The first one was a very difficult goal sure it bounced of the defender but the goalkeeper came out and closed the angle oscar had no time to even look up. If you watch the replayThe only way to score was through his legs which he did without looking up
They had a lot of shots in the first 20 minutes but noting that really troubled Ingram beyond what he’s expected to save. We created the better chances on the whole
City are very good at forcing the opposition into shooting from difficult angles. Norwich created one sitter in 90 minutes, aside from that it was pot shots or shots from tight angles that were never going in unless for a howler from Ingram. Ingram played well yesterday but Norwich created next to **** all until they scored. Few pot shots straight down Ingrams throat for 20 mins and then we were in full control until we took both Tetteh and Oscar off
Jones was meant to be playing in front of the back four but fwiw I agree, he was playing way too deep, allowing Cantwell and Co acres of space to work in.
I wouldn’t have called those early chances pot shots. For a player like Cantwell that one at the edge of the box was bread and butter. Not a can’t miss sitter obviously but you’d back him to find the top corner more often than not given space and opportunity like that. The suicide pass that played them 1 v 1 with the keeper may not have been a sitter due to the angle but was definitely a real solid scoring opportunity that required a good reflex save to keep out. The rebound from it though was definitely a sitter. Half an open goal to aim at from about 10 yards and it’s in but he hit it straight at the keeper along the floor. All 3 of those better than half chances. Then the one that came in from wide that their player just completely missed and didn’t connect was a 2 yard tap in, as good as the later chance that got skied over the bar.
Yeah you’re probably right, they were difficult chances is a better way of describing it. They should’ve done better with the quality of players they had but we defended well on the whole. Ingram POTY so far
Can anyone explain how xg works? I saw a list said we were 5th highest (higher than Norwich) but they had more shots than us overall and a couple more than us on target. I know it's a metric to assess the quality of chances but how is angle, distance, type etc actually weighted? Or do all the analysis companies have different methodologies?
It’s effectively an algorithm that works out based on variables how difficult a chance is. Things like angle, distance from goal etc.
Yeah, but does say opta use a different algorithm to others or is it a defined standard across all? What I'm trying to get at is whether there is an accepted standard for working it out or does it differ?
That I have no clue on, but I’ve seen some say we had higher xG than Nodge and others say they did. So I don’t think there is
I’m 99.9999999999% certain every different stat system uses their own methods to come up with these type of stats. Otherwise every player would get the same ‘score’ on each and every week.
Yeah, so if the idea behind xg is to take subjectivity out of assessing the quality of chances, but the algorithm is subjectively formulated depending on which analytics site uses what, does it not defeat the object?
It’s a good measure just slightly flawed in certain aspects. Norwich are top based on it and Blackburn have accumulated the least… it is early doors mind
List I saw had us top 5 this weekend above Norwich. Is yours cumulative or just a different methodology?
Yeah I meant that methodology has them top of the xG table over the 3 games. We beat them on it in Saturday
It doesn't make sense that we beat them on xG on Saturday, and another version I saw (The Athletic) had theirs significantly higher. Something doesn't add up.
Not sure to be fair. We had 5 shots 10 yards from goal they had 2 from memory the sitter they skied and the one cleared off the line by Greaves. We had Tetteh’s skied chance, Oscar goal 1, Elder off the corners then Jones off the corner and then Oscar’s 2nd. So based on that it’s not entirely unreasonable. They had quantity we had quality
