Shota In

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
salimaabey said:
In yesterday's game, we got lucky to grab the 3 points, but I don't agree that we were outplayed. First 10 minutes they dominated, next 60 were fairly even, last 20 we were defending the lead.
Also, "luck" is a relative term. Was Seri's deflected shot lucky? Definitely. Was Ramsay missing from 3 yards out lucky? Arguable. Oscar's second goal was pretty tricky to put in but he didn't miss (in fact, first one too). At some point you gotta distinguish competence and luck. At the end of the day, all your dominance and created chances don't mean **** if you have poor finishing and can't score. Can't attribute everything to luck.
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewcastleTiger and Ron Burguvdy
Brucebones said:
Are people jumping from one extreme against Bradford, to the other against Norwich?
I don’t think so, we looked **** against Bradford, we played players that most expected to be able to beat a team from 2 divisions below us, but didn’t. Doesn’t matter now, we’re out, but a cup game should be treated seriously, not like a pre season friendly.
We’ve had 3 league games, yesterday we could have been 2/3-0 down in the opening 20 minutes, we could have lost it in the last 20 minutes, we were outplayed by one of the favourites, rightly so, but we got very lucky.
Preston, very lucky, Ingram was outstanding in both games. I didn’t see the Bristol City game, but we got lucky there too with the penalty, yes it was one, but the ref could easily have given a yellow for diving, Seri’s deflected winner, lucky.
BUT, when good teams play bad, yet get the results, then it’s normally the sign of a good team, is that us, or are we just currently getting all the luck? I know lots of new players etc, some still to even play. So there’s more still to come.
By the end of this month we’ll have played 7 games & another 4 next month, that should sort out roughly, where we are looking at in the coming season.
It’s an exciting time, I’m loving it, despite what I’m writing here, but I’m not going OTT about this team just yet.
I’m just going to leave it with, we’ve done ok, we’re 7 points better off than I thought we’d be at this stage, let’s keep it going, one game at a time.
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brucebones
You must log in or register to see media

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nikica Jellyfish and HullCiteh
eimaj said:
Looked to me like Jones was playing as a centre back for the first 15 minutes whether he was meant to be or not, perhaps we were just under the cosh? He was certainly getting pulled out of position, take Cantwell's early shot, just as one example, Jones was out on the by-line leaving the time and space to shoot.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NewcastleTiger said:
You must log in or register to see media

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewcastleTiger
Amin Yapusi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Brucebones said:
I didn’t say Oscar’s goals were lucky, in fact, his finishing was what we’ve missed since Abel H probably, that instinctive ability to jump on mistakes is a must at any level.
If we’d conceded early on, or one of the ones at the end went in, I think this thread wouldn’t exist.
But yes, luck is indeed down to the bounce of a ball, a ricochet, a player on the line, on the post.
The last 2 games, Ingram’s been outstanding, is it luck or ability, or just poor finishing from the opposition? Preston, probably poor finishing, but yesterday, our goal lead a charmed life, one miss from 3 yards, if that, another cleared off the line, numerous saves.
As I said, good teams get results, is that us? By the end of next month we should see how we’re doing.
Burnley could whack us 5-0, then this feel good will go right out the window, or we could nick a draw or a win.
Let’s enjoy the results & see how we do without going OTT or suicidal.
Click to expand...
NewcastleTiger said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Mckechnie Orange said:
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.
Click to expand...
It’s effectively an algorithm that works out based on variables how difficult a chance is. Things like angle, distance from goal etc.
 
NewcastleTiger said:
It’s effectively an algorithm that works out based on variables how difficult a chance is. Things like angle, distance from goal etc.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Mckechnie Orange said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mckechnie Orange
Mckechnie Orange said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Amin Yapusi said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NewcastleTiger
Mckechnie Orange said:
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 wich analytics site uses what, does it not defeat the object?
Click to expand...
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
 
NewcastleTiger said:
Yeah I meant that methodology has them top of the xG table over the 3 games. We beat them on it in Saturday
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NewcastleTiger
PLT said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mckechnie Orange
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back