New striker?

BlueMedic said:
We beat Liverpool in the community shield and league cup on penalties. All I did was google the answer, not hard to do, and not quite sure why you find it so difficult to accept facts, there is no denying we've been good at penalty shoot outs in recent years, take a look for yourself if you must.

This was the first result on google:
www.transfermarkt.co.uk

Manchester City - Penalty shoot-out

This statistic shows all penalty shootouts of Man City.
www.transfermarkt.co.uk www.transfermarkt.co.uk
Click to expand...
Community Shield, lol. I rest my case
 
bluenova said:
1. I understand where you're coming from, but it wasn't the question I was answering. If I'm assessing Ederson's ability as a shot stopper, then his ability to kick the ball 100 yards is irrelevant. I was replying to a post suggesting that we had poor finishers at City, and my main point is that the differences, even with the players we were looking to buy were minimal.

2. Compared with Kane and Ronaldo, Sterling still comes out as the most clinical finisher with or without penalties.

3. We have other players who have a penalty record similar to Kane/Ronaldo, so it's not a huge loss. If we had Ronaldo taking penalties instead of De Bruyne/Gundogan, then he would score on average one extra penalty every four years.

4. Have a look at the maths again. Ronaldo, takes almost 9 shots before he scores a goal. City's "poor" penalty record over the same period was scoring 2 goals for every 3 shots (1.5 shots per goal). It's a different order of magnitude. That's why it skews the stats - particularly Ronaldos, because he takes pretty much every penalty.

The simple conclusion is that the magic "number 9" doesn't exist. The gain would be marginal at best, and too many people are looking at single missed chances in big games and thinking "Kane would have scored", when the truth is that even the best miss much more than they score.
Click to expand...
The comparison is completely apples/oranges. Sterling's figures are boosted by the number of tap-ins he gets. Now he deserves credit for his movement and getting into those positions but if you exclude those (the same way as you excluded penalties), his stats become immeasurably worse. I am not sure what question you are trying to answer, but arguing that Sterling is a more clinical finisher than Kane is worse than a dead-end
 
lasereyes said:
The comparison is completely apples/oranges. Sterling's figures are boosted by the number of tap-ins he gets. Now he deserves credit for his movement and getting into those positions but if you exclude those (the same way as you excluded penalties), his stats become immeasurably worse. I am not sure what question you are trying to answer, but arguing that Sterling is a more clinical finisher than Kane is worse than a dead-end
Click to expand...
How are you comparing all of the technical ability that goes into "scoring a tap-in" with a dead ball situation from 12yrds with just the keeper to beat.
 
Mumbai_Blue said:
View attachment 25536
This could have been us, our brand would have skyrocketed in one day. Still can't digest we bottled both Messi and this ex rag.
Let's hope this keeps the Glazers for a very long time.
Click to expand...
While they break Twitter and Insta records, we are breaking records on the pitch. They can have their Twitter and Instagram Glory. We talk on the pitch.

We have won in the last 4 years, 3 Premier Leagues, 4 Carabao Cups, 1 FA Cup and 2 Community Sheilds.

What have they won?
 
NorCalBlue said:
No stat is perfect, but surely the best available to judge the finishing ability of strikers is xG. It takes into account the difficulty of each shot, which pure shots v goals doesn't. Using all the data available at Understat.com (only league games since about 2014) Kane is streets ahead of Sterling, Ronaldo, and even Aguero.

Kane: xG = 139, Goals = 163, 17% higher than average for the same difficulty of shots
Sterling: xG = 92, Goals = 86, 7% lower than average
Ronaldo: xG = 210, Goals = 215, 2% higher than average
Aguero: xG = 126, Goals = 132, 5% higher than average
Torres: xG = 13.7, Goals = 15, 10% higher than average - very small sample size, so this one should be taken with a pinch of salt
Click to expand...
Understat doesn't consider the location of other players when shot is taken, which is an important feature while training any xG model. Use the data from fbref.
 
Mumbai_Blue said:
View attachment 25536
This could have been us, our brand would have skyrocketed in one day. Still can't digest we bottled both Messi and this ex rag.
Let's hope this keeps the Glazers for a very long time.
Click to expand...
There have been some fucking awful posts on this thread in the last few weeks. This one is top of the pile. Twitter and Instagram champions? Get to fuck.
 
mccity said:
It's a good way to assess a tool but it's incomplete.

Some players might not overachieve, but they could have significantly higher xG than average, due to brilliant movement and dribbling for example. The overall goals in a player who overachieves their xG and a player who doesn't but has really high xG to begin with could turn out to be the same.

This isn't an argument against Kane (or in favour of Sterling) btw, it's just me saying xG can be interpreted in multiple ways, each with their own value. The level of analysis can go a lot deeper if you choose it to.
Click to expand...
That's fair and it works in Sterling's favor, which I believe is your argument, since he relies more on movement and positioning to score goals than natural finishing. However, if we are adding context to xG, then maybe we should also talk about the fact that it is a shot-based metric and so it doesn't show up if the player didn't even shoot.

And just off the top of my head, I can remember many instances where Sterling was 1v1 against the keeper, but didn't shoot (and the keeper collected the ball), or he was in the box trying to shoot but couldn't connect, or he kept cutting inside only to lay the ball off at the final moment instead of shooting.

So in terms of accounting for golden chances that would probably have been converted into goals with a high degree of probability had someone just taken a shot, I would say Sterling would rank lower compared to the names that are being discussed.
 
Last edited:
sky_blue said:
That's fair and it works in Sterling's favor, which I believe is your argument, since he relies more on movement and positioning to take score goals than natural finishing. However, if we are adding context to xG, then maybe we should also talk about the fact that it is a shot-based metric and so it doesn't show up if the player didn't even shoot.

And just off the top of my head, I can remember many instances where Sterling was 1v1 against the keeper, but didn't shoot (and the keeper collected the ball), or he was in the box trying to shoot but couldn't connect, or he kept cutting inside only to lay the ball off at the final moment instead of shooting.

So in terms of accounting for golden chances that would probably have been converted into goals with a high degree of probability had someone just taken a shot, I would say Sterling would rank lower compared to the names that are being discussed.
Click to expand...
Yeah my point was that xG alone can be quite vague; lot of room to go from all angles.
 
mccity said:
Yeah my point was that xG alone can be quite vague; lot of room to go from all angles.
Click to expand...
xG should only ever be used for comparing finishing ability. An over/under performance suggests good/bad finishers. If someone is using xG to create a complete profile of a player or do a player by player comparison without stating what the objective goal of that comparison is, then that's just being disingenuous. So yes, I agree with you to an extent.
 
sky_blue said:
Understat doesn't consider the location of other players when shot is taken, which is an important feature while training any xG model. Use the data from fbref.
Click to expand...
Wow - that's a lot of data! The numbers are slightly different on fbref, for sure, and Sterling does better, but what it shows is that he was pretty good for two seasons (18-19 and 19-20), and about average, or slightly below, before and since (Understat also shows this trend, it just doesn't give him as much credit during those two years).

Fbref also underlines how good Kane's finishing is: 24% more goals than expected over the last 4 years (in the league) compared to Aguero (15% more) and Ronaldo (6% more).

Interstingly, although Salah has scored 13% more goals than expected over the last 4 years, he's actually been below average for the last couple, and most of his excess comes from an amazing 17-18 season during which he scored 35% more goals than expected.

By far the best finisher (from the obvious ones I checked out) is Messi, who's scored an incredible 45% more goals than expected in the last 4 years.

In contrast, Jesus (as much as I like him, especially playing out wide) is as poor a finisher statistically as he looks on the pitch, underperforming by 12% over the last 4 seasons.
 
sky_blue said:
xG should only ever be used for comparing finishing ability. An over/under performance suggests good/bad finishers. If someone is using xG to create a complete profile of a player or do a player by player comparison without stating what the objective goal of that comparison is, then that's just being disingenuous. So yes, I agree with you to an extent.
Click to expand...
Great point - you may be better off with a player who creates more shooting opportunities, but is a worse finisher than someone who barely creates any, but is deadly when he does. You can infer some other things from xG, but it really only shows how good players are at scoring from similarly difficult shots.
 
A part of me feels we won't go for Halaand or even a traditional striker but instead a player who can play across the front 3, offer versatility while having a goal creation profile.

Think Dani Olmo, Moussa Diaby, Jonathan Ikone, Jeremy Doku, etc...
 
sky_blue said:
xG should only ever be used for comparing finishing ability. An over/under performance suggests good/bad finishers. If someone is using xG to create a complete profile of a player or do a player by player comparison without stating what the objective goal of that comparison is, then that's just being disingenuous. So yes, I agree with you to an extent.
Click to expand...
Sadly I'm not sure even that's true.

As far as I'm aware xG has a problem comparing players who play in possession based sides with those who counter attack.

Some xG calcs take into account the number of defenders in the area (although I don't think they yet map exact positions), and others try and add multipliers to account for fast breaks, but I don't believe any gets close to being perfect.

This is important for City, as we tend to play against teams that will not only have defenders packed in the box, but they will be about as solid as a defence can be. They'll spend long periods in their exact positions, knowing where there team mates are, and as a result are hard to break down (hence why so much of City's probing play is trying to draw people out of position). Now consider how teams defend against counter attacks - how many times do we see 5 or 6 defenders back in the box but still an easy goal? It's all about the players being off balance, not in a set position, facing the wrong way etc. (Liverpool for example have been exceeding their xG by miles under Klopp, because, while they do have a lot of possession, they are more open, and very good at creating chaotic situations - exactly the kind that xG struggles with).

So, the same shot from a City player - say on the penalty spot - is often likely to much more difficult than it would be for a typical Spurs or Dortmund player (not sure why I chose those teams). The more complex xG calculators will try and compensate, but they can't get it perfect.

So, while it might be useful to compare xG between players in the same team, it's very difficult to compare between teams, especially if they have different styles.
 
NorCalBlue said:
Wow - that's a lot of data! The numbers are slightly different on fbref, for sure, and Sterling does better, but what it shows is that he was pretty good for two seasons (18-19 and 19-20), and about average, or slightly below, before and since (Understat also shows this trend, it just doesn't give him as much credit during those two years).

Fbref also underlines how good Kane's finishing is: 24% more goals than expected over the last 4 years (in the league) compared to Aguero (15% more) and Ronaldo (6% more).

Interstingly, although Salah has scored 13% more goals than expected over the last 4 years, he's actually been below average for the last couple, and most of his excess comes from an amazing 17-18 season during which he scored 35% more goals than expected.

By far the best finisher (from the obvious ones I checked out) is Messi, who's scored an incredible 45% more goals than expected in the last 4 years.

In contrast, Jesus (as much as I like him, especially playing out wide) is as poor a finisher statistically as he looks on the pitch, underperforming by 12% over the last 4 seasons.
Click to expand...
I'm too stupid to understand how the fbref page works but what's Son at? I assume he's close to Messi's numbers in terms of over performances to xg?

If we can't get Haaland next season I'd like to see us go for Isak (unless Torres and Delap can show we don't need another striker).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top