 | Forum
Reply | Gazball
at 11:04 1 May 2023
Downvoted by accident, sorry |
| Forum
Reply | Gazball
at 13:21 30 Apr 2023
Some of the games under boil come to mind as examples of pretty good, progressive football, which shows that these players were at some point this season capable of playing this way. But, as we all know, deceit, injuries and whatever else led to a horrendous collapse. GA has come in and kept us up which is great, and it doesn't matter how. But GA's defenders resorting to saying fans who disagree with them want 'Barca type football' or that they think we are city or should bring in Haaland or whatever is ridiculous, because under Warbs and then boil we were building a bit of a style, so it's not something completely out of reach and this is proven by some of our performances under the managers mentioned. |
| Forum
Reply | Match highlights
at 22:53 22 Apr 2023
You just love to see it. You absolutely love it. URSSS |
| Forum
Reply | Dream manager
at 13:05 30 Apr 2022
Ian Evatt could be good. Has done well at both barrow and Bolton. Heard him on The Tifo Football podcast and clearly has a real vision for positive, attacking football. Definitely want a manager on the up. |
| Forum
Reply | Apparently, we have low xG
at 12:02 4 Sep 2021
I would argue that in every goal - in every action in a football match - 'luck' is at least partially if not significantly involved, as ultimately, no matter our or the opponents skill, every action cannot be completely controlled.
I suppose we just see that goal differently though |
| Forum
Reply | Apparently, we have low xG
at 17:26 3 Sep 2021
I'm going to ignore your first point, as i caveated Austin and the keeper's roles in the luck of this goal in my original post, and the first is, lets say, arguable. There is a book called the numbers game, where a whole chapter discusses evidence that football is a 50-50 sport (chance-skill). Luck is certainly involved throughout a football match, and in every action. Obviously agree with the last two points as I said them in the original post |
| Forum
Reply | Apparently, we have low xG
at 17:15 3 Sep 2021
"Building on xG, we can dig deeper into the likelihood of a shot becoming a goal. Whereas xG provides a value of the shot before the player shoots, expected goals on target (xGOT) provides a modified value of an on-target shot after the player shoots.
The value presented is the same – a number between zero (no chance of a goal) and one (a certain goal). But it adds further context by crediting the shots that head towards the top corner vs those that are straight down the middle of the goal. As you would imagine, this xGOT model only calculates a value for shots that are on target, so relies on the player to at least work the keeper to be registered – of course, if the shot is off-target your chance of scoring a goal is zero (barring an unlikely deflection).
Let’s take this example below from Harry Kane last season. Before he takes the shot outside the area, his xG is 0.03 – a low-value chance that would be expected to be a goal only three times out of 100.
However, the quality of the strike from Kane is outstanding, as it flies into the top corner. Having taken the shot, the xGOT value of this chance now jumps up to 0.54, meaning that the location of that strike would lead to a goal 54 per cent of the time. A high-quality finish indeed.
The main thing xGOT provides is a clearer idea of a player’s shot execution. If a player has an xGOT value that is consistently higher than their xG, this tells us that they are shooting at a better rate than the quality of the chances they are getting.
It is worth noting that such figures do only include shots that hit the target, which unfortunately excludes blocked shots. Therefore, there may be some players who can count themselves unlucky that they executed the perfect shot but the defender simply got in the way.
We can then use Opta’s metric of “shooting goals added” which calculates the difference between a player’s xG and xGOT. Below, you can see that Tottenham Hotspur’s Son Heung-min added the most value to his shots last season, by improving his chances of scoring by 3.8 goals from the placement of those shots."
Again from worville on the athletic. Hope this helps. |
| Forum
Reply | Apparently, we have low xG
at 16:32 3 Sep 2021
With all due respect Paul, there's quite a lot of luck in the sequence you described. The CB Barbet being in a shooting position, under no pressure, the failure by the 2 cov defenders to first win the parry and then block austin, and crucially, the '[even] better finish' from Barbet. Whilst all these parts individually could happen (great low, hard shot from Barbet, Austin's positioning, Barbet continuing his run into the box, and, most glaringly, the repeated failure by coventry to win a second ball, including from the header away from Johanse's inital cross, plus the failure by the keeper to hold onto the ball, admittedly difficult though), it would be harsh to say there wasnt some fortune in the sequence which led to the goal. Unless we practiced that one on the training ground, defensive errors and all! Im not complaing though, great moment and they all count. |
| Forum
Reply | Apparently, we have low xG
at 15:04 3 Sep 2021
At this stage, xG should be taken with a pinch of salt. I think around game 17 is when there is a big enough sample size to judge, and even then, it cant account for everything. But against Coventry, for example, were are goals clear cut chances? Arguably the xG marries with the eye test. Dykes' was a great finish (which xG doesnt account for, rightly, as otherwise it wouldnt measure the quality of the finish vs the norm), and there was more than an element of luck involved with our second goal. But to say we cant be top 6 due to a tiny sample size (this season's xG) would go against logic - the second half of last season, we regularly won matches it didnt feel like we dominated, bournemouth comes to mind. Football certainly isn't played on spreadsheets, but they have their uses. |
| Forum
Reply | Apparently, we have low xG
at 12:20 3 Sep 2021
"A lot of the football world will have at least heard of xG by now. Put simply, xG is a way to measure the likelihood of a shot becoming a goal.
Not all shots are equal in their quality – one shot might be a speculative 40-yarder and another might be a two-yard tap-in. Therefore, xG measures the quality of each shot before the player shoots, taking into account many factors, including:
The shot angle
The distance from goal
Whether it was with the head, or with the weaker/stronger foot
Whether it was from a cross, through ball, short pass etc
Whether there were multiple defenders in the way
It is important to note that different data providers have slight differences in the factors they consider to go into their xG model. Nevertheless, the xG value is always presented as a number between zero (no chance of a goal) and one (a certain goal)."
From Tom Worville on the athletic. Another poster mentioned we have had a bit of luck - thats exactly it:thaat luck has meant chances which might not have been converted last season (Dykes drought, Bonne, etc) have been this year.
xG only puts a numerical value on something people have always used to describe football - chances. I look forward to seeing this forum's reaction to when xT becomes more commonly used |
| Forum
Reply | Ben White - £50M ?
at 19:17 30 Jul 2021
Leeds bid 30m last summer and has since been part of the 3rd best defence in the league (only City and Chelsea conceded less xG). He's 23 and they can build around him, english (useful for squad building) and has spent time under bielsa and Potter, meaning he will be tactically aware, and is also therefore probably quite good [Post edited 30 Jul 2021 19:18]
|
| | mobileDeWijs
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 15 | | Comment Votes: | 0 | | Prediction League: | 0 | | TOTAL: | 15 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.