What about goalmouth?Don't know, CJ. I've never heard that term before but then I've never heard of any term used to describe that particular space. If something comes to me I'll post it here.
You mean that ALL the goal is open whenever he's between the sticks?Obvoiusly with our goalie it’s irrelevant.
I thought about unguarded and undefended goal area. But in the case above it's guarded and defended by the goalkeeper.How about “open” or “unguarded” area.
Thanks mate. Of course it answers my question.Our coach Mr Walsh used to tell our keeper in the event of a penalty, stand about a yard one side or the other of your centre line "Show him more goal opening, then when he took the kick dive to that side.".
I Know it doesn't answer you question CJ...
My take on this, Yankee, is that in those days footballs were heavier, held water and were easier to deal with. Today, balls tend to be lighter, more waterproof therefore tend to swerve and dip much more than did the old ones making it more difficult for keepers to take and catch. Also, today's footy boots are designed to develop this swerve and dip in flight which the old-fashioned clog type boots never could. Mind you, the likes of Ivor and the other top players still managed to get some 'work' on the ball when they struck it.I have recently watched videos of Alex Stepney and Peter Bonetti and at the time they were considered top keepers (alongside Bob Wilson, Jennings, Shilton et al and before them Banks and Springet), but most of their peers had similar skills and abilities to actually catch and retain the ball on a save instead of just parrying it away ... do players shoot the ball any harder today ... I don't think so (even defenders back then - e.g. Norman Hunter - could drill a ball on target from distance). There are competencies in keepers of yore that far exceed those of the modern keeper - IMO.
Target area is interesting.The target area being that part of goal mouth not covered by the oblique projection of the keeper's frame.
It's actually not.How do you determine keeper's width and reach is going to be difficult.
I don't do standardisation because every chance is unique and every keeper has a different height and body position.Perhaps you could standardize the Keeper's Frame based on height, after sampling a dozen
Exactly.if you know the keeper's height, applying that value to the Frame Model would give you the Keeper's Frame +/- std_dev.
Calculating time of reaction and speed of ball is not necessary. Goal opening (target area) is always same. And if the shot is powerful enough the goalkeeper can't react. A chance doesn't have a lower value just because a player can't shoot properly.To complicate things, the frame will be time / reaction speed variant.
My take on this, Yankee, is that in those days footballs were heavier, held water and were easier to deal with. Today, balls tend to be lighter, more waterproof therefore tend to swerve and dip much more than did the old ones making it more difficult for keepers to take and catch. Also, today's footy boots are designed to develop this swerve and dip in flight which the old-fashioned clog type boots never could. Mind you, the likes of Ivor and the other top players still managed to get some 'work' on the ball when they struck it.
It was 1970. I was at that game in the Enclosure. Millington was in goal and made a spectacular save from Best taking a free kick over the wall at the Double Decker end. Ronnie Rees scored our goal; same end.I remember being at the Vetch for a Wales v N.Ireland game I was at the corner where the East Stand met the Small bank. I was right in line with the corner flag. Best came over to take a corner ,the ball went straight until it got into the box and then it turned left. I put this down to wind .But he went on to take a couple more corners and the ball followed the same pattern .
I once sold car to an Egyptian brain surgeon working in our Withybush Hospital back in the 70's and we became quite friendly, he used to occasionally come to dinner, Obviously there were times when the conversations turned to the brain. His explanation to me, a layman, was think of your brain like the ribbon in a typewriter, first used very clear, but after a lot of used some words become indistinguishable,, That's always stuck in my head, it's a fair description, and like yours Yankee is barely readable now.It’s bizarre. I can remember all of those match details from 51 years ago like I just walked out of the ground at the end of match. But, I’m damned if I can remember why I walked into this room just now.
Exactly. That's how I calculate expected goals.@CroJack ... back to the thread ... my definition of Goal Target above is only valid in the trivial case of the Forward standing any distance out but dead center of goal, and the keeper standing on the goal line. In this case, the Woody case, there is no perspective and no projection. However, as the forward moves around the goal, and the keeper advances off his line the Goal Target becomes
GoalTarget = Area(P(Goal Mouth Bounding Box)) - Keeper’s Frame
where:
Note, as the keeper moves out the Keeper’s Frame becomes taller than the projected goal mouth, which further decreases the goal target.
- P() is the perspective projection transformation of the goal mouth onto a plane perpendicular to the line joining the forward and the keeper.
- Area() is the function that calculates the area of the projected goal mouth.
It doesn't matter what the forward sees. What matters is what the ball 'sees'.Adding further complexity there is a distance between the forward’s eyes and his feet. What the forward sees visually is not what his feet or ball “see”; there’s a 6’ +/- difference in the point of perspective.
What the player does with his feet is driven by what he sees through his eyes ... perhaps that's why they fail to score when they should ... they don't map properly. What the ball "sees" is what the ball encounters.It doesn't matter what the forward sees. What matters is what the ball 'sees'.