Match of the Day - 2018/19

Status
Not open for further replies.
hampshireblue said:
How the fuc* are the Expected Goals worked out? Apparently we should have had 2.54 against their 1.88?? Unbelievable that their chances were that good.
Click to expand...
xG is incredibly simplistic, that's why it's come up with such bad numbers. It only takes into account actual shots you have, so them scoring an own goal is instantly ignored, as is us generally trying to walk the ball into the net, as we didn't end up having a shot, or no one gets on the end of a ball rolled across the 6 yard box. It also ignores how well you actually did, so Sane hitting the post is just seen as a shot from quite far away so not a very good chance.

It's just the latest shit attempt to crowbar bullshit stats into football
 
A mixed night for Danny Murphy bingo. It took him less than a minute before he said "get in their faces." However, I was taken aback by the absence of his go to phrase "let him know you're there" in tonight's show.
 
GaudinoMotors said:
The little people being quicker.
Click to expand...
tumblr_meddouhgyB1rsuxuyo1_250.gif
tumblr_meddouhgyB1rsuxuyo2_250.gif
tumblr_meddouhgyB1rsuxuyo3_250.gif

tumblr_meddouhgyB1rsuxuyo4_250.gif
tumblr_meddouhgyB1rsuxuyo5_250.gif
tumblr_meddouhgyB1rsuxuyo6_250.gif
 
BigOscar said:
xG is incredibly simplistic, that's why it's come up with such bad numbers. It only takes into account actual shots you have, so them scoring an own goal is instantly ignored, as is us generally trying to walk the ball into the net, as we didn't end up having a shot, or no one gets on the end of a ball rolled across the 6 yard box. It also ignores how well you actually did, so Sane hitting the post is just seen as a shot from quite far away so not a very good chance.

It's just the latest shit attempt to crowbar bullshit stats into football
Click to expand...

Have a look at stats bomb who have a really good website explaining all this and you'll see that there is more that goes into it than that.

Also don' forget that a pen is something like .75 xg so from all their other shots they had an xg of 1.

City scored multiple goals with low xg because of the angle or players in the way, and that sane shot against the post, most of the time that shot doesn' go in because of the range, players in the way, keeper saving etc

Not all chances are as good as people make them out to be and just because this shot went in, doesn't mean it's happening every time.

If you look, city score a lot of goals from channel cut backs, these shots from in and around the penalty box have the highest xg in the game and it' why we try to create the channel overloads
 
Imo Murphy realized just after opening his mouth that he was shoving Hughes under the bus so he took up another few minutes to shove the players under the bus. And then to hide his criticism of Hughes’ tactics further when he had the opportunity he again threw the players under the bus.

If any of them could be bothered I bet they’d say that it was Hughes who said dont press and they knew damn well that his tactics were childish.
 
The offside rule change back in 05 is one of the primary reasons as to why smaller footballers have been allowed to flourish in recent years. It forced the pitch to open up as offside traps became too risky, which in turn effectively made the playing area larger, which in turn meant there was more space for players. This made the games less attritional, so more smaller players than previously could thrive all of a sudden. It's a large part of why 4-4-2 started to die out in favour of 4-3-3, because now the pitch is more spread out there's a greater need for midfield presence. So Gullit wasn't speaking nonsense as far as I feel.

With regards to xG, they wouldn't be including it in their stats if they hadn't done their research. Say what you want but there's a reason it's an in demand stat. It's not totally accurate but it's been shown to be the closest thing to accurately modelling 'fair' results since attacking-third turnovers. It has limitations, particularly in a game to game basis, but it's been shown over longer periods to be surprisingly accurate.

In the game today it was clear Southampton would have a higher xG than most have had against us. The penalty, the Long shot near the end, and the shot immediately after the Ederson spill and the large amount of half-chances would have cause it to add up. According to understat the only two teams to have achieved an xG of at least 1 against us were Southampton and Wolves. The next highest is Huddersfield with 0.66 which is indicative of our constant defensive dominance that just wasn't on show against Southampton.
 
CharliesRightPeg said:
Have a look at stats bomb who have a really good website explaining all this and you'll see that there is more that goes into it than that.

Also don' forget that a pen is something like .75 xg so from all their other shots they had an xg of 1.

City scored multiple goals with low xg because of the angle or players in the way, and that sane shot against the post, most of the time that shot doesn' go in because of the range, players in the way, keeper saving etc

Not all chances are as good as people make them out to be and just because this shot went in, doesn't mean it's happening every time.

If you look, city score a lot of goals from channel cut backs, these shots from in and around the penalty box have the highest xg in the game and it' why we try to create the channel overloads
Click to expand...
It's still a load of absolute shite. It still completely ignores everything except actual shots and it still completely ignores the actual ability of the player shooting. To xG, Kevin De Bruyne having a clear shot from 25 yards is no better a chance than Jesus Navas having the same shot. It also thinks if you get played clear through on goal but the keeper tackles you as you round him, it wasn't even a chance as you didn't shoot, same for last ditch sliding tackles or interceptions that prevent tap ins.

It is hideously oversimplified
 
TonyM said:
Imo Murphy realized just after opening his mouth that he was shoving Hughes under the bus so he took up another few minutes to shove the players under the bus. And then to hide his criticism of Hughes’ tactics further when he had the opportunity he again threw the players under the bus.

If any of them could be bothered I bet they’d say that it was Hughes who said dont press and they knew damn well that his tactics were childish.
Click to expand...

I thought he was mostly saying that as they weren't pressing, it was odd that they didn't defend en masse either. I know the front three are quick, but there wasn't a lot of effort to get back to help.
 
hampshireblue said:
How the fuc* are the Expected Goals worked out? Apparently we should have had 2.54 against their 1.88?? Unbelievable that their chances were that good.
Click to expand...

They had six on target to our eight. Not bad six goals from eight on target. I would have thought six goals from eight was infinitely better than one from six, and a pen to boot! But that's mathematicians for yer. God, how we've suffered at the hands of those bastards.
 
BigOscar said:
It's still a load of absolute shite. It still completely ignores everything except actual shots and it still completely ignores the actual ability of the player shooting. To xG, Kevin De Bruyne having a clear shot from 25 yards is no better a chance than Jesus Navas having the same shot. It also thinks if you get played clear through on goal but the keeper tackles you as you round him, it wasn't even a chance as you didn't shoot, same for last ditch sliding tackles or interceptions that prevent tap ins.

It is hideously oversimplified
Click to expand...

I think it is what it is. If you batter a team but don't score and they get one goal on the break - think Middlesbrough back when they did us like that - then xG will give a reasonable quantitative view of how that game panned out. In a tight game it will be different. At the end of the day to produce stats you need to quantify things and rating chances to score is highly subjective when you go beyond the ones that went in and the ones that didn't. Over a season it should give a reasonable view of how well you played. This link below has the full table with xG for and against. Seems pretty accurate to me.

https://understat.com/league/EPL
 
The PL show tonight had Andy Cole on picking what he thought were the best ever Premier League goals. Surprise surprise top 3 had two rags goals ( one was his the cheeky cnut ) and Shearer with the best..........I was shocked.......not
 
Think what you like about Charlie Austin's abilities but in the post match interview you saw anger and passion it has to be said.
 
Hes right to be annoyed being denied a perfectly good goal but Watford were also denied a stonewall penalty and I didn’t hear any of their team bemoaning their lot so vociferously during an interview , the officials were awful though, what the point of the official stood next to the goal is I don’t know, he had a perfect view of both incidents...
 
Blue Til Death said:
Hes right to be annoyed being denied a perfectly good goal but Watford were also denied a stonewall penalty and I didn’t hear any of their team bemoaning their lot so vociferously during an interview , the officials were awful though, what the point of the official stood next to the goal is I don’t know, he had a perfect view of both incidents...
Click to expand...
What official next to the goal????
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top