The only thing that counts is shots that go in. Man City had 70% possession the other night, more shots, more shots on target, more xGs but lost 4-1. Not the only ones with similar stats.
Walter Out
- Thread starter Sir Cheshire Ben
- Start date
-
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
-
The only thing that counts is shots that go in. Man City had 70% possession the other night, more shots, more shots on target, more xGs but lost 4-1. Not the only ones with similar stats.
Yes, games are won on goals. Incredibly insightful analysis. Other statistics can show how lucky/unlucky or deserved/undeserved a result was. Or depending on your point of view, how well constructed a victory was to win from less opportunities or however you want to spin it. But the point being that other stats than goals scored can provide insight into how a game played out. Shots is one, shots on target is more precise, and xG is more precise again.
Shots and shots on target are facts, xGs are an opinion.
I believe in FACTS a shot on target is a shot on target, how difficult it was or how likely it was to be a goal is open to interpretation wether by man or machine.
It's not an interpretation other than a small margin of error used by different models. It's still a scientific model not an opinion.
Is a goal given to a striker but really an own goal an opinion or a fact? There's a subjective element to so many different things in football that people accept. The dismissal of xG just comes across as dismissing things people don't understand.
If you insist though..
You must log in or register to see images
16th for shots on target per 90. 28% of our shots are on target, that seems quite low.
Cityzen to be fair, has a low level iq so its unfair to expect him to understand a scientific model of analysis
Let him stick to goals, he can count those on his fingers
We all have our strengths
I've posted a screenshot that ranks us for shots on targets since people prefer that. Unfortunately it's not as good reading for us..
Chelsea v Noa last night.
Possession 58% ; 42%
Shots 31 : 15
Guess the score from the stats?
Probably a home win, maybe 3-1
Actual score 8-0 in the most one sided match you will ever likely see.
There's only stat that matters.
Possession 58% ; 42%
Shots 31 : 15
Guess the score from the stats?
Probably a home win, maybe 3-1
Actual score 8-0 in the most one sided match you will ever likely see.
There's only stat that matters.
XG is ballocks FACT
There I settled it for you
There I settled it for you
Why would you guess that a side having double the shots won 3-1? You've quote some strange stats to try to prove some weird point. If you were going to try to undermine xG as a stat perhaps you could have quoted it.
I just looked up the xG, it was 5.7 to 0.7. That scoreline perhaps shows Chelsea were clinical in scoring 8, but if you'd told me the xG and asked me to guess the score I'd have probably said 5 or 6-0. Maybe 5-1 if I was being generous to their opposition.
So which is a better indicator?
A cross like ones Belloumi or Kamara have whipped in recently, across the goal with a striker inches away, or a shot on target that had literally next to no chance of ever going in? Those crosses don't even feature in these oft quoted stats.
Only one stat that matters.
What else is true is that margins are often so slim.
A cross like ones Belloumi or Kamara have whipped in recently, across the goal with a striker inches away, or a shot on target that had literally next to no chance of ever going in? Those crosses don't even feature in these oft quoted stats.
Only one stat that matters.
What else is true is that margins are often so slim.
To much fannying about at the back going by the highlights I saw.
A shot on target that had literally next to no chance of going in? Do they exist?
Ask leeds after the sunderland game
Or Liverpool after that Sunderland game.
I'm just amused that I was told shots on target are a fact and xG is made up, but then when I quoted shots on target it's now shifted to they don't count either because it doesn't suit the narrative.
Guess I'll bin off footystats and bookmark Fbref then. **** knows how it can give different results, considering the data supposedly comes straight from Opta.
I haven't quoted 'some strange stats'. I've quoted possession, shots and score. They're not strange, they're fairly straight forward, but of little significance. Based on that possession and shots, without knowing the result, you'd have logically expected something like 3-1, 2-1, 4-2 (i.e. a win by the home side, with the away side scoring at least 1 of their 15 shots and from 42% possession).
Chelsea weren't that clinical. 31 shots, scored 8. Could easily have had more (I watched it). And a couple of cracking finishes where the beloved XG would have been 'this is hard to score' I would imagine. It really doesn't matter - said cracking strikes hit the bar or misses by an inch = a miss. Said cracking strikes half an inch inside the goal = a goal. Such small margins. Much easier chances (better XG) went begging.
There's only one stat that matters. I couldn't care less what our XG's or whatever are. I really don't want to hear that we're doing ok because our possession is high or our XG conversion is whatever. It really doesn't matter, even more so as a pattern.
You quoted possession and stats and asked people to guess the score and then said people would guess 3-1 for a game where one side had more than double the shots. I found it a strange progression which you were trying to use to undermine a stat you didn't even quote. As I said, if you actually had quoted it it would have shown you that the actual score and the expected score weren't worlds apart.
Exactly. Once in a blue moon. And it sticks in the memory and will be commented on for years to come, because it's so exceptional.
-> A shot on target that had literally next to no chance of going in? Do they exist?
Yes, of course they do. Note the wording 'next to no chance'. Effectively back passes. Last nights game was a good example had you watched it.