I have seen some bullshit stats in my time but 'expected goals' in a game of football If people swallow that then they are even more stupid than I gave them credit for. Do you know why strikers like Harry Kane are so highly valued? Because they reduce the number of missed shots from potential goal scoring positions. There is nothing 'expected' about goals in football. Interesting stats? Yes I suppose they tell us more about the people putting them forward than they do about any given football match. Nevertheless it is amusing to hear Man United people saying that they lost a game where they were the better team. You are talking to Spurs fans here, we know all about losing at Old Trafford through not being given goals where the ball was so far over the line it needed a ticket to get back to the field of play. Don't even start on penalties we should have had or ones given against us on dubious evidence. We should have been 1 up by half time in this current game for example, if we had scored our 'expected' goal from the spot. Expected Goals
I was reading the expected goals thing the other day who the feck makes this up moaninho? .I have never heard so much crap,I've been supporting spurs for 51 years and never once have I gone to a game expecting us to score 2.8 goals in a match this is all new to me .
If it were the other way around, there would be no such think piece on how good Tottenham played despite losing three nil. We would be reminded by all pundits that the stat that actually matters is goals-scored, that great teams are the ones that win despite not playing the best, and preached to about the importance of being clinical in front of goal. (Don't get me started about the penalty.) Funny how things are slightly different when their beloved gods of all things football lose.
I do a lot of data analytics and stattery as part of my day job, but the 'expected goals (xG) per half'' stat, and values < 1, got a real WTF LOL from me.
Actually that would be the 0-3 loss to Man Utd in 2012 at WHL. Spurs played well in the first half, but Man Utd were far more clinical over the entire game. It happens, but the only difference here is the hacks have decided to make mischief for Jose (their long-time darling) with the current Narrative (TM) .
xG and those radar maps that make no sense to anybody are the sort of things that r/soccer use to say how good a player is, so it doesn't matter if you watch a dozen matches where they have the first touch of the Matterhorn, their xG says they're good!
Putting aside the nonsense that statistics make of football, there's little doubt that United's set-up was unexpected and United profited from that in the first half an hour. However, their best chance came from a ridiculously poor pass from Rose. There were other attempts at goal during that first half but they were far from chances that were begging to be taken. Few of United's attempts were on target and none of them made Hugo produce anything beyond a routine save. After half an hour, Spurs got over United's formation change and started to get into the game. We were denied a clear penalty. Come the second half, Spurs coaching team had worked out that United's new formation left huge gaps behind Valencia and Shaw. Those gaps were supposedly to be covered by the pace and defensive nous of Herrera and Jones. Unsurprisingly, we moved our cleverst player, Christian Eriksen, out to the right wing, where he and Trippier started to tear great big holes in what passed for a defence. The first goal came from a corner after a shot (on target) from Dele was deflected for a corner. That shot resulted from Eriksen running into a bloody great hole behind Shaw and another one was exploited 2 minutes later and this time the pull back was slotted home. Playing 3 at the back is best done with 2 full backs on the outsides. Spurs tend to use Vertonghen and Alderweireld, both of whom have played full back for Belgium on numerous occasions and are far superior defenders. United went with a defensive midfielder and a slow centre half, both with mistakes in them. The plan was flawed and it was duly dispatched. Yes, United threw themselves forward. However, they did so without regard to what was going to come back at them and they duly got picked off by a much better balanced team. Being starved of attacking football for years, Old Trafford liked the intention and I get that. However, given the players United used, it was high risk tactic. Throwing everything into attack without locking the back door, is probably not the right plan for a team low on confidence and it's not what Mourinho's good at. I doubt that he'd have done it with Rui Faria alongside him and I reckon that it'll be discarded as quickly as Eric Bailly. Back to the drawing board, methinks?
I didn't understand why he wasn't there in the first place, if we're going to use a diamond. The midfield was Dembele holding, Dier on the right, Eriksen at the head and Alli on the left. It made no sense. Dier moved to hold, Alli pushed up and Eriksen shifted right. Why weren't they there in the first place?
Maybe Dier was to help out Tripper on the left? If so, he bloody didn't do too much of it. Trippier was left to handle him alone throughout the game and to be fair to Shaw, he had him on toast whenever he got forward. The car crash behind him wasn't of his making. Dier was able to play wide right when he first came to the club but he's bulked up a bit since and seems to lack that athleticism. He's central or nothing now, for me.
https://understat.com/match/9226 It doesn't seem that xG calculation is foolproof. I like stats, in general. Applying them to games which teams play against each other is always tricky. They evaluate games consisting of one on one contests with much more consistent results. I'm iffy on xG, not just because it removes finishing from the calculation, and varies by calculator, but because the value given to shots is fundamentally arbitrary. In any case, I agree Brian had the best analysis of the match I read.
AFAIK the method is not even publicly defined. Therefore not independently repeatable nor open to methodology.
I've been really impressed by him. He's clearly very skillful and has an eye for goal, but he's buying into the team ethic, too. I think that he struggled a bit with his new role against Newcastle, but he was our best player against Fulham and Man Utd. He's added the one thing that our attack has lacked with his pace and his aerial ability has been a pleasant surprise. The only thing that hasn't really worked with him so far is some of the intricate stuff in our buildups. There's been some miscommunications with runs and especially some of our flair flicks and tricks, like the backheels and nutmegs. That should sort itself out over time though, as he gets used to playing with everyone else and they get used to him. Puts Pochettino in an interesting position when Son returns from international duty though, if everyone can remain fit. Lots of players pushing for a start.
I'm sure we'll see every single paper and blog that speculated that Poch didn't rate him and would be selling him at the earlier opportunity admit they haven't got a clue and just made up the story to fit a deadline...
The accepted narrative is that we have a weak squad compared to our rivals. Not sure I agree. We've got good cover almost everywhere.
I'd say that the main issue is a few fitness and discipline problems. Rose is capable of being excellent backup and even displacing Davies, but he needs to get back to 100% to do it. Is that likely? Lamela, Wanyama and Llorente are all capable of contributing too, but the first two need to get fit and the last needs to be adapted for.
