I think there should be a team or two down on their knees thanking Spurs for their defeat of Leicester. I was yelling 'Come on Leicester!' Another Spursy moment in reverse. Don't screw it up next season Hammers!!!!!
Goon Garbage
- Thread starter deedub93
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Apparently a game which was quite entertaining was the most boring of the season
You must log in or register to see media
It's almost as if xG exists for weirdos and nobody else
One of the few things i can agree with you on here
WTF is XG by the way, it's just another made up stat for the sad ****s who have never watched a game. Expected goals are the ones that hit the back of the net
One of the few things i can agree with you on here
WTF is XG by the way, it's just another made up stat for the sad ****s who have never watched a game. Expected goals are the ones that hit the back of the net
I think it’s a statistical effort to try and represent the quality of chances created (also relative to the player taking the chance, I think) rather than relying on shots on/off target to measure these things - the idea being that xG offers more weighting to a player being 1-on-1 with the keeper vs. taking a shot from 30 yards, whereas shots on/off target would represent them the same in the stats, assuming the player hits the target each time.
While I think it’s an interesting exercise statistically, I agree I’ve rarely read or heard an interesting conversation where it’s the main focus
Yet somehow it doesn't count for shots that hit the bar or post, which is a better example of expected goalsI think it’s a statistical effort to try and represent the quality of chances created (also relative to the player taking the chance, I think) rather than relying on shots on/off target to measure these things - the idea being that xG offers more weighting to a player being 1-on-1 with the keeper vs. taking a shot from 30 yards, whereas shots on/off target would represent them the same in the stats, assuming the player hits the target each time.
While I think it’s an interesting exercise statistically, I agree I’ve rarely read or heard an interesting conversation where it’s the main focus
I think it’s a statistical effort to try and represent the quality of chances created (also relative to the player taking the chance, I think) rather than relying on shots on/off target to measure these things - the idea being that xG offers more weighting to a player being 1-on-1 with the keeper vs. taking a shot from 30 yards, whereas shots on/off target would represent them the same in the stats, assuming the player hits the target each time.
While I think it’s an interesting exercise statistically, I agree I’ve rarely read or heard an interesting conversation where it’s the main focus
Then for basic stat-ery :
1. 'goal likelihood' (GL) is a better description of the on target shot measure
2 average GL is the immediate "actionable" stat
That’s pretty much what it is, no?
Explainer here. 3 years ago but a good summary. Not sure if the models have changed now to include player identity (my mistake in the initial post).
You must log in or register to see media
No.
The word "expected" has very different connotations to "likelihood" .
For example :
- I expect the sun to rise in the sky after night
- The likelihood that the sun will rise in the sky after night is ...
The fact that 'xG' is not even an acronym or a "call a spade a spade"
description of the measure speaks much to me about those who
created it.
I understand the quibble on semantics. I thought you were referencing ‘goal likelihood’ as an actual stat that was tracked rather than an alternative proposed name for xG. But yes, what xG does is try and quantify based on precedent the likelihood of a goal being scored from any given position. And yes while it has its uses as a stat, the kind of people who drone on about it are usually not people who it is fun to talk to down the pub
Palace 0-0 Man Utd had slightly higher xG (0.93-0.81) and was infinitely more dull. Absolutely awful match.
The ref couldn't even find an excuse to give them a penalty.
I think one statistic is not necessary.Passes.Just because one team passes to each other many times more than the other doesn't mean they are the better team. They can pass to each other a hundred times (maybe!?) without crossing the halfway line,while the other team can make 2 or 3 passes and score. The former team would just bore the crap out of me.......
They would bore me too, but keeping the ball is incredibly important because the longer you have it the fewer chances the opponents have to score. That's why everyone passes out from the back now. If you hoof it upfield or out of play the opponents gain possession most of the time. If you continually pass it around then the higher skilled team will much more likely win.
Most teams are only good enough to keep the ball 30 seconds at most. That means the ball will change possesion around 100 times a match and each one gives them a chance to score. If you can keep the ball for 90 seconds then the opponents will only get 50 possessions which halves their chance of scoring, other things being equal. Halving the number of goals scored against you staggeringly effective in terms of win percent. I suspect being patient on the ball may even increase your own chance of scoring too, as it makes the opposition take risks.
True,but passing about does give the opposing defence time to get back in numbers. The days of Cliff Jones are long gone.......unless you watch Mexico's 100 mph football.
I’m not so sure on this. It’s more about where and how you regain possession that is key, which is why pressing sides are so effective - they catch teams in possession in the middle third of the pitch when their defenders aren’t set, then attack rapidly.
We’ve seen countless games under early and late-stage Poch, and under Jose, where we’ve had possession for more time than it takes to launch a counter and had no idea what to do with it once that initial opportunity passes. One of the reasons Pep is so highly regarded is that he drills his (admittedly extremely good and often very expensive) players into rapid patterns of play that draw opposition players out of position and let them attack the inside channels. Klopp does the same with Liverpool but with more emphasis on width and rapid switches of play from the fullbacks. Under peak Poch we were good enough in possession to break down settled defences too, but he took a while to get there after his initial arrival, and the team lost that ability towards the end of his tenure.
Possession is only good if your players and training are good enough to move the ball quickly and intelligently. Otherwise you end up passing the ball round the back too slowly to do anything, while the opposition either sit in a low block and make a cup of tea while you do nothing with the ball, or press you into a mistake of your own.
It seems to me that Pep Guardiola's teams are trained to make very low risk passes but to look for opportunities to run with the ball into space. Once they get to the final third they look for decisive passes but hardly ever cross the ball. When I watch Arsenal under Arteta they play very similarly until the final third but then almost always cross when there is a chance to do so.
The possession strategy would be much less effective if fouls in the opposition half were more heavily penalised as that is also part of Guardiola's strategy as @PleaseNotPoll always points out.
The possession strategy would be much less effective if fouls in the opposition half were more heavily penalised as that is also part of Guardiola's strategy as @PleaseNotPoll always points out.
That’s very true. But they train so that low risk passes are available that aren’t just circulating the ball around the back 4, and they pass the ball quickly. Low risk is enabled by the positioning and movement of the other players off the ball, which has always been the key thing for Pep’s teams.
Often to nobody, as their strikers are average in the air at best, while they got rid of Giroud. Bizarre.
Or if our officials had working eyes.