

[hogesar 9,618]

I think, apart from Wes, who generally plays behind the striker, and Redmond, who again is infrequently inside the penalty area, we don''t have anyone likely to win a pen through pace or trickery.

Particularly playing one up front, we tend to go for the big, physical striker. They''re much less likely to win a penalty than a nimble, skillfull and pacey striker. Simeone Jackson probably our most recent, and he wasn''t particularly good.

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]I think, apart from Wes, who generally plays behind the striker, and Redmond, who again is infrequently inside the penalty area, we don''t have anyone likely to win a pen through pace or trickery.

Particularly playing one up front, we tend to go for the big, physical striker. They''re much less likely to win a penalty than a nimble, skillfull and pacey striker. Simeone Jackson probably our most recent, and he wasn''t particularly good.

[/quote]

Agreed. Anyone that think''s its some giant conspiracy against the club needs to take the glasses off.

[TCCANARY 263]

I suspect that Guffstats starts each day with a "statistical tables that Norwich City are bottom of" Google search.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Pot kettle black you miserable sod! At least Grefstad actually wants to contribute NCFC related debate.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]I suspect that Guffstats starts each day with a "statistical tables that Norwich City are bottom of" Google search.[/quote]You could call them ''Griefstats''  [;)]

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote] user="Tettey''s Jig"]Pot kettle black you miserable sod! At least Grefstad actually wants to contribute NCFC related debate.[/quote]

 

You still smarting about that ''boring'' thing?

 

 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

Lol what?

[hogesar 9,618]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote] user="Tettey''s Jig"]Pot kettle black you miserable sod! At least Grefstad actually wants to contribute NCFC related debate.[/quote]

 

You still smarting about that ''boring'' thing?

[/quote]

[:D]

[Mr Apples 1,317]

Hmmmmmmm, I didn''t think we were getting any penalties, but then I wasn''t sure as I''ve got a really small screen television which only shows the middle third of the pitch...I''m glad the stats back up my viewing experience and I haven''t been cheated.

 

Apples

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]I think, apart from Wes, who generally plays behind the striker, and Redmond, who again is infrequently inside the penalty area, we don''t have anyone likely to win a pen through pace or trickery.

Particularly playing one up front, we tend to go for the big, physical striker. They''re much less likely to win a penalty than a nimble, skillfull and pacey striker. Simeone Jackson probably our most recent, and he wasn''t particularly good.

[/quote]

This.

No conspiracy theory here, nothing to see, move along.

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]

Hmmmmmmm, I didn''t think we were getting any penalties, but then I wasn''t sure as I''ve got a really small screen television which only shows the middle third of the pitch...I''m glad the stats back up my viewing experience and I haven''t been cheated.

 

Apples

[/quote]

Brain as an apple?

Small screens ofcourse show the same picture sent out by the broadcaster, but it is less viewable from the same distance. Sit 4m away on a 32", compared to a 65", and you will struggle to see Wes'' shoes.

Yes, the picture frame is the same, but the bigger the screen, the greater the view, although the framed picture remain the same on all sizes of TVs.

Nowhere have I ever said that you see more of the pitch on a bigger screen. Thats your appled brain making confusion...

[Mr Apples 1,317]

Well, that certainly touched a nerve...

 

Apples

[morty 0]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]

Well, that certainly touched a nerve...

 

Apples

[/quote]

[:D]

[grefstad 0]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]

Well, that certainly touched a nerve...

 

Apples

[/quote]

It''s more annoyance over the constant thread pollution. Attained a course held by the infamous Morty, the thread-polluter?

[Mr Apples 1,317]

Well you responded to my point...I merely stated why I hadn''t seen any penalties recently and was glad that the stats backed up the fact I hadn''t missed anything...you flounced off about televison size (goodness only knows why - you must have your reasons).

 

I can only aspire to attend the school of Morty!

 

Apples

[unique 434]

It is rather a simplistic argument to say that Norwich do not possess the type of players that earn penalties.

Penalties can be awarded for handball, goalkeeper rush of blood, and didn''t Turner concede a penalty early in a match a few seasons ago for pushing in the box?!!

I am not aware that Norwich have ever earned a penalty from pushing/holding in the box, but than again I have never seen a goal disallowed for an overhead kick other than Jerome''s........

[Hairy Kenneth 0]

Didn''t we go through a spell where we conceded about 8 penalties in successive games at the start of our first season back in the PL in 2011?

As far as not winning them we don''t often go into the box at pace where there may be a chance of winning a penalty which may well be the reason why we don''t win many.

[morty 0]

Poor Guffstat. I mean the reason your threads get derailed couldn''t be that you''re massively obnoxious, or that you''ll find just about any way to be negative about Norwich City, could it?

[Mr Apples 1,317]

It could be that the lack of penalties for is due to us not running around enough in the last 20 minutes, and the alarming number of penalties awarded against us could be due to our lack of nous and guts (also coincidently in the last 20 minutes - which then transfers itself to the next game up to the first 70 minutes and then starts all over again).

 

Why, oh why, can''t someone produce some stats to support this crackpot theory (perhaps it could be down to televisual issues)?!?!?

 

Apples

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Confused now Grefstat, does size matter or not ? because when we were debating how lucky we were at Old Trafford you referred to your ability to see more than those at the game because how lucky you were that you had such a big one, true ?

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="grefstad"]Brain as an apple? Small screens ofcourse show the same picture sent out by the broadcaster, but it is less viewable from the same distance. Sit 4m away on a 32", compared to a 65", and you will struggle to see Wes'' shoes. Yes, the picture frame is the same, but the bigger the screen, the greater the view, although the framed picture remain the same on all sizes of TVs. Nowhere have I ever said that you see more of the pitch on a bigger screen. Thats your appled brain making confusion...[/quote]

 

[quote user="Lessingham Canary"]Confused now Grefstat, does size matter or not ? because when we were debating how lucky we were at Old Trafford you referred to your ability to see more than those at the game because how lucky you were that you had such a big one, true ?[/quote]

 

I think I can help here, the confusion is that he believes that everyone sits 4 metres away from their TV regardless of the size. Now as he sits 4 metres from his 65" screen he is closer to the action than the majority of fans at the game and therefore he gets a better view and better insight.

 

Hope that helps.

 

 

 

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

I see there are a few at work derailing a thread and trying to wind a poster up again. You continue to ruin an otherwise good board.  There is nothing wrong with the op at the top of this thread.  Some of  Grefstad''s views, negative are not, are worthy of discussion. The problem he has is the one I have had, that if you fight fire with fire, or try and get your insult in first, all you are doing is giving ammunition to those obsessionals who have nothing to offer for themselves and who delight in roughing up posters who don''t fit in to their narrow view of life.  The trouble is, that one or two previously decent posters appear to be getting the idea they can join in the "fun" too.  It''s not fun - it''s like kicking a person when they are already down. Useless.  We are bottom of the table for penalties, because we are historically defensively weak in this league (not so much this season) and the fact Arsenal are lower down suggests they play with a better footballing philosophy and with more honesty that MU, MC and Chelsea.

[Mr Apples 1,317]

Hmmmmm, well I sit 2.494 metres away from my 26" screen, will this give me the same level of insight or will I need to get some glasses/rearrange my sitting room for optimum performance?

 

Apples

[Lessingham Canary 99]

In your opinion LDC !

The issue with Grefstat is he, imo, occassionaly post some good points for debate, if questioned on the post he then usually insults the poster long before a trail develops, when pushed for clarification or justification he ignores, funny really ?

[Well b back 3,190]

Re do the stat and exclude 2011 think you will find that alters our position big time.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Thing is old fishchops has a huge tv screen that shows a lot of the hidden action, he can also sniff out a poor defender, so he really does have a great advantage over the rest of us.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Mr Apples"]

Hmmmmm, well I sit 2.494 metres away from my 26" screen, will this give me the same level of insight or will I need to get some glasses/rearrange my sitting room for optimum performance?

 

Apples

[/quote]

I would sit 45 centimetres closer.