Yeah I’d be happy with Placheta up front. The only thing is that it’s not as if Pukki is all that quick and also Stiepermann has an absolute rifle of a left foot when he gets a clear sight at goal, so he is more of a “striker” in the literal sense IMO
Great question Zog. To illustrate the problem, imagine a set piece delivery into the box; the attacking CB gets to it 10 yards out and heads it goalwards; the keeper parries the header and the ball flies out to the attacking CF lurking in the 6 yard box who knees it against the crossbar; the rebound is then headed in by a third attacker. Assessing each attempt as a single shot, each valued at e.g. 0.4 xG, would produce a combined total of 1.2 xG; yet only at most 1 goal could possibly have resulted. The answer to your question is yes, multiple shots resulting from the same initial chance are given special treatment. I don't know whether there is a standard method of assigning an xG value in such cases, used by all the stats companies; I suspect not. But I would think the methodology is likely to be the same as in the "simple" case of 1 shot, i.e. looking at large numbers of similar examples of multiple shot chances and seeing what proportion of them result in goals.
You can't argue with the stats though. When Pukki is on form, which he seems to have been the last month if you give him a sniff of the goal it's party time. I don't think that there is a more clinical striker in the division at times like those. Just a shame he has got injured now.
This is a great example of a frequently heard comment/opinion which cries out for the sort of clarification stats can provide. What do you actually mean by "clinical"? For instance, here is a list of the Championship's top scorers: 1. Adam Armstrong Blackburn 13 2. Ivan Toney Brentford 12 3. Lucas Joao Reading 9 4. Teemu Pukki Norwich 7 5=. André Ayew Swansea 6 5=. Tyrese Campbell Stoke 6 Who is the most "clinical"? A dictionary will tell you that "clinical" in this sort of context means "very efficient". But that only rephrases the question: who in that list is to be classed as "very efficient"? Maybe all of them are "very efficient"?
@zogean_king FBRef have an explanation of xG which includes how they answer your question. More precisely, how StatsBomb go about assigning an xG value in such situations, since FBRef use data provided by StatsBomb: https://fbref.com/en/expected-goals-model-explained/
Three upcoming Norwich City fixtures have received updated kick-off times after being selected for Sky Sports coverage. Reading v Norwich City will now take place at 8pm on Wednesday, December 16, rather than 7.45pm. Norwich City v Cardiff City on Saturday, December 19 has been moved to a lunchtime kick-off and will now take place at 12.30pm. Finally, our Boxing Day visit to Vicarage Road to face Watford will be an evening kick-off, moving from 3pm to 7.45pm.
Are Sky betting on our injury-decimated team being thoroughly trounced, to the great enjoyment of all our ill-wishers?
Here's a question. In which of these "leader boards" does Emi feature in the top 10 in this season's Championship? 1. Players committing the most fouls 2. Most fouled-against players Answers could be 1, 2, both or neither
What I mean is that some of his goals ( Brizzle City for example) have been finished quite spectacularly. Those chances would barely hav registered in xG. Don't forget we are not a high scoring high conceding team this season unlike 18/19. I still think that he may reach 30 this season.
The only stats that concern me are the final score, how many points we have got and where that number of points leaves us in the table. The only other stats that remotely interest me are the number of attempts and the number of those on target. As for the rest - what is that expression about where the sun don't shine !!!