Topic: Diogo Jota (Diogo José Teixeira da Silva)

[StL-Dono]

I'm sure there are other elements I'm forgetting so maybe this is simplifying things too much, but what's in the striker's control is when they shoot, where they shoot, and how cleanly they strike the ball and with what part of the foot.  I agree Jota didn't strike his goal perfectly cleanly, but the other two factors certainly favored Diogo.  Striking it while GK is still moving to position and hitting the shot away enough from the keeper but still within the mouth of the goal.  Maybe bad keeping factored in as well, but just from seeing enough of Jota in his time with us, I'm not sure I'd favor anyone more than him to score that one. 

[farawayred]

That isn't really true though.

A striker can appear far more clinical by only taking on high value chances. A striker can appear to be far more clinical by being less involved in the build up play and looking to get on the end of things.

Years ago you could get by being an old fashioned poacher who relied on operating within the confines of the six yard box and waiting for chances.

I'm not sure what you mean. A striker will sit around the box and if there is a chance he would think whether it's a high or low chance before he engages? Sorry but that's nonsense. Every striker works to either create or convert a chance, and given the opportunity, every striker will try to score. If a given striker is only scoring high probability chances, that usually means that he is in a better position. Which is credit to the striker.

Your last line describes Haaland in today's time. And he is not as efficient as you pointed out earlier. So, I'm not buying that Jota's statistics are swayed by the quality of the chances for two reasons - either he's earned that by increasing the chance to score, or it even's out over many games. Note that chances are not a small statistical sample (52 chances in Jota's case), goals are (15).

[Buster Gonad]

It can both be true that Jota is a really good finisher and that was really poor goalkeeping.  They're not mutually exclusive.  I'd have been sick if one of our keepers failed to save that.
Although with our current luck it'd bounce right on the foot of one of their players for a tap in.

[kavah]

Love the guy. So glad he’s back for the run in

[Draex]

That's where the disagreement is, Al. It takes 0.6 seconds for the brain to send a signal to the extremities, Jota cut that time short by the unexpectedly early shot. The keeper trajectory is limited by the gravity; if only Earth was 10% denser he could have saved that shot... (just kidding here, but not much)

A case of the Suarez.. hit it hard and hit it early, he also got lots of scruffy goals by that.

[AndyMuller]

Well better in front of goal than Nunez.

[jepovic]

To me it's like Jota thinks about football from the defending team's perspective - how he can make it as hard for them as possible.

First, he takes his finishes very quickly, before any defender has time to interfere. That requires skill of course, but mostly the right mindset and intuition. This makes him hard to defend, even though he's not particularily quick or strong

Second, he finishes on goal and usually low. He puts the ball where it's the hardest for the goalie to reach. 
He would rather take a quick but not super powerful shot, than take an extra touch to set up himself for a perfect shot.

Compare with Gravenberch's goal: He takes two touches before the shot and everyone can see that he will shoot. That means that he needs a basically perfect shot to score - which he did. I dont mean to criticize Graven for that, he took advantage of the space, but in the box you seldom will have that kind of time and space.

[Fromola]

Has anyone mentioned that Jota once went 32 games without scoring a goal? In case it's in any way shape or form relevant to his goal today.

If you look at the goal drought it encompasses the 21/22 run-in and either side of two separate injuries in 22/23 (a lot of cameos off the bench as he wasn't fully fit).

It shows that when he hasn't got his eye-in in front of goal, or loses confidence, the goals can really dry up.

Therefore another title run-in, after returning from injury again, a few games without a goal on return and some bad misses; it was important he got the goal yesterday just before he was subbed off. Especially as Nunez and Salah are firing blanks.

[Knight]

Well, now we are shifting the discussion form the striker's efficiency, which was the debated topic, to chances created. The latter is not on the strikers, it is on the entire team (more so on those in more advanced positions).

Back to the striker's efficiency, Jota is currently our most efficient striker barring freak numbers of those that scored one (Koumas) or two (Danns) goals. That is if one believes the numbers.

Oh go on then... ability to get shots in 'high value' shot locations is absolutely a skill. It's actually the most important skill a striker can have. It's why physical attributes can be so important for a forward - can he beat the defender to the through ball and so get a shot away, can he burst pass a defender in the box with a small acceleration and so get a shot away. It's why 'movement' is such a prized skill for a forward. It's why different players who play the same position at different times (like Nunez and Gapko as 9s) can have divergent shot numbers. Now it's not only down to the forward, obviously, but the forward has a significant role to play.

[Eeyore]

I'm not sure what you mean. A striker will sit around the box and if there is a chance he would think whether it's a high or low chance before he engages? Sorry but that's nonsense. Every striker works to either create or convert a chance, and given the opportunity, every striker will try to score. If a given striker is only scoring high probability chances, that usually means that he is in a better position. Which is credit to the striker.

Your last line describes Haaland in today's time. And he is not as efficient as you pointed out earlier. So, I'm not buying that Jota's statistics are swayed by the quality of the chances for two reasons - either he's earned that by increasing the chance to score, or it even's out over many games. Note that chances are not a small statistical sample (52 chances in Jota's case), goals are (15).

Probably the biggest factor in how efficient a striker is regards how far from the goal he is taking his shots. If you have two strikers and one takes a lot of shots from distance then he is not going to be as efficient as a Striker who looks to get in the box before shooting. The second is going to have a higher conversion rate but have less opportunities.

The second one also requires better service and is more reliant on his team mates. It is fine being really efficient and having a great conversion rate but it often means you end up having to try to walk the ball in against a low block.

A good example would be City versus Madrid. In the first game City scored three goals from long-range efforts. In the second game they tried to create clearer chances and only scored once.

[spider-neil]

Well better in front of goal than Nunez.

He's better than all our forwards in front of goal.

[Draex]

He's better than all our forwards in front of goal.

He's just ice cold, Nunez is fire and emotion.

Jota staying fit would be brilliant, he was hitting his prime and becoming consistent before his last injury.

[B0151?]

It's amazing that a striker being so clinical this season can inspire such arguments  Why can't we just all be happy about it?! Long may it continue. Only 27 and I feel like he can stay injury free, he will remain a very good goal threat for a good few years.

[LallanaInPyjamas]

That isn't really true though.

A striker can appear far more clinical by only taking on high value chances. A striker can appear to be far more clinical by being less involved in the build up play and looking to get on the end of things.

Years ago you could get by being an old fashioned poacher who relied on operating within the confines of the six yard box and waiting for chances.

Once again, we are finding ways to punish a striker for being selective when they shoot, rather than blamming the ball over from 25 yards and wasting our play to get into that part of the pitch.

Jota has one fewer goal (10 compared to 11) from less than half as many shots as Nunez (41 compared to 103). Just variance though innit?

[Eeyore]

Once again, we are finding ways to punish a striker for being selective when they shoot, rather than blamming the ball over from 25 yards and wasting our play to get into that part of the pitch.

Jota has one fewer goal (10 compared to 11) from less than half as many shots as Nunez (41 compared to 103). Just variance though innit?

Did you miss the home game against Fulham when we blammed the ball into the net four times from distance.?

Did you miss yesterday's game when long-range efforts from Trent and Grav basically won us the game.?

For me, it is about having a variety of ways of scoring. It is about finding the right balance between having a lot of shots and having a high conversion rate.

[Yorkykopite]

Goalie mistake? Perhaps. But Jota did everything right. The quick release was the key to the goal. Ignore that skill, or fail to appreciate it, and you’ll probably never get Jota.

[SerbianScouser]

Interesting how all keepers look poor for Jota goals.

Funny coincidence that.

[Eeyore]

Interesting how all keepers look poor for Jota goals.

Funny coincidence that.

Leno has conceded 54 goals against a post-shot xG of 48.3 he is a poor keeper and it was a bad error. Jota has done well but the keeper should be saving that.
 

[Buster Gonad]

Interesting how all keepers look poor for Jota goals.

Funny coincidence that.

You've invented a strawman there. Only one goal is being discussed in terms of quality.  Personally I think it was very poor goalkeeping.
Jota's had better shots saved.
Generally his shooting is excellent though both statistically and to the eye.

[SerbianScouser]

Leno has conceded 54 goals against a post-shot xG of 48.3 he is a poor keeper and it was a bad error. Jota has done well but the keeper should be saving that.
 

Most won't.

There's a reason ball was glued to the ground. Jota knows this stuff.

[deano2727]

So important to have this lad back and firing. We will need him doing what he does best if we are in with a shot of winning all of our games.

Should be one of the first names on the teamsheet.

[farawayred]

Leno has conceded 54 goals against a post-shot xG of 48.3 he is a poor keeper and it was a bad error. Jota has done well but the keeper should be saving that.
 

We'll never gonna get to the end of this.
- "The keeper should have saved that". Yes a better keeper could have saved that, but it can't be proven one way or another.
- "The striker should be scoring that". Yes, that's the expectation. But put a striker with lower conversion rate, which is everyone on our squad including Mo, and they may not score. Again, that can't be proven one way or another.

The truth is somewhere in between the striker certainty for scoring and the keeper certainty for saving. Hence the xG, against which the keeper and the striker are measured. It's not an absolute measure, but it is the best we have at the moment. And it's not too dependent on the size of statistical sample; not a huge number but big enough (>22) to have a meaning.

The rest is arguing about opinions.

[Eeyore]

We'll never gonna get to the end of this.
- "The keeper should have saved that". Yes a better keeper could have saved that, but it can't be proven one way or another.
- "The striker should be scoring that". Yes, that's the expectation. But put a striker with lower conversion rate, which is everyone on our squad including Mo, and they may not score. Again, that can't be proven one way or another.

The truth is somewhere in between the striker certainty for scoring and the keeper certainty for saving. Hence the xG, against which the keeper and the striker are measured. It's not an absolute measure, but it is the best we have at the moment. And it's not too dependent on the size of statistical sample; not a huge number but big enough (>22) to have a meaning.

The rest is arguing about opinions.

The thing is though that conversion rate is only part of the story. Jota has never been a prolific goalscorer. His best season was 17 League goals in the Championship. This is his sixth season in the Premier League and only the second time he has got into double figures for League goals.

His entire career has been as a 1 in 3 games goalscorer. Jota takes fewer shots per 90 minutes 2.2 than the likes of Nunez 3.97 or Salah 3.14
He also creates far fewer assists.

[Hestoic]

Jota, Nunez and Salah were looking really dangerous together before Jota got injured. Would love to see the 3 of them start against the BS.

[Knight]

Once again, we are finding ways to punish a striker for being selective when they shoot, rather than blamming the ball over from 25 yards and wasting our play to get into that part of the pitch.

Jota has one fewer goal (10 compared to 11) from less than half as many shots as Nunez (41 compared to 103). Just variance though innit?

They both takes lots of high value shots. Jota has been more efficient this season. He may always be more efficient. But they both takes lots of shots. Jota is in the 93rd percentile for shots per 90 this season from his minutes.

[Yorkykopite]

His entire career has been as a 1 in 3 games goalscorer.

This presents such a misleading picture of what Jota does for Liverpool. It's meant to imply, I think, that he scores a goal every 270 minutes or so. But that's crap.

Goals per minutes-played are a much fairer reflection of a striker's performance than goals per 'game' (whatever that means these days). And Jota's goal per minutes-played in the Premier League are good.  They are way below one every 270 minutes, that's for sure. This season Jota has scored a goal every 115 minutes. Last season he scored a goal every 161 minutes. The season before it was a goal every 158 minutes. In his first season here it was a goal every 123 minutes. All these figures are substantially below a goal "every three games" (ie 270 minutes).

Jota may have been a "one goal in every three matches" for Wolves but he's never been that at Liverpool. Overall this season he's scored 15 goals at a goal every 114 minutes. That's a fractionally better strike rate than Mo Salah. and a much better strike than anyone else.

There seems to be subtle desire to reduce Jota's achievements from one or two posters on this thread. What a time to do it! Enjoy him.

[farawayred]

The thing is though that conversion rate is only part of the story. Jota has never been a prolific goalscorer. His best season was 17 League goals in the Championship. This is his sixth season in the Premier League and only the second time he has got into double figures for League goals.

His entire career has been as a 1 in 3 games goalscorer. Jota takes fewer shots per 90 minutes 2.2 than the likes of Nunez 3.97 or Salah 3.14
He also creates far fewer assists.

Moving to a different direction yet again? We were discussing exactly Jota's finishing and I argued that the stats show that he is the best finisher we have at the moment. Then you said the goal is down to the goalkeeper's fault, which I argued against based on the xG in my post above. Now you're saying that he is not a prolific scorer. Well, I agree. But he is a very important scorer for us (Yorky has addressed that above). And one thing that is really missed by statistics is that Jota often scores the ever-most-important first goal, more so than anyone else we have at the moment.

[Eeyore]

This presents such a misleading picture of what Jota does for Liverpool. It's meant to imply, I think, that he scores a goal every 270 minutes or so. But that's crap.

Goals per minutes-played are a much fairer reflection of a striker's performance than goals per 'game' (whatever that means these days). And Jota's goal per minutes-played in the Premier League are good.  They are way below one every 270 minutes, that's for sure. This season Jota has scored a goal every 115 minutes. Last season he scored a goal every 161 minutes. The season before it was a goal every 158 minutes. In his first season here it was a goal every 123 minutes. All these figures are substantially below a goal "every three games" (ie 270 minutes).

Jota may have been a "one goal in every three matches" for Wolves but he's never been that at Liverpool. Overall this season he's scored 15 goals at a goal every 114 minutes. That's a fractionally better strike rate than Mo Salah. and a much better strike than anyone else.

There seems to be subtle desire to reduce Jota's achievements from one or two posters on this thread. What a time to do it! Enjoy him.

Not like you to cherry-pick one line from a post Yorky Why do you do that?

The point is that if Jota was this super efficient goal scoring machine then he would be playing a lot more minutes. As I said his best League return is 17 goals in the Championship.

Players like Salah play so many minutes because they contribute so much. Jota doesn't really do that. For me apart from the goal he had a shocker at the weekend. His pass completion was 60%. That is what he tends to do have games in which he continually loses possession but then scores.

[Eeyore]

Moving to a different direction yet again? We were discussing exactly Jota's finishing and I argued that the stats show that he is the best finisher we have at the moment. Then you said the goal is down to the goalkeeper's fault, which I argued against based on the xG in my post above. Now you're saying that he is not a prolific scorer. Well, I agree. But he is a very important scorer for us (Yorky has addressed that above). And one thing that is really missed by statistics is that Jota often scores the ever-most-important first goal, more so than anyone else we have at the moment.

It isn't moving at all. If you operate largely in the penalty area and take less shots from distance then the likelihood is that the stats will show you to be more efficient. Jota is very good at what he does. He gets his shots off quickly and hits them hard and low.

[Yorkykopite]

Not like you to cherry-pick one line from a post Yorky Why do you do that?

Because your posts are full of low-hanging succulent cherries. To scoff them all would mean puking. You don't care much for Jota and the stats you use to back up your 'evaluation' are useless. Plus ca change....

[JP!]

Jota, Nunez and Salah were looking really dangerous together before Jota got injured. Would love to see the 3 of them start against the BS.

As were Jota Nunez and Diaz before Jota got hurt as well. Reasonable argument that was our best form...

[LallanaInPyjamas]

They both takes lots of high value shots. Jota has been more efficient this season. He may always be more efficient. But they both takes lots of shots. Jota is in the 93rd percentile for shots per 90 this season from his minutes.

Absolutely, which is why Eeyore trying to paint him as someone who doesn't have many high quality chances (and thereby insinuating that he is unlikely to keep scoring goals at a very good rate when he is fit) is utter nonsense.

Likewise, they do indeed both take lots of high value shots, but one also takes lots of low value shots and that is a problem whether you want to admit it or not.

The point is that if Jota was this super efficient goal scoring machine then he would be playing a lot more minutes. As I said his best League return is 17 goals in the Championship.

Players like Salah play so many minutes because they contribute so much. Jota doesn't really do that. For me apart from the goal he had a shocker at the weekend. His pass completion was 60%. That is what he tends to do have games in which he continually loses possession but then scores.

What utter bullshit. He'd be playing more minutes if he didn't pick up at least one proper injury every season. Yes he can be scruffy, no he isn't the best in the world at holding onto the ball, but that goes for all of our forwards. If you want to use anything to knock him then it's his availability, because his output more than makes up for those things when he is on the pitch.

[Eeyore]

Absolutely, which is why Eeyore trying to paint him as someone who doesn't have many high quality chances (and thereby insinuating that he is unlikely to keep scoring goals at a very good rate when he is fit) is utter nonsense.

Likewise, they do indeed both take lots of high value shots, but one also takes lots of low value shots and that is a problem whether you want to admit it or not.

What utter bullshit. He'd be playing more minutes if he didn't pick up at least one proper injury every season. Yes he can be scruffy, no he isn't the best in the world at holding onto the ball, but that goes for all of our forwards. If you want to use anything to knock him then it's his availability, because his output more than makes up for those things when he is on the pitch.

Even when fit he hasn't really been a first choice starter. When he does start he usually gets subbed off. Jota has made 145 appearances for us but has only played the full 90 on 32 occasions. Jota is a top player but he has never really nailed down a starting spot.

For me he is one of those players that seems to get over rated when he is out injured.

[Bobinhood]

Uses his ass better than Rhiannon, too. foul every time. possession every time, only called a third of the time and never a yellow. his x-stickouttheasstaketheyardturnandgo is better than almost anybody else.

What they dont cover that one? its one of his main differentials highly effective.