Match Day Thread PSG v Liverpool

[InBiscanWeTrust]

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.

Yes… it takes into account every chance taken in similar fashion since they started recording that type of data (think 10-15 years).

That’s why the very top players generally hit or exceed their XG for the season where as strikers not as good generally go under.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

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

but we saw all his saves so we don't need them to tell us what he did. As for the bullshit about oh you'd only expect him to concede 2 is utter drivel. He was amaing and his saves were top class. I don't need xg to tell me anyhitng about his saves.

To reduce his impact on thr game to oh well he only realy prevent 2 goals is disingenuous and just plain wrong.

alisson has a massive imact on that game. absoltuely massive.

in the same way i could look at dembele and see a lad who could beat anyone he liked but had either nothing to hit insdie him or was wayward and head down. Looked amazing when he was beating 2 players but a lad that faded out of the game as it went on

 

[mighty_stevie_g]

It's not supposed to be anything more than additional information to give a reflection of the game. You wouldn't take possession as a stat and say, well they had 55% so assume they were dominant and won... No.

XG is just more info so that you can see if 2 teams had 10 shots each, it doesn't necessarily mean it was an even game as one team could've just been shooting from 30 yards whereas the other had 3 1v1's within their 10 for example.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

It's not supposed to be anything more than additional information to give a reflection of the game. You wouldn't take possession as a stat and say, well they had 55% so assume they were dominant and won... No.

XG is just more info so that you can see if 2 teams had 10 shots each, it doesn't necessarily mean it was an even game as one team could've just been shooting from 30 yards whereas the other had 3 1v1's within their 10 for example.

yeah, and if you watched the game you'd already know.

If I have not seen a game I don't go looking for the stats i look for people's opinions of what happened.

 

[InBiscanWeTrust]

yeah, and if you watched the game you'd already know.

If I have not seen a game I don't go looking for the stats i look for people's opinions of what happened.

Because everyone’s opinions are 100% fact of what happened?

jesus, come on this thread every game and if I only read your opinion on us I’d assume we were bottom of the league and lost every game.

Eye witnesses are horribly unreliable as shown by multiple studies they’ve done.

Stats on their own are rubbish
opinions on their own are rubbish
but use both together and it gives you a better picture

my eye says Martinez makes some acrobatic incredible saves for villa
stats say he does about as you would expect and the saves he makes are ones you’d expect a keeper to make
using both says he makes saves but makes them look harder than they need to be.

opinions say alisson had the game of his life
stats says Alisson saves 9 shots of which majority of them were ones that he should be saving as they were outside the box
in reality, he made a couple very good saves and the rest are ones you’d expect him to save.

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

Because everyone’s opinions are 100% fact of what happened?

jesus, come on this thread every game and if I only read your opinion on us I’d assume we were bottom of the league and lost every game.

Eye witnesses are horribly unreliable as shown by multiple studies they’ve done.

Stats on their own are rubbish
opinions on their own are rubbish
but use both together and it gives you a better picture

my eye says Martinez makes some acrobatic incredible saves for villa
stats say he does about as you would expect and the saves he makes are ones you’d expect a keeper to make
using both says he makes saves but makes them look harder than they need to be.

opinions say alisson had the game of his life
stats says Alisson saves 9 shots of which majority of them were ones that he should be saving as they were outside the box
in reality, he made a couple very good saves and the rest are ones you’d expect him to save.

I've never been a fan of acrobat goalies like Pickford, Grobbelaar, Onana, and several others. The greats, like Clemence, Shilton, Ally, Southall, Schmeichel, Seamen, have a tendency to make the hard look routine, and the impossible look hard, whilst the former group make it look the other way around. Allison's greatness is his perfection at angles - that block from Dembele when he was clear through in the first half was his second-best save, IMO, the best being in the first half as well when he changed direction after a Dembele shot deflected off Ibou.

But of those second-half saves, yes they were mostly long-range shouts (edge, or just in the box), but one was from around a crowd of players that Ally could have only seen late, and another was literally arching into the postage stamp and he still pulled it off.

What is amusing though is that I've seen several anti-Liverpool posters on social media bemoaning Liverpool's 'luck' that our goalie pulled off a worldie to keep us in the tie (and that's all it is for now - still in it), whilst three years ago when Courtouis did a similar performance for real in the final against us, but that was supposed to be bad finishing, sound goalkeeping, and 'You make your own luck' time.

It was a brilliant performance, as was Courtouis 3 years ago. 3 -1 or 4-1 without him. And I watched the highlights again to make sure I wasn't 'an unreliable eye-witness'.

 

[mighty_stevie_g]

yeah, and if you watched the game you'd already know.

If I have not seen a game I don't go looking for the stats i look for people's opinions of what happened.

Sure, but the old ‘he’s got to score’ isn’t always quite right either is it

 

[johnsonsbaby]

For me, stats can be a useful thing to look at after a game. They aren't meant to replace actually watching a game. Sometimes your eyes can deceive you like when you think a player hardly moved all game and the stats afterwards tell you that the player covered the second highest amount of ground. Stats add nothing to the enjoyment of a game but do very often throw up metrics you weren't aware of while watching.

 

[saintanton]

Yes… it takes into account every chance taken in similar fashion since they started recording that type of data (think 10-15 years).

That’s why the very top players generally hit or exceed their XG for the season where as strikers not as good generally go under.

And thereby lies another flaw. I've looked into this a bit so I better understand what I'm talking about.
Different companies include a variety of metrics - some more comprehensive than others - but all seem to take an average based on shot position, gk position, proximity of defenders etc. None of them as far as I can see, take into account the players involved, and this is obviously a major factor affecting their accuracy.
As you say, some players exceed the average xG, others fail to meet it, so it would only be of use if the individual records of each player was incorporated into the metric.
Also, as I asked earlier, it's only shots taken into account, yet goal-scoring opportunities where a shot never arises should surely be a part of a more accurate assessment?
However, one pertinent fact I learned is that the xG for single games isn't meant to be taken literally for that game - it's just a part of the accumulation of overall data.
So, as I said in my initial comment, it may be of use to club statisticians and coaches, but is pretty meaningless for fans as a guide to an individual game.
It's still about as much interest to me as listening to Rio or Carragher etc wittering on after a match, telling what I've just watched.

 

[saintanton]

Sure, but the old ‘he’s got to score’ isn’t always quite right either is it

That really annoys me when ex-players keep saying that in commentary - as though they themselves never fluffed it.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

Sure, but the old ‘he’s got to score’ isn’t always quite right either is it

It usually is.

You hudge a player by snatching at stuff.

Salah wasn't just anonymous Wednesday he was actually ****. No point calling it anything else and stats don't really how how madly he played when he had the chance to deliver 2 assists and just messed up.

 

[InBiscanWeTrust]

And thereby lies another flaw. I've looked into this a bit so I better understand what I'm talking about.
Different companies include a variety of metrics - some more comprehensive than others - but all seem to take an average based on shot position, gk position, proximity of defenders etc. None of them as far as I can see, take into account the players involved, and this is obviously a major factor affecting their accuracy.
As you say, some players exceed the average xG, others fail to meet it, so it would only be of use if the individual records of each player was incorporated into the metric.
Also, as I asked earlier, it's only shots taken into account, yet goal-scoring opportunities where a shot never arises should surely be a part of a more accurate assessment?
However, one pertinent fact I learned is that the xG for single games isn't meant to be taken literally for that game - it's just a part of the accumulation of overall data.
So, as I said in my initial comment, it may be of use to club statisticians and coaches, but is pretty meaningless for fans as a guide to an individual game.
It's still about as much interest to me as listening to Rio or Carragher etc wittering on after a match, telling what I've just watched.

Bit in bold when you’re talking about a goal keepers performance it is accurate. As you can’t judge keeper on a shot he doesn’t need to save? Albeit I will caveat that in a small way if a keeper comes out and forces player to try go round them and makes a tackle etc. but it’s an anomaly.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

That really annoys me when ex-players keep saying that in commentary - as though they themselves never fluffed it.

Yeah, but usually you look yourself and ignore them.

I'm sure I'd say several of the hopeful shots psg took were absolutely rubbish but I'm also sure I'd say the lad who blazed over from inside the box with aliason scrambling has to hit the target there.

I don't need xg to decide one is a hopeful punt and one is a big chance that's gone wide.

As I said if I didn't see a game I'd rather here someone talk about it than look up the xg to decide

We all know we robbed psg there. We don't need to stats to reinforce it.

Someone who didn't watch the game might decide the stats tell a story but they won't show how lfc were able to break on psg a few times.and enough to show what might happen if the second leg.

Someone who only looks at xg might decide lfc have no chance at all next Tuesday.

I'm confident we will break on this lot and get in on their cbs. Very confident of that.

 

[saintanton]

Yeah, but usually you look yourself and ignore them.

I'm sure I'd say several of the hopeful shots psg took were absolutely rubbish but I'm also sure I'd say the lad who blazed over from inside the box with aliason scrambling has to hit the target there.

I don't need xg to decide one is a hopeful punt and one is a big chance that's gone wide.

As I said if I didn't see a game I'd rather here someone talk about it than look up the xg to decide

We all know we robbed psg there. We don't need to stats to reinforce it.

Someone who didn't watch the game might decide the stats tell a story but they won't show how lfc were able to break on psg a few times.and enough to show what might happen if the second leg.

Someone who only looks at xg might decide lfc have no chance at all next Tuesday.

I'm confident we will break on this lot and get in on their cbs. Very confident of that.

Maybe semantics, but "should score" isn't "has to score" in my book.

 

[moreinjuredthanowen]

If a ball fall to either Robertson or tsimiaks i fully expect them to blaze it high or really wide.

They get to back stick reasonably.often..get played in and never convert really.

The xg might be 1 as they have only a keeper from.close range and all of the goal to hit but I'd expect them to miss it.

The same falls to gakpo or diaz and I expect more.

 

[Zanjinho]

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.

As I said, the result wasn't great but it wasn't a great game.

We have experienced the heart break side of this scenario a few times so take your point. However, if rather watch entertaining football and lose than that type of football a nick as point. A one off isn't so bad though

 

[Ivan Dobsky]

It's about qualitative and quantitative information. There is a driving need by humans to try and quantify and measure even the most banal things, but for me it's all summed up by this in my book when thinking about XG and so forth - a pea-roller from the edge of the box that crawls gently into the goalkeeper's arms is as much as a shot on target as one in the postage stamp that is miraculously saved.

Anyone who has had to conduct (or been on the end of) some of the most bizarre, pointless criteria of some performance reviews will know what I mean - they're just an exercise, often, in quantifying the ephemeral. I know what I saw Ally do, and, having watched it again, I won't be changing my mind due to bogus metrics and whimsical measurements.