England v Slovenia - Tue 25th June, 20:00 | Euro 2024 Group C

[eyalluvitt]

Gotta love jingoistic anthems....

My generations grandparents defeating the real Nazis should be celebrated loud and proud

 

[Nethermoor]

The last few tournaments the whole not lose thing has worked and worked well. No matter how boring. We lost to France by a dog's cock hair and a missed pen. The time before we lost on pens in the final. World cup semis we lost to the Croatians again, by a dogs cock hair.

But this time feels different but not in a good way. Mistakes are too common, the passing is awful.

And I think it's down to the speed. Saka has been shite. Foden needs moving central and get Palmer/Eze/Gordon on the pitch.

We also badly miss Maguire. He's shit for YANITED but he's class for England. Which probably tells you all you need to know about the Rags.

 

[mattcity5]

The last few tournaments the whole not lose thing has worked and worked well. No matter how boring. We lost to France by a dog's cock hair and a missed pen. The time before we lost on pens in the final. World cup semis we lost to the Croatians again, by a dogs cock hair.

But this time feels different but not in a good way. Mistakes are too common, the passing is awful.

And I think it's down to the speed. Saka has been shite. Foden needs moving central and get Palmer/Eze/Gordon on the pitch.

We also badly miss Maguire. He's shit for YANITED but he's class for England. Which probably tells you all you need to know about the Rags.

Pretty much agree.

Don't really think we're missing Maguire at the back much though, but we definitely are as a set-piece threat. Think him not playing has reduced our goal threat on setpieces by about 90% it seems.

 

[KentBlue]

I'd start Palmer over Saka. Saka looks a bit knackered to me.

That's why he spends most of his time laying down.

 

[mattcity5]

Gordon only went down the line that once and ran the ball into the advertising board haha.

Palmer did look positive in the sense he actually gets his head up and looks to move things goalwards. Fair enough not much actually came off but the intent was better than most on the pitch were offering.

I'd start Palmer over Saka. Saka looks a bit knackered to me.

I'd prefer Palmer in over Bellingham. Play Phil as an 8 and let him run the game like Gundo, Palmer as 10, Saka on the right and Gordon left.

Clearly won't ever happen, I know.

 

[Keeper!]

Club tribal bollox - England fans are obsessed with it.

 

[Jazzyblue]

The last few tournaments the whole not lose thing has worked and worked well. No matter how boring. We lost to France by a dog's cock hair and a missed pen. The time before we lost on pens in the final. World cup semis we lost to the Croatians again, by a dogs cock hair.

But this time feels different but not in a good way. Mistakes are too common, the passing is awful.

And I think it's down to the speed. Saka has been shite. Foden needs moving central and get Palmer/Eze/Gordon on the pitch.

We also badly miss Maguire. He's shit for YANITED but he's class for England. Which probably tells you all you need to know about the Rags.

Last night looked like walking football. Lack of urgency was unbelievable.

 

[Donmcfc]

Some people might be interested in the match but be unable to watch. They may have more of an interest than just wanting to know the result and want the info in as short a set of information as possible??

I get where you're coming from but you're fighting a losing battle if you ever think there are going to be less stats in the future of football. Probably best to just embrace it as the new shots on target or possession stats, or maybe simply ignore it.

But, you can't tell me that if you just read that the result was 2-1 against reading that the result was 2-1 with xGs of 0.1 and 3.7 you don't get a better picture of the match. Helps people understand form for betting (us) and performance (them) at the very least.

Explain then, how I have watched City many times have 80% possession and lose the game. How can statistics help me understand that?
And having goals expressed as decimal points is ridiculous. I will never accept the over emphasis on statistics in football as it's all meaningless to me.

 

[StillBluessinceHydeRoad]

I still doubt that Southgate is up to the job and I find he's just too stubborn. The cry now is for Gordon, Palmer and Mainoo to start but there are no details about who should make way for them. I still toy with the outlandish idea put forward that we might do better if players played in their "proper" positions but this is clearly too simple for a true football philosopher. The real stroke of genius last night was to bring TA-A on in his real position but to switch KW to a position not his own against a team pulling everyone back. Ta-A's long balls were of little effect, while a player who can play clever passes in small spaces (Phil who?) has been taken off! In short, I'm not against Mainoo, Gordon, Palmer or TA-A, all of whom have real qualities but why do Englan managers have to complicate things?

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Explain then, how I have watched City many times have 80% possession and lose the game. How can statistics help me understand that?
And having goals expressed as decimal points is ridiculous. I will never accept the over emphasis on statistics in football as it's all meaningless to me.

It can help you understand that it doesn't happen often and it's a blip or if there are different issues. We're not talking about getting your head around WHY it happens, it's not that sort of 'understand'. It's 'understand' as in 'I didn't watch it, what was the story of the game?' without reading fuck loads of words.

And it's not really goals expressed as decimals, it's the expectation/probability of a goal being scored from each individual chance created depending upon the likelihood, just like a percentage, but written as a decimal.

Shot from the halfway life. Goes in like 1% of the time? So xG for that is 0.01 (1%)
Penalty. Goes in maybe 80% of the time? So xG for that is 0.8 (80%)

Then you add up all the percentages at the end of the game and that's your xG.

If they're your only chances in a game your xG = 0.81
(I made up the percentages but do you get what I mean?)

So,

Big xG and we score loads. We probably battered them or at least created loads of clear chances.
Big xG but we don't score many, meh, at least we're still creating chances, just unlucky, shit happens.
Low xG and we don't score many, oh bollocks, we were nullified to minimal clear cut chances and probably struggled to break their back 11 down. More worrying.
Low xG and we score loads, Jammy bastards :)

It's just a different way of analysing a game.
It's just a sort of numbers shorthand as it gives a slightly bigger picture than just 2 shots, 1 on target (above example) and it's just quicker than listing all the chances, not sure it's an over emphasis just a different way of saying stuff.

No biggy for me.