Printable View
Red Star 28% possession, 10 shots, 5 corners.
Liverpool 72% possession, 23 shots, 9 corners.
Monaco 65% possession, 15 shots, 6 corners.
Club Brugge 35% possession, 7 shots, 1 corner.
Results 2-0 & 0-4, the only stats that matter.
Highlights our problem, f*ck the stats just get some bugger to put the ball in the net.
Why couldn't Liverpool have played like that against us?
Sky sports news is nothing these days without a plethora of meaningless stats
The predicted goals stat does my head in. Shakes head.
FFS. You trying to get TLG and Eric the half bee the sack ???Quote:
Originally Posted by splott parker
Gimme a break, I’ve just discovered % on my keyboard & if you think I’m going to waste it, think again 🤪🤪🤪Quote:
Originally Posted by William Treseder
A lot of clubs are investing a lot of money in data analysis so there obviously is a point.
Although obviously possession or number of shots are fairly meaningless
75% of your posts are drivel!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Only joking 😂
[QUOTE=William Treseder;4925686]75% of your posts are drivel!
Ah but what about the other 35% ? 💥
It depends on what you do with the possession. If you use it to stifle the opposition, great. If they can soak it up for 90-odd minutes, then good for them. I would guess that in general possession and number of shots are critical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
That Wesley who scored for Bruges against Monaco is apparently being linked with a load of big clubs. a 6foot 3 brazilian striker
Statistically, 69.59% of teams with a higher shot to corner ratio than the opposition have a lower pass completion rate in the attacking third near the left hand touchline when the game is played on a Monday at 6.25pmQuote:
Originally Posted by splott parker
I didn’t want to go into so much detail Eric, I obviously should have and I stand erected 👍Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
That does intrigue me actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
Is dat roight Ted? 😂😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Dougal
They say it’s the best judge of who should have won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Father Dougal
It’s definitely a more interesting stats than number or shots and possession. People just seem to hate it because it’s reltaively new.
94% of the time. 😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
I think it's because it's subjective to us. I remember a quiz on the BBC sport website perhaps this year or last, where people had to decide how likely a goal was from a certain situation. Most people got these likelihoods wrong. It's no different to chatting about goals and chances after a game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
As an example, a player misses what some would describe as a "sitter" while there are others who feel the chance wasn't as nailed on. The mere fact the chance had been missed shows it was missable, and probably has been missed more often than some think.
Creating fewer better chances has to be better than creating more half-chances. I like the expected goals stat.
There has been suggestions of having an expected save stat for goalkeepers. That could be more tricky.
It's worth remembering that not all expected goal stats are equal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
Many of them using the same xG notation are using very different methods to calculate.
The simplest ones just look at shot locations. I.e. the position the player was in when he took the shot, and compare it with all the shots on record that have been taken from that exact position to judge what the expected chance of a goal would be from there.
Then other models ramp up the complexity significantly, considering where the pass before the shot has come from, whether it's on a weaker foot, whether a defender is pressurising, whether there are defenders between the shooter and the goal, or the exact position of all the surrounding defenders.
These complicating factors are even more important when considering expected saves, but some people are looking at that.
I've read that many players who consistently underperform the simplest versions of xG (and we have at least one) aren't actually any less accurate in shooting than their counterparts, but they are more ponderous in taking their shots (often due to balance) which allows more pressure from the defence and more blocking which actually makes the shot more difficult than someone who is able to hit it earlier.
I was wondering exactly what methodology was used to calculate these and hoped lots of factors was taken into consideration. I suppose that, for every shot location, the more complex you make the calculation, the harder it is to find identical snapshots of that moment in time for comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Who is our player that underperforms the simplest verstion of xG? I'm guessing Bobby Reid but not with any confidence.
KZQuote:
Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
I'm slightly surprised by that. He's scored some crackers for us in the past that would be low on the xG chart, while he's never appeared to be a player that misses lots of chances, because he's never seemed to me to be a player that is in a natural position to get on the end of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
https://statsbomb.com/2018/11/intro-...eper-analysis/
Here's an article on GK analysis
Very interesting. Thanks :thumbup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk