Agreed. I think it's one of those games that will get talked about though because of how it was won. A bit like some of our players who've gone down as icons, Biscan and Origi, for instance who weren't great but did some very memorable things.
Once the dust settled my overall feeling was "So that's what it's like" I've lost count particularly under klopp of how many games we absolutely battered the opposition only to be done on the break because everyone had flown up to the press and left the defenders isolated. For psg it was a very liverpool performance from a few years ago. High pressure, looks exceptional, get tired, shoot from anywhere because your tired and run out of ideas. Watch the ball sail over your head to the big man breaking and get suckered As we know it's very exciting, but doesn't win you alot.
Tbf, it won us a few things, and there would have been more if we hadn't been up against Man Cheaty. But I take your point about the frustration of dominating a game and getting suckered.
Last night was like rafa 2005. Let's face it we absolutely **** housed every round in that knockout phase. Not quite as backs to the wall against juve or cheslea but they were close.
I am not so sure I have now seen some highlights and I think they did have enough clear chances where they had worked themselves into very good positions and it was just the finish that was poor. I don’t think they can miss the target like they did repeatedly the other night - equally I don’t think we will play as poorly so it should be a really good game Could be any scoreline I think
I agree. I find it strange that there are many people claiming it was the "performance of a lifetime" from Alisson (including the man himself) and others saying PSG weren't really that potent. It can't be both. It isn't down to his shot-stopping alone, it's also the way he dominates his box and gives confidence to those around him. From securely handling the routine stuff to pulling off a handful of great saves it was an excellent game from him. He does this often, of course - it's just that there aren't many games where he's required to work so hard. I said after the City game I don't enjoy games where we cede so much possession and fall back on defending, but I suppose it shows that we can defend when required. And, as plenty have said we had enough opportunities to hit back, only let down by some atrocious passing. I hope you're right and that the second leg will be a better game.
I take your points, but I don't see how xG is of any use to fans. It might be helpful to club statisticians in assessing performance, but to the fans watching the game, what does it tell us? For an example: the last game against Villa ended 2-2. The xG was 0.73 to them and 2.44 for us. What I am I supposed to glean from that? Like possession stats, they're meaningless in the light of the actual result. We all know how the game went by watching it, I don't see any further insight being gained from those stats.
I'm not one for stats anyway, but I'd argue that the majority of stats are merely a collection of factual data, whereas xG is making too many assumptions.
Hey, this is deep-dive highly advanced dynamic statistical analysis you're talking about, don't you know.
Shows that when it came to actual chances we should have won the game. We had more better chances to score goals compared to Villa - makes sense as Nunez miss from 5 yards should have made it 3
xg is made by using previous data on type of chance, where was hit from etc so it is a collection of factual data
I can tell that with my eyes. What's the point of a statistic that describes something that can't possibly exist? It's like the infamous 2.4 children - it tells us nothing that is relatable to the real world.
Does it take into account who is hitting the ball? Who the keeper is? How many defenders are present, how far away they are and how good they are? The weather, pitch conditions? Which balls are being used Any number of variables can influence the outcome. I repeat, it tells me nothing that I can't see better with my own eyes.
Exactly. They are too high level and subjective if you actually saw the game. If you are just looking at a set of stats on a game you never saw you sre simply drawing inferences generally and missing all the nuance anyway. Looking at that villa game I knew we were not going to hold a lead, I said so in thread. The xg wasn't going to convince me otherwise. Looking at the city game we were all fairly sure city were not going to score on their own so again xg was pointless to us. The defensive performance wa completely different. Again v psg here I know they could have scored 8 first half and we could actually have got 2 if we did our jobs but xg doesn't reflect what I saw. They are only of use to people who have not watched to get an impression of who did what.
Because it gives you more detail. headline - psg had 27 shots. You might go Jesus alisson had the game of his life saving 27 shots and didn’t concede a goal. actually with more stats - he only faced 9 shots on target so 18 of those he didn’t need to save with even more stats it shows that the quality of those shots was even worse and from all 27 you’d only expect him to concede 2 based on how many times a shot from there would expect to go in. when you break it down like that it shows that actually although he played well he only really prevented 2 goals that on a normal day you’d expect to concede - now 2 goals is brilliant as different betwene winning and losing. but when assessing goal keepers, those that are underperforming on their xg and conceding more than the stats say they should would suggest that the keeper isn’t as good as could be
