Even if we never shot a penalty in a Euro-cup final, we can try to imagine how tough it must be psychologically. Jorginho against Spain may have given us the illusion that it is easy – this impression was then reversed in the final against England. Good for Italy how it all ended up despite that.
The Approaches
The penalty takers are confronted with a binary outcome (score or fail) and a binary decision:
- “Kane-type” of kick: the player kicks without trying to anticipate the goalkeeper’s movement, he just decides in advance where he is going to shoot and shoots. According to an interview given recently by Mourinho, Kane (allegedly) even decides days in advance how he will kick the penalty;
- “Jorginho-type” of kick – the shooter tries to get the goalie to move first and then shoots cold-bloodedly in the other direction (at least that’s the idea – worked with Spain, not with England, unfortunately).
Here I am not considering the goalie’s decision to move early or to wait, for simplicity. Since we leave in a world where soccer is pretty important for a large chunk of the population, to say the least, there is academic research on penalty kicks just as there is about RNA vaccines. Reading quickly through the results, researchers Noël, Van der Kamp and Klatt, in a 2021 study, estimated that penalty takers had roughly the same chance of scoring a penalty kick with either approach. What then made the difference was the approach used by the goalie (wait or jump). Van der Kamp in a 2011 study concluded that the “gamble” approach was superior. But that is not really the point of the discussion.
Let me clearly disclose that I am absolutely not an expert on the topic, as I shot a handful of penalties in my amateur soccer life, but would dare to argue that there are different skills involved in the two types of kicks, so that player A may be much more skilled with the “keeper-independent” (to use the scientific literature’s definition) approach, player B more skilled with the “keeper-dependent” approach, and player C potentially possessing both skills. If you don’t feel like Jorginho, you go for the gamble: pick right, left or centre, combine it with high or low, and then just shoot as strong and as precise as possible hoping the goalie does not catch it. Hopefully mission completed.
The “keeper-dependent” approach is an attempt to increase the likelihood of getting the right direction, without focusing too much on the execution of the kick itself. The “keeper-independent” approach aims instead at perfect execution as a way to increase probability of success.
Risk View
And what about risk: which is riskier, the gamble or the controlled shot? A conditional (depending on the player) approach would evaluate the risk based on the characteristics of the player. An unconditional (not depending on the player) approach, would come up with a generalised estimate of the frequencies for each approach. In a conditional setup, if you are clearly not a Jorginho-type of shooter, but good at executing, then the gamble (Kane) approach is a lower risk option. If you are a polarised/extreme Jorginho type, in the sense that you are much better at anticipating the goalie than at executing with power and precision, then the gamble approach is riskier than using your presumed skill to understand which side the goalie is going to jump. So the point is: (conditional) risk depends on the player. Corollary: the optimal decision depends on the player’s skill set. And it is similar in the investment world.
In which investment situations does risk vary from one investor to the other? Subjective risk varies from one person to the other, depending on, among other factors, the specific skill or know-how of the investor. The subjective risks of an investment in a tech stock or an oil stock are likely to be perceived as quite different for a tech analyst vs. an oil analyst – although not meaning necessarily that one will consider his sector to be less risky. If you know which type of penalty taker you are (especially if you are either type A or B but not C with a mix of skills) and are realistic about that, you can reasonably make your mind up about what option is subjectively riskier.
Objective risks can be tricky to estimate and even difficult to prove a posteriori, especially in terms of probability distribution. That said, if one for instance is good at picking outperforming sectors or factors but gets lost when he has to pick individual stocks, fine, then picking sectors or factors should be their edge, delivering better risk-adjusted performance. If one is good at shooting but not at reading a goalie’s move, then he should just go for the powerful and precise kick. That should be enough. In this sense, an investor can actively control investment risk just like a penalty taker controls risk knowing where his skills lie (and where they don’t).
What About Us
Also outside of the soccer field, each one needs to honestly and humbly decide whether he has better chances by shooting like Jorginho or Kane. Delegating investment decisions is not a trivial solution, as one should also assess whether he or she is sufficiently skilled at picking managers. That’s also another “Jorginho vs. Kane” decision. It takes time, there is a learning curve, there should be a framework in place. How should we shoot a penalty kick?
Sources
- van der Kamp, John. “Exploring the merits of perceptual anticipation in the soccer penalty kick.” Motor control 15.3 (2011): 342-358.
- Noël, Benjamin, John van der Kamp, and Stefanie Klatt. “The Interplay of Goalkeepers and Penalty Takers Affects Their Chances of Success.” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021): 548.
- TalkSport interview with José Mourinho on YouTube