Football shot angle: how much goal you can see
Your data
The goal is seven metres and thirty-two centimetres between the posts. From wherever you are standing, the slice of that mouth you can see is a matter of trigonometry and nothing else, which is why this page needs no data about anybody's shooting.
Zero is straight in front of the middle of the goal. Either side gives the same answer, so it does not matter which one you call positive.
How much goal you can see
| Goal you can see, in degrees | — |
| Distance to the middle of the goal, in metres | — |
| Degrees gained by moving five metres towards the middle | — |
| Degrees gained by moving five metres closer to the line | — |
| For comparison, twenty metres out through the middle | — |
This is the number that makes nonsense of getting closer at any cost. A shot from twenty metres through the middle sees about twenty-one degrees of goal. A shot from twelve metres near the byline sees about nine, which is less than half, from a position eight metres nearer. Being close is not the same as having something to aim at.
The two rows about moving five metres are worth reading together, because which of them is larger flips depending on where you stand. Out wide, going square opens the goal and running at the line closes it, sometimes to nothing. Straight in front, the opposite: the angle is already as good as it gets and only distance is left to fix.
The same measure from six familiar places
| From the middle | From the goal line | Distance | Degrees of goal |
|---|
Read the third and fourth columns side by side and the point makes itself. Distance and visible goal move together only along the middle of the pitch. Away from it they come apart, and the shots people describe as good chances because they were close are often the ones with the least goal to hit.
One thing this page is not: it is not expected goals. A proper model of that is fitted to thousands of shots and takes account of defenders in the way, which foot or head the ball came off, and where the pass came from. None of that is here. What is here is the geometric half of the question, which is exact and which no model can disagree with.
Is a closer shot always a better shot?
Not by this measure. A shot from twenty metres through the middle sees about 21 degrees of goal; one from twelve metres near the byline sees about 9, which is less than half from a position eight metres nearer.
Distance and visible goal only move together along the middle of the pitch. Away from it they come apart, and the chances people call good because the player was close are often the ones with the least goal to aim at.
| From the middle | From the goal line | Degrees of goal |
|---|---|---|
| 0 m | 11 m | 36.8 |
| 0 m | 20 m | 20.7 |
| 8 m | 8 m | 24.6 |
| 12 m | 3 m | 8.9 |
| 6 m | 0.5 m | 9.1 |
Should the player go square or go forward?
It depends where they are, and the page works out both for the point you gave it. Out wide, moving towards the middle opens the goal sharply while running at the goal line closes it, sometimes down to nothing.
Straight in front it reverses: the angle is already as good as it will get, and only distance is left to improve. That flip is the whole reason the two figures are shown side by side instead of one rule of thumb.
Why is the angle zero on the goal line?
Because from exactly on the line, outside the posts, the two posts line up: the mouth of the goal has no width at all when seen from there. It is zero, not almost zero.
That is the arithmetic behind an instinct every player has, which is to pull the ball back rather than shoot from there. The page shows the same thing happening gradually as a player runs towards the line from a tight position.
Is this expected goals?
No. Expected goals comes from a model fitted to thousands of shots, and it accounts for defenders in the way, which part of the body struck the ball and where the pass came from. None of that is here.
What is here is the geometric half of the question. It is exact, it needs no data about anyone's finishing, and no model can disagree with it, because the width of a goal and the position of a player are not matters of opinion.
Reactions
0
0 Comments
Be the first to comment