Of course i can see in the corner a red coming. Can you also see how far they are and that they are not charging and that Denayer is never going to be able to cover that distant guy if he moves to the right a bit and receives the ball because he is already alone there?

See this better video at ~5m35sec





Basically a better choice if he wanted to get where you are thinking, would be through a direction that first takes him closer to 9 so that he needs to run a smaller distance to get to the red player 3 in question that way if needed to block a shot. Both can be done because the second choice takes also further time.

I would never be saying look they all went to the same guy because in this case they couldnt get to the #3 guy as it happened so i would never claim they left #3 alone because the break out was so sudden that your priority is elsewhere by necessity plus a shot by that guy (3) in the future is a smaller risk than a shot from the 9 guy now closer to the keeper.

Basically Denayer can never reach #3 to tackle or block him close by going where he was going so fast , he (3) would still be able to get a relatively clean right side shot without being tackled by anyone with a possible exception of the right short hair defender that would have moved towards him in the meantime.

See this video again that shows more better. You will see that one can try to reduce the risk of 3 while still choosing a path that takes Denayer close to 9 first, possibly covering also that back side corridor and still being able to move towards 3 later that was alone and distant anyway and without immediate reach by anyone so fast. 3 was a risk that was hard to defend if needed but a smaller risk, and 9 was the immediate risk. You choose to defend 9 and then 3 if needed because perfect defense of 3 cannot happen anyway as it is now.

Actually, the video at 5:35 makes it even more apparent how important it is for someone to rotate over to the open attacker.

This seems like a really bad decision. Rotating *above* the ball (that is, putting the ball between you and the goal) is stupid. And running through your teammate's position only causes confusion.

If you watch that video and really think that the mistake was the defender rotating over to the open player... I don't know. Go write a 10,000 word essay on why you're right and maybe you'll convince someone who's willing to read it.

Based on the video you've provided, it seems absolutely clear that the defender was doing the strategically proper thing. It's just that the other guy got beat.

Edit:

"Because perfect defense of 3 cannot happen anyway" is part of your logic? Serious LOL right there. Don't defend that guy because you can't defend him perfectly. Just leave him open. No defense is better than imperfect defense. Hustling to put yourself in position is wasted energy.

It's almost like you learned how to play defense watching youth soccer. JUST RUN TO WHERE THE BALL IS!

Dont try to insult me now with youth football confusing necessity here with the stupid choice of schooboys that run all to the ball. LOL. You know that almost nobody here can play at any decent level this game and do the job of Denayer remotely well and we are forced to be observers instead with good intentions anyway. The same is true to a lesser degree for even their trainers and coaches. These are 2 different things. Denayer may not be able to understand math as well as you do dealing with probabilities all the time. I speculate here but their education is elsewhere typically and they understand risk only by experience not actual math effort. Also many of their moves are mechanical. This is why imaginative moves like that of Robson Kanu illustrate how better game theoretically soccer can get if you put a little brain to it.


No you are not seeing this as 2 risks at the same time as you should.

9 is the primary risk and 3 is the secondary.

9 can score here with say (not actual numbers just to make my intuitive case) 50% chance as it is, that a move by Denayer can take down to 25-30% if he closes the corridor.

3 can score here with a chance of only 25% because he needs to get the ball successful (not a given and then shoot from a worse position also and some small defense by the others can still happen even if not very good in the meantime).

So you choose to take 50% down to 25% and let 25% be at 25-20% anyway. The way Denayer was moving the 25% risk wasnt becoming 0% or even 10%. But the 50% could become 25%. So yes you choose not to defend 3 at that moment because it represents a smaller risk even if alone. There is little you can do about 3 so dont do anything if doing something about 9 cuts 25% out right away.

Why isnt that clear and you keep ridiculing it? Is it such a painful task to try to understand me? Is it so socially disturbing?

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. You're just wrong. I reject your estimates of scoring chances out of hand as being far too arbitrary to be meaningful in assessing the situation.

I think you just don't understand team sports. You never leave an attacker unguarded that close to the goal. Any real estimate of scoring chances will lead you to that conclusion.

But this is exactly what he did here. He chose to leave #9 unguarded (because 3 guards were needed there as he was placed so close to the keeper) (its not always 1 to 1, its adaptable to the risk) and #3 was never going to be efficiently guarded no matter what Denayer was doing because he was alone and very distant from all 3 defenders.

#3 needed to be much closer to the keeper for Denayer's move to make sense.

If you cant defend well something and can defend well another you go where you can defend.

You dont like 50-25??? Why? Are they maybe 40 and 20? Who cares.

I bet if you put a player in that spot often its 30-50% risk to score. Even if its only 30 the other guy has to be 15 then. It is always less.

My argument is not changing due to numbers not being perfect. The numbers do not kill it. The distant guy needs to get the ball first, that is not a given that it will happen successfully and then score from a worse position a second or more later (a lot can happen by then hence the smaller chance). By definition his risk is smaller than 9's and probably even 50% smaller because more things have to happen well to get him to score from worse position.

Cutting the open corridor of 9 is definitely taking his chances down 50% though. You cannot have the same effect if you run towards 3 because they are very far anyway and you cant reach them before they get a chance to shoot. Plus you still can try to defend 3 if it gets there and cut the risk a little bit even if you didn't initially go there.

So you choose to cut the big risk in half and ignore the other risk or cut it down 10-20% only later if needed by selecting a move to the middle that does both with emphasis first on the main risk.

Yes it will look like kids football all running to the same guy but in this case this is exactly what must be done first.

Dont forget that even if 3 got the ball alone (he would be alone anyway if the transfer was successfully executed no matter what they did) he would be on the right side and the bodies of 3 defenders and an attacker converging in the meantime there would be blocking the left side of the keeper so the keeper could focus on the right side of his post and have a better chance to react well to such shot by #3. This is why a shot by 3 alone is not of the same caliber risk as leaving 9's corridor open. At the same time #3 would be alone anyway no matter what you did because of distances. So its a poor decision to try to defend a future risk of #3 (that way) that is smaller than the protection you can offer with 9 now.

What do you mean #9 is unguarded? There's a defender right on top of him.

That's... well... idiotic. You defend where your defense adds the most value. You don't even need to be on top of the attacker to have an impact on scoring chances. You just need to be in a good defensive position. And leaving the attacker wide open isn't a good defensive position.

You seem to be dramatically undervaluing the benefit of being an undefended offensive player close to the goal. The fact that you are starting to act as if the numbers don't matter show me that you're not even thinking this through anymore.

At some point, the advantage to being an unguarded attacker near the goal is going to outweigh the benefits of a double team. Since you can't even acknowledge that, I have to doubt that you actually have a meaningful analysis or believe that you just don't understand how this works. Right now, I'm betting on both.

9 is unguarded in the corridor (his back at the time) and is only one rotation away from shot. 3 is very far. Yes 2 are near him (9) left - right but the corridor is open. It is you that refuses to appreciate the 2 different risks here properly.

3 needs to get the ball first. Is this 100% efficient always? Of course not! 3 needs to get the ball and then shoot from a more distant position so the keeper has a risk but its smaller than if 9 shoots. Also 3 wont be entirely left alone in the shot as the others would be able to somewhat converge blocking one side at least a little bit. As it is they cannot reach him anyway no matter what so his risk is alive and well.

I am not disputing that Denayer moving to the right side reduces a bit the risk of 3 by offering some cross section to a future shot but this is never like a 50% reduction of this risk. Even if it was, it's a 50% reduction of a smaller risk. I am also saying that if he moved to block the corridor and then 9 gave the ball to 3, Denayer can still offer some cross section defense anyway as the shot will still take 1-1.5 sec to happen.


I am not interested in continuing this unless you agree that there is merit in the discussion i am doing and cut the insulting attitude. Especially since Wales is eliminated already and both teams are out now leaving the goal as part of academic soccer history lol. I didnt insult your thinking, i only gave you arguments. Apparently you cannot argue with me without attacking me with all kinds of minimizing insulting efforts.

I believe this particular goal will be material to discuss with lots of other examples in defense studies in the future because the dual risk analysis i am doing has merit to consider and Denayer is moving as if he has no clear clue what he is trying to minimize. That of course is understandable in the heat of the moment in general.

At the point of decision for the second defender (just as the ball was being received), he was well defended and a decision had to be made. He made the right play by moving to defend the open player. Adding the double team adds little defensive value relative to covering the wide open player.

Then the guy defending the ball made the error. He overcommitted and let the player make the turn. Had this been defended better, it wouldn't have been a problem. But this is the mistake by the immediate defender, not the guy moving to cover the wide open player in the box. You just don't leave a player wide open in the box. That's bad defense.

Then don't continue. You've clearly fallen into classic results-oriented thinking and your arguments are bad. The assumptions that you need to make, such as the assuming that the second player's scoring chances are always lower than the first player's scoring chances, are moronic. Arguments that revolve around statements like "because perfect defense can't be played" are idiotic. You have barely even constructed a meaningful argument to make your position plausible. If you had at least made a better argument from the start, then maybe there might have been a discussion. But I seriously doubt it. There's no brilliant insight here. It looks completely standard at all levels.

These are things that are obvious to people who have played team sports. The simple fact of the matter is that the defender playing the ball got beat. He got beat because he got himself over-committed and out of position. The fact that he got beat does not make the other player's defensive decision incorrect.

Nobody is going to discuss this any more seriously than it has already been discussed because it's not even that interesting of a situation. It's a pretty standard situation. The only reason this is of any interest at all is because the offensive player made a nice move when the defender made a mistake. Defensively, this is an absolutely mundane situation.

You are free to imagine that this highlights some fundamental misunderstanding of defense, and that generations from now will look back and wonder why we ever defended the open attacker near the goal instead of just always double-teaming the player with the ball. I can't keep you from your fantasies.

Agree to disagree please, and calculate the mass of an object required to destroy earth at 90% C, please masque!

It is worse than that. He is moving to both prevent the attacker with the ball from turning out to the right (one defender is already preventing him from turning left and the idiot who overcommitted should have been able to prevent him going directly at the goal had he not overcommitted), cutting off the shooting angle* to who is most likely to receive a pass (player 3, not moving), and severely limits where the ball can be passed to safely (again, player 3, but in movement), and getting back into position for the ball being in the center of the field.

The other option would be to not trust that the other defenders have a clue what to do. That is a no-no.

*player 3 goes from merely having to hit the side of a barn to at least part of the goal being eliminated as well as having the pass challenged, which allows the goalie a chance to glide over should player 3 receive the ball.

Edit: I was a goalkeeper. I want someone cutting player 3 off from the goal.

Congrats. Unemployment sucks.

You do realize that 3 is never cut from goal shot the way Denayer is moving any more than is cut if he went to player 9's corridor first or at least towards there. 9 would be impossible to do what he did with Denayer there. Denayer had time to do it and prevent the strike. He never had time to reach 3 though. NEVER.


You guys are amusing actually in your coalition against me permanently everywhere. Its childish really. You behave as if Denayer moved to block 3. LOL. He is a huge distance away from 3 no matter what he does. See the bloody video damn it. See how far he is from any tackle or decent cross section obstruction. So all he is left to do is eliminate the risk from 9 by blocking his corridor and this is actually doable instantly if he moved that way instead of the clueless position he went to.

3 can get the ball later then, but they can still have some time to block his shot partially reacting to this 1-1.5 sec development and then 3 shoots from the right not the middle that has much smaller probability to defeat the goalkeeper. Its double the distance and at an angle. Come on now!!!

You massively exaggerate the risk of 3 and underestimate the risk of 9.


See the video many times in big screen from 5.23 and later in 0.1 sec steps. Denayer is neither moving to player 3 nor to prevent 9 from having a free corridor. He can do the corridor block first and then move towards 3 if needed. 3 can always get the ball with some chance and nobody is there to defend and Denayer is never able to reach him no matter what as he ran. But since 3 needs 1-1.5 sec to get the ball and get ready to shoot that leaves them some time once they no longer care for 9 to converge to block him partially at the last moment.

No. I didn't read beyond that bit. I assume the rest of the post relies on it being a factual statement.

Come on indeed. It's not about "blocking" the shot. How many times in basketball do we see players jump when the other team is shooting. What percent of those lead to blocks? Why do they jump like that?

It's not even about actually blocking the shot (though in this case -- unlike most of the basketball cases -- a block can clearly can happen since the defender is between the shooter and the goal... you know... in a defensive position). You don't even understand how badly you're arguing your point, and that's pretty funny.

Go calculate the earth-ending collision. That one is at least in your area of actual expertise.

F U with the universe making you suddenly the judge of what my expertise is in. What arrogance! Because this is not also Physics in motion and movement and timing?

You guys are losers in how you treat me and others at times in this site and you are pathetic sociopaths actually in general because you are always in that mood. You are unable to stick to the facts of the case properly. Instead you will use sarcasm and insults eternally. So FU for that. And FU 100x for all future too that you will do the same to others. Ridiculing others with insults and looking down at them is not the same as dealing with their arguments.


It is about blocking because they cannot tackle him if 3 gets the ball because they converged on 9. They can converge on 9 reducing this risk to little and then still have time to focus on 3 because getting the ball and shooting still takes time for him and its not always 100% successful anyway in connecting ideally. Denayer ends up doing nothing instead when he can do both first to 9 and then to 3 by selecting a path that is towards the center instead of what he did.


Oh and lol at the hardness it takes to calculate kinetic energies on collisions now by guys (you) that are so confident in arguing so much more elsewhere that requires even more complex thinking.

Seriously. LOL. I don't even know how to make fun of how bad this is. If he stops to play defense on 9, he's NEVER getting over to cut off 3's angle. How far do you think he can move from a standing start in the amount of time it takes to pass the ball 4-5 meters?

Maybe you don't know physics as well as you think you do.

If you had made a reasonable argument, you'd have given me something reasonable to consider. Your arguments are bad on their face. So yes, I'm going to mock you for your youth soccer level analysis. Just run to the ball. And then when the ball is kicked somewhere else, run there. EZ game.

Simmer down now boys, I'm trying to escape P for more of this?

Here's some real advice, with all snark set aside. You have enough visual data to diagram the situation when the pass is being brought in. Now look at the various distances and explain what you think ought to happen. Let's look at the distances and shooting angles, and see whether it makes any sense to not rotate over to cover the open attacker.

I expect you will see what the rest of us see. There's a wide open net if nobody is rotating over to cover the open attacker. That's a very,very bad situation.

Indeed, best wishes for new prosperity!

4-5 meters? Seriously? Try more like 8-9m away as seen. The post to post distance in like 7.5 m or so to compare. The guy can shoot on motion or receive it and then shoot. The in motion is riskier given nobody is tackling him any time soon so he may choose to control the ball and then shoot. Wont that take 1-1.5 second from the moment 9 moves to pass it ?

Nobody can reach him then as they are if he gets the ball. Denayer is far from him. But they can still block him because in 1.5sec plus time for ball to move there (to them on the way to score), a human can cover 3-4 meters to the right starting from rest but with instant intention to go there and as they are closer to the keeper this 3-4 meters is significant in angular terms. He will still get a shot but its not a 50% shot. Its less and the chance to get to that shot without accidents is not 100%.

I never argued the pass to 3 is defensible easily. It isnt. Moving to 9 makes it even easier a bit. But the execution from 3 is 25% or so to score before he has the ball. And the scoring from 9 is close to 40-50% if you do not block his corridor as all he needs is to rotate and shoot or trick them. Even if its 30% vs 25% a motion to block 25% (3) takes it to what 15% since he is still so far? And a motion of Denayer to block 30% takes it to 15% or less. How about a motion that takes the 30 down to 15 and the 25 down to 20 that i am proposing with a better path choice. The overall reduction is better.

You have one risk that is hard to reduce by 50% and another than that is larger risk and more immediate that you can cut more than 50% even by blocking him. Why isnt that the better choice?

You sacrifice a smaller risk to reduce a bigger one. Thats all. Yes of course you have 3 exposed then but its not as if he is covered now anyway lol!!!

There are many ways to destroy earth. Are you thinking destroy human civilization and life or radically destroy the planet?


Just to see what this is about, a typical asteroid that can damage the climate but not reset the crust or anything (hence life survives basically) is 10 km in size and has speed of 30 km/sec on avg. The speed you mention needs relativistic correction but 90% is still not huge error (50-60% or so ).

So if the mass in 10km object at density of 3 gr/cm^3 (lead is 3-4 times that) is ~4/3*Pi*5000^3*3000=1.6*10^15 kgr then a speed that is 10000 times faster will need in order to do the same damage something like 16 mil kgr mass or 10^8 times less mass.

There is no mechanism that can give a mass of lead such speeds by the way while still maintaining its integrity i imagine during some rapid natural acceleration in a near severe multibody gravitational encounter with a very compact object say (like black hole or neutron star).

It is a good question to ask what is a maximum speed that can result in such encounters for fun by the way. Individual particles can get accelerated to such speeds easily due to electromagnetic fields and gravitational fields at the same time. But in this case you need the object to be gravitationally accelerated if it has to maintain its integrity and remain a big rock of lead or something. You cant use electromagnetic fields as much (need severe charges) and any shock wave accelerating it could crash this object's integrity likely.


So that high speed for such significant rocky mass is an academic thought really. But its worth thinking what is the maximum speed that a rock can attain in a galaxy say by any kind of extreme interaction.


To meaningfully destroy earth as in alter its orbit a bit you would need some momentum vector that is at least 1/100 of the earths momentum which implies even at that relativistic speed some ~1/100*6*10^24*30000/(2*3*10^8)~3*10^18 kgr. (earth mass is 6*10^24 kgr)

So well before altering the orbit of earth by any meaningful amount (order 1%) the mass of the rock has to be so big that it will destroy the planet by resetting the crust exposing mantle material and killing all life anyway.

Seriously 3*10^18 kgr at 90% of the speed of light represents the kinetic energy of say another earth hitting us at speeds larger than we orbit the sun (which shows that such energy wipes out the planet for sure plus carries even more momentum than 1/100 of course if in the form of a big object moving at smaller astronomical type speeds).

Basically conclude from that that anything that can alter earth's orbit even a fraction of a % is already so energetic that will destroy it.


The collision that they think created the moon say was an object a few times smaller than earth say Mars like 1/10 th of earth mass and speed similar to 30 km/sec.

Such collision definitely wipes out all life and resets the crust vaporizing all oceans etc.

The energy of such collision is of order 3*10^32 J.

If the object was moving at the proposed relativistic speed it would have to be as big as 3*10^15 kgr or have a radius of ~4 km of lead


Of course to really destroy life you do not need as big an object at such huge speed. You can do it with less energy.

In general something as big as 100 km moving at 30 km/sec would destroy civilization and most life and possibly 300 km object at similar typical solar system speeds would destroy almost all life also.

Lets try to imagine something. Imagine we wanted to calculate naively how much energy is needed to melt 5 km of earth's crust across all the planet. The crust is made of many things but they mostly tend to have heat capacity less than 1 J/gr/K.

Now how much energy is needed to melt all crust to 5km depth? That easily can be claimed resets all life. Try 10 times that and you are safe to have killed everything even if most was concentrated on one side of course.

So what is the mass of say avg 2-3 gr/cm^2 crust down to 5km ? Its about 4*Pi*6378500^2*5000*3000=7.6*10^21 kgr or ~ 1 /1000 or earth's mass say, the top part.

The heat energy to melt all this is probably whats needed to raise the temperature a few hundred K, call it 1000K on avg. So naively this energy is equal to 7.6*10^21*1000*1*1000~ 8 *10^27 J.

Call it 10^28 J, move it to 10^29 J for safety (the 10x thing) and its enough to vaporize all top of crust and oceans and send a lot in space too. Notice this is still some few thousands times less than the energy of theorized collision that cerated the moon.

That wont destroy the planet as a body because it will reset eventually back to a sphere as now without any significant shape change but it will lose its surface structure/biosphere, oceans momentarily and most mountain features of course forming new ones.

What is 10^29J in terms of the body suggested out of lead at such speed?

Its probably a collision that creates a huge crater of hundreds of Km radius and depth that goes very deep exposing mantle material to surface and vaporizes everything creating severe gamma rays etc initially but it finally spreads around as heat and shock waves and ejected fragments raining down back from space and destroys the rest too.

You do not really need to melt everything 5km deep everywhere. As long as you melt even 0.1-1 km its enough to kill all life anyway above it and even below it eventually. Heat will burn everything and sterilize it.

So what is 10^29J? Its a 10^12 kgr object at that funny big speed. A sphere of lead of radius 300 m would do it to destroy all life. Probably less too even 100m or less if you care about civilization only and most animal/plant life but not everything.

Its interesting how it would interact with atmosphere at such ridiculous speed on the way down but it only takes place in less than 1/1000 of a second anyway lol. Its not enough time to break away i mean as a solid object.


Anyway it's academic . What i am more interested in is what size of object does the above damage and has normal typical 30 km/sec speed.

What has 10^29J when the collision that they claim created the moon had 3*10^32 J?

I say an object the size of Enceladus 500 km size at 30km/sec has that energy that can destroy the crust, expose mantle material to surface, vaporize oceans and melt/sterilize all over the surface eventually.

Definitely 10 km size (5km radius) typical speed object (like the dinosaurs event) can destroy civilization momentarily but not life. They have some 10^8 Mtons of energy so its many times our global nuclear arsenal all detonating at once everywhere. This definitely is an extinction event but not a total wipeout. But 500km can do it all. It likely resets life in this planet with a possible chance that chunks of microbes escape to space or something in big rocks.


Toy around with this site too;

http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/


So 300 m radius sphere of relativistic lead 0.9c destroys all life and melts ~5km of crust or something globally, exposing at impact mantle material and resetting all crust top features likely. Over 12R earthquakes everywhere all around the globe.

In terms of normal material and speeds say anything from 100 to 500 km size resets the surface. 10 km is destroying civilization setting extinction events in many species and multiple long term climate crises but not completely. I mean we could survive as species the dinosaur event but not our way of life as designed today. 1km size object is all our nuclear arsenal say. Enough to destroy a lot and disrupt civilization but not wipe out most systems for good.

Glad that Mackeleven is more in the money. Congrats and all that.

Congrats for getting again in a stable sustainable orbit with cash flow security and organized work schedule that is always a significant boost in everything (and a victory against stress/depression of all kinds lol) if the work is interesting. Care to describe what your job function will be like if its not too intrusive or what the government training program was like/about?

Thanks, masque. I esp liked this part: ~1/100*6*10^24*30000/(2*3*10^8)~3*10^18 mgr

Cleared it all up.:roll eyes:

I was thinking maybe the weight of a grain of sand or so. How's about that?