My thought for Sunday evening. Bristol City 1:3 Norwich City -- a tale of two men, Nahki Wells and Tim Krul. It could, and indeed should, have been different. Another case (the third so far this season) where we took points our performance didn't actually warrant.
Not sure how you come to that conclusion robbie. We were basically superior in all facets of the game and could have had a more comprehensive victory. At least the game I watched on a dodgy stream gave that impression.
I don't know what game you watched, but it clearly wasn't the same one I watched. I think I watched the same one Golden Eadie 2 watched.
We were superior in several facets of the game, e.g. possession (56--44), shots (19--15), shots on target (8--6), % pass success (83--74); but not all, e.g. Bristol had 5 corners to our 4 and were slightly less prone to giving the ball away when in possession. However my conclusion wasn't based on any of that; the key performance statistic for me is quality of chances created and in that respect (xG) the difference was a mere 0.1 (Norwich 2.4, Bristol 2.3). On that basis the game could be expected to have ended in a draw, so the question is why it nevertheless ended 3:1 in our favour. The obvious answer is that we took our chances whereas Bristol did not. The equally obvious explanation being (a) Nahki Wells's missed penalty and (b) three top quality saves by Tim Krul (2 from Chris Martin, 1 from Nahki Wells). It is true that we "could have had" a more comprehensive victory, but then, it could equally have ended 4:2 in Bristol's favour. The reason I treated myself to another beer yesterday evening was that coming away from games with points that performances don't merit is exactly what is needed for a serious promotion challenge. Playing nice football and getting what you deserve is not usually enough.
Robbie I can only assume that you’re trolling now. If anything, as was said several times during and after the game by the managers, it was our finishing that was less than clinical. The only chance Bristol City really should have put away was the penalty, which hugely inflated their xG stat. Martin’s shot would have been a worldy if it had gone in. All of Wells’ other misses were half chances at best. I’m not sure where you get your xG stat from, but just to show how dubious that can be, other measures suggest it was more like 1.64-2.16... https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/...ionship/bristol-c-vs-norwich-2020-10-31/76882 (of which 0.77 goes to Bristol’s penalty). By the way chances created is different to expected goals so not sure why you are conflating those.
your xG stat is totally meaningless. It is nothing to do with expectation, but all to do with execution/ In this matter we were worthy winners. I think xG and the rest are totally meaningless stats. Who decides what they are? How do they decide what they are? It is all subjective, and conjective, but you seem to be a slave to them.
I didn't say our finishing was clinical. I said "we took our chances, whereas Bristol did not". Put another way, the number of goals we scored was commensurate with the quality of chances we created, whereas Bristol's tally of 1 goal was not. Furthermore, I specifically acknowledged that we could have scored more, but then so could Bristol -- quote "It is true that we "could have had" a more comprehensive victory, but then, it could equally have ended 4:2 in Bristol's favour." The whole point of the xG metric is to objectify the assessment of quality of chance and rid us of subjective judgements like "half chance" and "worldy". Look at the Timeline for the match and you'll see that Bristol City had the three best chances of the match (at 15 min, 26 min and the penalty at 74 min) as shown by the height of the vertical step in the graph. please log in to view this image From Ben Mayhew's match-by-match Timelines on his blog Experimental 3-6-1. Mayhew has an established reputation for the quality of his data analysis built up over nearly a decade. I didn't conflate them. I specifically said "quality of chances created, and in that respect (xG) ....."
Perhaps we should have statistic for uxG (unexpected goals). Whereas the link-up between Stieps and Pukki has been seen may times, the long passes by Sørensen and Gibson for the second and third goals reveal a new dimension to our play. They took Bristol City by surprise and Pukki and Buendia made the most of the chances created.
That was the view you have repeatedly presented Robbie. You cannot have it both ways, as I said: either you take the view that scoring goals is what counts, or you go with the stats. The former justifies our win on Saturday, the latter rejects your previous assertions that we did not deserve to win the first few matches. Which is it? You decide. You cannot continue to argue it both ways Robbie, just so that you can always criticise Farke. It's just boring. Pick one and stick with it.
Your chart merely emphasises my points. (1) You are only using one measure of xG and I showed you a different website with a different measure and (2) If you take away the penalty from Bristol, they were well off us even by your xG. Moreover, I cannot see what your exact stats are, but it looks like from the chart that of the top 10 chances in the game by your xG, only three of them (including the penalty) were for Bristol City. That leaves seven in-play chances for us and only two for Bristol City out of the top ten. I am afraid you are quite clearly distorting the stats to suit your argument, even more obviously given that they are your own chosen stats. When you take other "objective" measures of xG which are less favourable to Bristol City, your argument fares even worse.
What "previous assertion that we did not deserve to win the first few matches". Here is what I said in reply to CitySlicker on the "How Long Do we Give Him" thread: "Far from warranting your pessimism, our performances so far should have you feeling optimistic: of the five matches played, two (Huddersfield and Rotherham) were games in which we got what we deserved; in 2 others (Bournemouth and Derby) we deserved more than we got, and in 1 (Preston) we deserved to lose but escaped with a draw. Based on our performances we should have 10 points and be occupying a playoff place." I am, and always have been, firmly of the opinion that what matters when you are evaluating a particular game is the performance, not the result. I think you need to cite chapter and verse.
Last season when Norwich had to play so many games with only 1 recognised CB (young and inexperienced ) against Premiership opposition, you either never, or at least very rarely, acknowledged that was why we struggled defensively. . But you seem to happy to make excuses for Bristol and Dean Holden. Shame you never show the same empathy for Daniel Farke..
And please cite chapter and verse showing that I "always" criticise Farke, in particular that I have been criticising him this season (as opposed to last). You don't seem to have noticed that I have been one of the most positive posters on here. Mike, have you actually totted up the number of games in which we played with only 1 recognised CB? Furthermore, I did not deny that injuries to the CBs were a factor. What I argued was that it wasn't as great a factor as people tried to make out, and that highlighting it diverted attention from the primary reason we struggled, which was DF's refusal to switch to a less possession-based, counter-attacking approach.
Sorry Robbie, I am not being lured into a game of "I need evidence" and then me trawling through hundreds of posts only for you to declare that whatever evidence I provide is not sufficient. My clear recollection is you specifically telling me that I was wrong to declare we were dominant (I think it was the Bournemouth game, but might have been Derby or Huddersfield). Now, in the post above, you seem to be changing your view to accord with your latest position by saying we deserved more from the Bournemouth match. It may not have escaped your notice also that I have pointed out you arguing both ways before: so this is not the first time you have appeared to want to criticise Farke come what may, to the point of holding contradictory positions in my view. I may have been wrong then, I might be wrong now, but you certainly seem to be giving off the repeated impression of changing your mind to suit being anti-Farke. And the more it repeats the more likely it will seem. If you keep evaluating on performance from now on, fair enough. I like your contributions and I am a fan of stats, which I think are useful, but my view (and it is just my view, I appreciate you will have a different one) focusing on xG is very misleading especially when you consider all other comments from most people on the game, doubly so when you realise that not every statto has the same xG measure for a game (which proves it is a long way from as objective as it holds itself out to be).
See my post above. I am not citing every post you have made, don't be ridiculous. Suffice to say that to my mind you give off the distinct impression of being anti-Farke. That might be wrong, others might read your posts differently. I won't deny that every now and again you post something positive about the team performance (rarely Farke), but usually it's a negative way of phrasing it - "oh finally they've selected stiepermann" - in my view that is a negative comment even though you might not think so. And don't get me wrong I also agree with plenty of your posts. But they are often coming across as inconsistent with others, and almost exclusively that inconsistency seems to have a Farke angle (you are damned by your perfect consistency in other ways - e.g. on stiepermann, something we agree about...)
Well, you might like to consider that I have never once called for DF to be replaced, which would be somewhat odd for someone supposedly "anti-Farke". Fact is, I was consistently critical of DF last season for the reason I mention in my reply to Mike. My firm opinion is that we could have survived last season had DF been prepared to adopt a less open, counter-attacking approach to matches, particularly those against other relegation threatened sides. Being back in the Championship means we no longer face better equipped opponents week after week and the issue which prompted my criticism no longer arises -- though I will be looking for evidence this season that, in the event we get promoted, we will not shoot ourselves in the foot in the same avoidable way.
I am not sure being anti-Farke necessarily means that you are calling for him to be replaced. My point, as should be clear from all the above, is that you seem intent on criticising him come wind, rain or sun (AKA draw, lose or win). I don't know what your position is on sacking him. I disagree with your position on our promotion, I am very certain that (a) Farke and the squad did their best with the resources at their disposal and (b) it was a nasty combination of lockdown, injuries and bad luck at just the wrong time (or good luck at a useless time) which did for us. But that's a debate for a different thread, or possibly for July 2020 and so I think we can agree to disagree on that one.
