Media thread 2022/23

[TinFoilHat]

Xhamster more like.:-)

Thank you for subscribing to my channel TinyPeePeeMakesTheGirlsHeHe

:)

 

[SebastianBlue]

Is XG the stupidest stat ever. How can a team score three goals and the other score one and then the team who score one have a better XG. what a load of nonsense.

Because xG doesn’t measure the likelihood of an individual player scoring a chance (or a team in a specific match), it is a metric that provides the average likelihood of any player, in any match, scoring from that position on the pitch based on literally millions of measured outcomes over many years across many leagues.

Thus a team can massively under perform their aggregate xG in a match, as we have on numerous occasions (think the Forest game).

 

[i went to rotherham]

Danny Murphy on MOTD. I'm still not convinced by haaland's penalty kicks Eh?!!?

Murphy was an average player and is a less than average pundit. He's a bitter scouse who fails to cope with our success. He is forever advocating on MoTD that teams/players should "leave something on him" to stop whatever City player they are talking about. He again made two thinly veiled suggestions last night that teams should be ensuring injury and that, if he had been on the pitch, he would have done it. Then he would have blamed someone else and demanded an apology. Time the BBC ditched the cnut.

 

[Rochdale Blue]

41 and in ridiculously good shape, I’m just not so old and confused as to be scared on new ways to analyse the game - other than “I think we were unlucky to lose that”.

Analyse it anyway you wish, it matters not to me, and just don't bore the tits off everyone else. I'm not sure about the shape of your head though, having to filter all that nonsense.

 

[DenisHasDoneIt]

BBC Sport making it up as they go along. Apparently we lined up yesterday with Big Erl in the midfield, Super Jack as the lone striker, and Kyle Walker at Outside Left.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

xG is just an abbreviation for "How the fuck has he missed that?"

 

[dickie davies]

Fwiw, you’re on the side of Richard Keys on this subject, which lets me know I’m glad to be on the other side of it.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day

 

[TinFoilHat]

xG is just an abbreviation for "How the fuck has he missed that?"

Or "How did Sterling miss that?!"

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

41 and in ridiculously good shape, I’m just not so old and confused as to be scared on new ways to analyse the game - other than “I think we were unlucky to lose that”.

You being 41 makes me depressed. Where the fuck does it all go?!

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Or "How did Sterling miss that?!"

That was never a question that needed to be asked really. We just assumed he would.

 

[dickie davies]

Can you take the yank bollocks stats to a thread of its own, wasted ten fucking mins reading the shite

There's a 0.7% chance of that happening

 

[Blue Llama]

I have no idea what xg is, have no interest in finding out or understanding it. Don't think my interest in football will go either way if I did know.

 

[aguero93:20]

Thank you for subscribing to my channel TinyPeePeeMakesTheGirlsHeHe

:)

©snorky 2023

 

[KPXBLN]

Exactly, I’m genuinely surprised by how many don’t understand why, after goals scored, it’s the best metric to quickly see which team were the most dangerous post game. It’s far better than shots taken, shots on target or possession.

It’s not foolproof by any stretch but it’s much better than any other one after the score line.

What I find stupid (which to be clear I’m not accusing you of doing), is when people clutch at the straw of xG to almost claim that ‘really’ a given team/player is better than they actually are. E.g ‘Nunez has a high xG so that indicates he’s just been unlucky and will soon be among the goals’ etc.

 

[SWP's back]

Because xG doesn’t measure the likelihood of an individual player scoring a chance (or a team in a specific match), it is a metric that provides the average likelihood of any player, in any match, scoring from that position on the pitch based on literally millions of measured outcomes over many years across many leagues.

Thus a team can massively under perform their aggregate xG in a match, as we have on numerous occasions (think the Forest game).

Or alternatively, massively outperform.

As an example, Liverpool had a higher xG against Arsenal than they managed against United when they scored 7.

There’s always these outliers but it doesn’t tend to move towards the mean as the season goes on (as I’m well aware you know - I’m just stating the obvious as some may not).

 

[SWP's back]

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day

A broken clock maybe, but not that ****.

 

[Shaggy]

xg, load of old bollocks more like.

Now has any of the usual suspects in the press said anything about City today, revealing that their piss is boiling ?

 

[SWP's back]

You being 41 makes me depressed. Where the fuck does it all go?!

‘Tis but a number D. Feel better than I did ten years ago.

 

[Paul lakes knee]

I used to listen to loads of football podcasts, but I’ve stopped most of them due to the constant bitching about our ownership and also because they are mostly made up of upper middle class twats who look down their noses at City fans, so I really just listen to the excellent 93:20. I thought I’d give the ESPNFC one a go, pleasantly surprised over the last week or so, especially today when Craig Burley went on a top class rant about Bayern’s fans. Though, I see Mark Ogden works for them so I’m sure he’ll spout shire sooner rather than later.

 

[Benjani56]

What I find stupid (which to be clear I’m not accusing you of doing), is when people clutch at the straw of xG to almost claim that ‘really’ a given team/player is better than they actually are. E.g ‘Nunez has a high xG so that indicates he’s just been unlucky and will soon be among the goals’ etc.

If Nunez has a high xG and low goals that proves he's a shit finisher so quite the opposite