Topic: Mario Gomez you owe me £25

[Degs]

A hush descends over the raucous crowd of American college students, the zealous support for their University team has given way to a silent intrigue.  As the quarterback receives the ball the spectator's curiosity grows, scanning the positions around he silently communicates with the receiver ready to take the catch, angles and trajectories are calculated and suddenly the ball is launched through the air. An eruption of energy bursts forth from the crowd, with the successful completion of the pass they realise they have witnessed a moment of history.  This is the first successfully completed pass in a Robot American Football game.

The evolution of the robots, to a stage where they are able to compete with each other, has taken 4 years of development. The iterations of the "players" has been documented through YouTube. The speed at which the robots are improving is exponential, where they once seemed slow proof of concept pieces made by bored students, they now resemble robotic versions of their human counterparts. The robots communicate with each other in milliseconds, using ultrasonic beacons, at any point the quarterback will know exactly where his team-mates are, his on-board computers can calculate the height and speed he should throw the ball, his mechanic arm is never tired, in what can now be seen as an almost inevitable consequence of all of this technology there has come a tipping point.  The robots have surpassed the humans.

The player that completed the first successful robot pass was the Notre Dame quarterback, and it can do this with a 75% reliability rate while the NFL's all time leader has a rate of 66%, but the robots aren't finished.  With each new year comes new technology, faster technology, more accurate sensors, better programming.  There will come a point where the quarterbacks will adjust for wind, their vastly improved throwing mechanism will power the ball through the air, their on-board computers performing hundreds of calculations.  With each year these robots are eliminating their reliance on "luck".

I love Mario Gomez.  In Euro 2008 I convinced friends, family and everybody I came into contact with that they should place their money, their cars, their clothes off their back on Stuttgart's Gomez to be top scorer.  After watching weekly highlights and matches care of Setanta sports I had seen Gomez score 28 goals in 33 games, I was converted to Gomezism. The spectacular failure of Gomez in the Euros never shook my faith, only my bank balance. When telling people that "Olivier Giroud will light up the Euros" I'm quickly reminded by them of Gomez. I love Mario Gomez because he is "lucky".  Viewed in isolation almost every single one of Mario Gomez's goals can be seen as "jammy", "lucky", or any other in litany of phrases that veil the true nature of scoring goals: "skill".

Take a look at Mario Gomez's goals from the 2010/2011 season and notice the pattern.  He's always in and around the 6 yard box:

http://youtu.be/KWIz892Fuq0

Almost ALL of the 39 goals are scored ahead of the penalty spot.

With some players skill is easy to see. Whether Cristiano Ronaldo is doing his 50 stepovers, Alexis Sanchez is dribbling 100m in 10 seconds, Zidane is rouletting, or Suarez is chipping you will hear the appreciative drawl of "skiiiiiiillllll" pour from the observer's mouth. Yet Mario Gomez tucks in from 2 yards out and he's "spawny", "jammy", "flukey", "goalhanger".

Mario Gomez is robotic.  He calculates his angles, he anticipates rebounds, he shoots for the area of goal where he has the highest chance of scoring in, he is ruthless, he is ruthlessly efficient. Liverpool are not.

I have always promised myself that if I raise a kid I will teach them at an early age that the harder you work the luckier you get.  It seems a simple premise yet it's ignored throughout life and throughout football. When Andy Carroll wins a flick on at the edge of the box and doesn't run straight for the keeper afterwards he is limiting his luck to almost nothing.  When Stewart Downing hugs the left-touch line while the ball is worked down the right flank he is limiting his potential to score to almost 0 (you can't be "lucky" off the ball).  While Kenny would eulogise after each game that we were "unlucky" he was wrong.  We were not lucky, we were ineffective.

Albert Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Taken in isolation it can be forgiven to say that it was an unlucky game, an unlucky shot, an unlucky rebound but over the course of 38 league games there is no luck, there is simply a failure to understand and correct the conditions you constantly place yourself in.
No clearer example of this can be found in our season-long love affair with the woodwork:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/OfSJAKmBZO8" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/OfSJAKmBZO8</a>

If Mario Gomez wears our number 9 in the 2011-2012 season he scores a robotic 20+

The next manager to come in will not be afforded the luxury to simply blame an inability to address continued attacking problems by stating that today our luck was not in.  The next manager to mention the notion of luck will have 1 rabbit's foot and an Irishman sent to them courtesy of me and Mario Gomez.

[Aristotle]

So to sum up: Mario Gomez is German

But it's the same thing I've been saying all season. To use an excerpt from a piece I had written but haven't had it in me to post for obvious reasons (to those who've read it).

It goes a little something like this:

There has been much discussion of luck. Our manager has even made the effort to say it was the reason we failed to pick up points at several times throughout this season. But I'm not convinced. How many times can we be unlucky? We have hit the frame of the goal an alarmingly many times but you could also raise that point that we've hit the frame of the goal, had a shot saved on the line and missed more penalties more often than any other team and yet we've barely scored on the follow up. The last time we did is out of reach. Look at Henderson's shot in the first game against Fulham. A brilliant piece of creativity and a real initiaive to get a shot at goal. When the ball hits the post, there are 7 Fulham players in the way before any of our players has a chance to get at the ball. Hardly a dangerous presence is there? 

To use them as the most obvious comparison. How many times have they scored in the dying moments of the game because they had half their team in the opposition's box? Skrtel has scored from a direct header, and Johnson has had a few runs and shot on goal, Agger scored after a corner twice. But when is the last time a defender scored after the ball dropped in the box during open play? IF it's true that you make your own luck, we sure as hell are making it awfully difficult for ourselves ... there seems to be that every knockback or a bit of bad luck goes against us something happens to the team that makes them lose faith. Of course it would've been another matter had it [insert any of disallowed goal, shot saved on line, shot off the post/crossbar] counted, but when it doesn't the team has failed to respond and take it from there.

[Degs]

So to sum up: Mario Gomez is German

But it's the same thing I've been saying all season. To use an excerpt from a piece I had written but haven't had it in me to post for obvious reasons (to those who've read it).

It goes a little something like this:

Totally agree and it's what I was jokingly trying to get across. Luck is what you make of it.

[Vulmea]

Presumably the programmer who set him up for the final has been sacked,  the unlucky bastard

if you can accept one game can be 'unlucky' however much you want to argue, it implies any number of games can be unlucky

Also the idea that not getting enough people in the box accounts for our lack of goals............Newcastle often had one player n the opposition half, let alone the box and scored as many - our season was about finishing - some of which was down to luck - some of which was down to confidence (ours being poor, the oppositions being high), some of which was down to ability (opposition keepers or our lack of it) and some may even have been down to a lack of players in the box but for me the latter would be the least significant of the four

[Degs]

Presumably the programmer who set him up for the final has been sacked,  the unlucky bastard

if you can accept one game can be 'unlucky' however much you want to argue, it implies any number of games can be unlucky

Also the idea that not getting enough people in the box accounts for our lack of goals............Newcastle often had one player n the opposition half, let alone the box and scored as many - our season was about finishing - some of which was down to luck - some of which was down to confidence (ours being poor, the oppositions being high), some of which was down to ability (opposition keepers or our lack of it) and some may even have been down to a lack of players in the box but for me the latter would be the least significant of the four

Not at all.

The point is that there is no mystical force that exudes through the cosmos portioning out favourable second balls.

I don't ever accept luck as an excuse because I don't believe in it, it's excusable for a manager to bemoan it in a single game though but after every game it wears very thin.  It gives a sense that everything is fine, WE do not need to change we simply must wait for the planets to align and our luck will once again return.

Manchester United have not been the dominant force for the past 20 years because of a gypsy curse, they do not score jammy goals in the last 5 minutes as so many of our fans wish to believe. It's simply that they work hard to get in the positions to score goals.

Mario Gomez may not have scored 20+ goals for us this season but there was only a handful of games when the tactics were changed beyond what seems a now archaic traditional 4-4-2 and in the back end of Kenny's first 6 months in charge we played a much more fluid style of football with players in and around the box.  It seemed a stubborn volition to play that way, with those players, regardless of the results that came. An inability to finish chances wasn't put down to Downing not getting in the box off the touchline like Maxi does, not Henderson failing to make the run across the box and take players like Kuyt does, all it ever came down was bad Anfield juju.

As for the poor programmer he's locked away improving his robots, not blaming the opposition's 4 leafed clover.

[Vulmea]

Not at all.

The point is that there is no mystical force that exudes through the cosmos portioning out favourable second balls.

I don't ever accept luck as an excuse because I don't believe in it, it's excusable for a manager to bemoan it in a single game though but after every game it wears very thin.  It gives a sense that everything is fine, WE do not need to change we simply must wait for the planets to align and our luck will once again return.

Manchester United have not been the dominant force for the past 20 years because of a gypsy curse, they do not score jammy goals in the last 5 minutes as so many of our fans wish to believe. It's simply that they work hard to get in the positions to score goals.

Mario Gomez may not have scored 20+ goals for us this season but there was only a handful of games when the tactics were changed beyond what seems a now archaic traditional 4-4-2 and in the back end of Kenny's first 6 months in charge we played a much more fluid style of football with players in and around the box.  It seemed a stubborn volition to play that way, with those players, regardless of the results that came. An inability to finish chances wasn't put down to Downing not getting in the box off the touchline like Maxi does, not Henderson failing to make the run across the box and take players like Kuyt does, all it ever came down was bad Anfield juju.

As for the poor programmer he's locked away improving his robots, not blaming the opposition's 4 leafed clover.

Nah just lucky FSG didn't buy the company and sack him then.

The back end of last season and the tail end of this the football hasn't been much different we just have not scored. Those who crave some style of football turn it into an issue of style, those who want to blame luck, blame luck, those who want to blame mentality blame that, or Kenny or Carroll or whatever.

You pick a number in the lottery and win - is that lucky? What do you call it if not luck?

You're taught never to shoot near post, always go across the keeper, you hit it near post, the keeper misjudges the ball it goes in - lucky? If not lucky then what?

You dont have to believe in the mystical Goddess Fortuna to acknowledge shit happens in the world often without rhyme or reason. The idea it doesn't in football a game with a bouncing ball,  22 none robots and more particularly officials with serious mental issues (who in their right mind would want to be one) is just weird.

[Degs]

You pick a number in the lottery and win - is that lucky? What do you call it if not luck?

I'm glad you picked this example.
I don't play the lottery, if I were to win the lottery I will grant you that there may be some "luck" involved.
In actuality winning the lottery is a result of probability and coincidence, if I were to buy 10,000 tickets I do not inherently become more lucky I simply stack the odds in my favour of winning a prize.
Just like taking a shot near post I could buy 1 ticket and win the lottery but if I am to shoot at an area where it is statistically "easier" to score I will stand more chance of hitting the net, just like buying 10,000 tickets will make me more likely to win the lottery.

You're taught never to shoot near post, always go across the keeper, you hit it near post, the keeper misjudges the ball it goes in - lucky? If not lucky then what?

You answer your own question.
No the keeper was not born under a bad sign and now the fickle finger of fate chooses today to be his "unlucky" day, he has misjudged the ball, he has committed an error, if he does this regularly he is a poor goalkeeper. You are confusing human error with luck.

You dont have to believe in the mystical Goddess Fortuna to acknowledge shit happens in the world often without rhyme or reason. The idea it doesn't in football a game with a bouncing ball,  22 none robots and more particularly officials with serious mental issues (who in their right mind would want to be one) is just weird.

Shit happens, all shit does not happen at an equal rate.
If shit happens frequently, and continues to happen, then it stands to reason that without corrective action shit will continue to happen at the same rate - as this season shows.
You can set your watch by our chances that have gone begging this season.

[Vulmea]

No the keeper was not born under a bad sign and now the fickle finger of fate chooses today to be his "unlucky" day, he has misjudged the ball, he has committed an error, if he does this regularly he is a poor goalkeeper. You are confusing human error with luck.
Shit happens, all shit does not happen at an equal rate.
If shit happens frequently, and continues to happen, then it stands to reason that without corrective action shit will continue to happen at the same rate - as this season shows.
You can set your watch by our chances that have gone begging this season.

sorry liked the OP and appreciate we're getting a bit off track here

if the keeper makes one mistake all season and it was against that near post shot - was the striker 'lucky'?

reverse it a keeper comes to anfield and plays a blinder - best game of his season - are we lucky or unlucky? What do we do differently to stop it happening? Its the opposition keeper who's having the blinder - the next week he throws two into his own net...........

its not a confusion with human error - the striker benefited from something outside of his control - he was lucky

and if you accept it can happen once - then using your probability and coincidence it can happen more than once  - that coin toss can come down 38 times on heads - its unlikely but it could happen

as for shit happening at equal rates - when you factor in the players mental strength this season which was for the most part poor - then yes a trend could emerge - it can become self fulfilling - players snatching at chances or overthinking - each time adding pressure making failure more likely -  you are in sinking sand - the harder you struggle the quicker you sink - it just gets worse and worse -  everybody has probably been there - some just give up of course -  so ok that type of thing needs intervention that can be addressed but that doesn't mean 'luck' played no part.

as for United - I agree they make a lot of their own luck - but if you get 75% of all 50/50 decisions that helps as well

[Hinesy]

Bump

[Sangria]

You're taught never to shoot near post, always go across the keeper, you hit it near post, the keeper misjudges the ball it goes in - lucky? If not lucky then what?

You shoot near post or far post, and assuming the keeper has a 50% chance of guessing each, there is an equal chance of either going in. Far post doesn't equal a better chance of you scoring, near post doesn't equal a better chance of the keeper saving it. What is different is the follow up. If you shoot near post and the keeper palms it away, it's a corner. If you shoot far post and the keeper palms it away, someone following up will have a chance at an open goal. Therefore you shoot far post. However, if noone follows up, there's no difference between near post and far post, except maybe catching the keeper off balance with an unorthodox near post shot.

[Kochevnik]

I'm glad you picked this example.
I don't play the lottery, if I were to win the lottery I will grant you that there may be some "luck" involved.
In actuality winning the lottery is a result of probability and coincidence, if I were to buy 10,000 tickets I do not inherently become more lucky I simply stack the odds in my favour of winning a prize.
Just like taking a shot near post I could buy 1 ticket and win the lottery but if I am to shoot at an area where it is statistically "easier" to score I will stand more chance of hitting the net, just like buying 10,000 tickets will make me more likely to win the lottery.

You answer your own question.
No the keeper was not born under a bad sign and now the fickle finger of fate chooses today to be his "unlucky" day, he has misjudged the ball, he has committed an error, if he does this regularly he is a poor goalkeeper. You are confusing human error with luck.
Shit happens, all shit does not happen at an equal rate.
If shit happens frequently, and continues to happen, then it stands to reason that without corrective action shit will continue to happen at the same rate - as this season shows.
You can set your watch by our chances that have gone begging this season.

Your entire argument then, is predicated upon a redefinition of the word "luck."

Most people would say that if you, say, try a shot that succeeds 10% of the time, say from the edge of the area with a defender closing me down, and it goes in, it would be lucky.  You say "no, it's stacking the odds in your favour to take that shot, knowing that if you take enough of them you will score."  Which is also correct, it's just that it's using another definition of the word "luck."

Even if something is 60% likely to happen, it's perfectly fine to use the word "luck" to say that it DID happen.  If we set our team up in a way that will, if we played 100 times, win 60 of them, and then we play the one that matters and win on a deflected goal, people will say we were "lucky."  The truth is, we would have won that game 60% of the time, so according to your definition we weren't lucky, we just set our team up well and reaped the rewards.  But in my opinion to say that we were lucky isn't inaccurate; it's just not a helpful way of looking at it if you want to prepare to do it again in the future.

[kennedy81]

[BigT_85]

Out of curiosity, has anyone done any research into how many points we would have accumulated this season if all of those woodwork shots and missed penalties had gone in?

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Kuyt is a great example of following up with shots and looking for rebounds.

Its definitey a skill but probably the one thats easiest to coach. Absoutely drives me insane that professional footballers arent doing this at any level let alone for Liverpool.

[justsean]

Kuyt is a great example of following up with shots and looking for rebounds.

Its definitey a skill but probably the one thats easiest to coach. Absoutely drives me insane that professional footballers arent doing this at any level let alone for Liverpool.

This makes me think... "why wasn't Gomez following up on Robben's penalty miss in the CL final".

I remember when I saw it on replay I thought they could have done with someone like Kuyt following in instantly to try and get on the end of the loose ball.

With regards to Gomez in general - he is an absolute poacher, I've had many people saying to me over the last week that he's shite and shouldn't start for Germany etc. but typically, they are the people who have watched him play 1 game all season (that being the CL final where admittedly he didn't do that well).

Have Liverpool ever had such a poacher? I don't remember one in my time of watching us. Robbie pure skill. Owen pure pace. Torres combination of skill and being unbelievable at creating an ounce of space to get off a quick and unexpected shot.

What I wouldn't have done for a poacher this season.

[Vulmea]

This makes me think... "why wasn't Gomez following up on Robben's penalty miss in the CL final".

I remember when I saw it on replay I thought they could have done with someone like Kuyt following in instantly to try and get on the end of the loose ball.

With regards to Gomez in general - he is an absolute poacher, I've had many people saying to me over the last week that he's shite and shouldn't start for Germany etc. but typically, they are the people who have watched him play 1 game all season (that being the CL final where admittedly he didn't do that well).

Have Liverpool ever had such a poacher? I don't remember one in my time of watching us. Robbie pure skill. Owen pure pace. Torres combination of skill and being unbelievable at creating an ounce of space to get off a quick and unexpected shot.

What I wouldn't have done for a poacher this season.

Was Aldo before your time?

[royhendo]

Bump

[petecolonia]

With Mario Gomez, everyone in Germany goes on about how shit he is (seriously) and then he scores 38 goals...phenomenon

[justsean]

Was Aldo before your time?

I'm 25 so yeah mate he was.

With Mario Gomez, everyone in Germany goes on about how shit he is (seriously) and then he scores 38 goals...phenomenon

I'm half German - lots of family over there. They are constantly saying the lad is useless. How can you score 38 goals and still be labelled useless.

[NorthamptonKopite]

A robotic, ruthless German footballer... who'd have thunk it?

[OperationIvy]

I totally agree with the original post. In fact I think that blaming it on luck is probably what got Kenny fired, because it shows a lack of wanting to take responsibility for the fact we lost or drew a game, or even a lack of understanding as to why.

That goal that Meireles scored for us against Chelsea pretty much demonstrates that you make your own luck. He didnt have to run halfway across the pitch.

[hassinator]

great op.  shame we've got bogged down in the semantics of luck.

bottom line is that good strikers score lots of goals; good goal keepers prevent goals being scored.

would a more accurate way of looking at this be percentage of chance conversion?

[Eeyore]

The problem is even a Mario Gomez has dips in form and dips in confidence 05/06 six in thirty, 09-10 ten in 29 games are totally out of character with the rest of his career. Finishing is largely instinctive often the less they think about it the easier it is. Last season we had a patch of keepers making Worldie's against us, game after game Keepers were producing ridiculous saves. When that happens instead of finishing instinctively players take another touch, go for the corners and try and hit the ball too hard.

That leads to more shots hitting the woodwork which leads to lower confidence.

A good example is Maxi a great finisher who has always been a one in three player except for early in his Liverpool when he couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo. Collectively as a team we were trying too hard in front of goal which was leading to ever more erratic finishing. Carroll at Wembley was a great example in the Semi Final and Final he tried to burst the head with far post headers and headed one wide and one at the keeper.

At Newcastle the net bursting headers were saved for corners and free kicks when there was a crowded goalmouth, when one one one with a keeper he would just nod it down into the corners. Goals breed confidence and confidence leads to goals. I remember Rushie talking about the difference between playing for Liverpool and playing for Wales for Liverpool he was relaxed because he knew if a chance came along and he missed it he knew he would get another couple. For Wales he knew he would only get one chance and he knew he had to take it and he hated that extra pressure.

We were too tight, too erratic and too concerned about missing chances last season the early season Goalkeeping performances and the hitting the woodwork left us mentally scarred. As Gomez proved after 05/06 and 09/10 that doesn't have to be permanent.

[Degs]

This is the man Carroll should model himself on.

[Flinstone]

certain aspects yes.i wouldnt want him to turn into a copy of gomez though.

if he adds a bit of mario's movement and continues to dominate physically then we could have some player.

[Aristotle]

So to sum up: Mario Gomez is German

Naiiiiled it