Pata

3 hours ago, Froggy said:

There's no luck over a full season. You are where you deserve to be. 

41 minutes ago, Minhosa said:

Brighton fan mate of mine reckons he's been told that Liverpool will have to pay an additional £43m for McAllister if they win the league this year.

 

Surely can't be right?!? .

 

Could be, the initial price/release clause were so low that there might be some funky add-ons.

16 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Oof. It’s apparently more flawed than I realized.

I don't know where flashscore get their data from but Forest's total was a lot lower on their app so some human must have fixed that header. It's still really good and it's staggering how much data is available freely and the bots are really good. You'll have to pay for data where a human goes through every shot and the differences wouldn't be that big outside of rare instances like that header.

 Completely disagree with that VDV shot, front post top corner is the only real sure fire way to score and you nor VDV would never hit that top corner regularly while missing all the Forest players trying to block the shot.

14 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Three big chances? The back header?

 

Forgot you get nowt for own goals . I think we’ve actually scored a ton this year, six or seven, which isn’t entirely surprising because of the way we attack. That’s another key bit of context.
 

I’m amazed VDV’s goal counted for so little. This isn’t helping my opinion of xG

I watched the highlights now and that header definitely shouldn't be that high as it was impossible for Wood to get any power on it. That's sometimes the problem with free xG models, algorithms struggle to handle data like that correctly.

VDV's goal being so low is because there are three Forest players trying to block the shot and still the goalie to beat too. Was a perfect shot but honestly don't see him scoring from there more than once out of ten.

7 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Three big chances? The back header?

Header from couple of yards out on the 50th minute was 0.64. 

2 hours ago, leffe186 said:

That site has us losing on xG to Forest btw

https://x.com/markstatsbot/status/1777048776420851848?s=46

I can’t remember how the expected threat is calculated but you are up on that a lot. Possession, crosses, touches in the box etc. most likely.

19 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

Yeah, although their keeper made four or five terrific saves . Maybe they gave Wood one whole xG for that miss  (which incidentally Vicario did quite brilliantly to spread himself for). Like all stats, you still have to think a bit.

I didn't watch your match but just by looking at the shot chart, Johnson missed a 0.84 chance early on but after that you only have two shots above 0.10 (and they were only 0.11xG both). So lots of shots but only one had significant xG. And obviously not getting anything for the own goal.

Nottingham had Wood's three big chances (0.65xG, 0.64xG and 0.39xG which he scored) and some long range efforts with low xG.

21 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Think it's as simple as win on xG = 3 xPts.

There are fractions on Understat and it's tough to get the full 3.

This is all my own thinking but I think they take the xG data and simulate the outcome thousands or hundreds of thousands times and see how the points would divide in a really long run. Like the Liverpool match today, it should be close to full 3 on expected points (and eyetest) but somehow Man Utd are really fucking lucky and got a point for that battering so they gave Liverpool 2.92 and Man United 0.05 (?).

45 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

How do they assign xPts? Like, by how much do you have to win the xG in a game to get 3xPts instead of 1?

Looking at a recent example, Liverpool were given 2.92 points today so it's really tough to get the full three. Variance can be fun.

Just now, Holmesy said:

Oh, is that what it is?! I thought you had something wrong with you pal. My apologies.

Laughing at people after you put forward shit opinions with no factual or statistical basis doesn’t paint you in a very good light. It just makes you look like an arsehole. Have a bit more humility and you might get taken more seriously.

Have no idea what's going on here. Have a nice night!

11 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

You might even be right, but people who use laughing emojis at the end of every posts rarely are 😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

I'm laughing at you sir.

2 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

 

you’re wrong! 
😀😀😀😀😀😀😉

Just now, Joelinton7 said:

Eddie’s shithouse Mags are back

 

https://x.com/jordancronin_/status/1776662921948344368?s=46&t=DcLbGwd6hoDY9gGMy-ZgEw

I thought it was obvious and was wondering what the sign was for Dubs to go down.

4 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

Wasn’t the whole criticism of Howe that he didn’t put Burn at CB? He kept Livra at RB, put Krafth at CB (and we conceded immediately) Burn at LB and only changed it when Livra got injured.

No, some people were criticizing Howe for not putting Krafth at CB (??). Tino LB, Burn LCB, Schär RCB, Krafth RB was the backline after the Lascelles injury.

Are you commenting on a match you didn't see?

6 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

When you’re conceding 3 goals per game, something is badly wrong. We’re weaker at RB, the keeper is the same, one of the CBs is the same. What else has changed?

Burn has been much better at LCB in this short stint than Botman had been since his return from the injury. That's honestly the main change for these couple of games.

2 minutes ago, Holmesy said:

I’m not sure I follow - Burn played LB for most of that game didn’t he?! 

17 minutes and the match was 1-0 to us when he moved to CB.

Just now, Holmesy said:

The stats just don’t back that up at all. And we can’t really be more solid defensively than not conceding. 

But I’m at risk of sounding like a broken record so let’s just agree to disagree. 
 

The stats are from a two game sample size that conveniently cuts out the three goals conceded against West Ham ffs.

I would guarantee we would be even more solid if we had BDB at LB and BDB at LCB simultaneously. Putting any improvement down to not having him at LB is disrespecting him badly. 

Very happy that he's done so well at CB though, makes things a lot simpler in the summer window.

He's been fine at LB too despite the mass hysteria. Had a poor 10 minutes against fresh Bailey and then poor games against Luton and Nottingham but that's pretty much it.

If he was injured when he stole the ball and got kicked, it definitely only looked like a knock and hopefully nothing more serious. He's searching for his form but we simply need every player possible to just be available for this stretch. 

12 minutes ago, Begbie said:

Great to get the 3 points, but that was a shit show.

 

What I notice is that some of the players arent listening to the instructions from Howe. Ie. Often this season you can see Howe screaming to Gordon and try to get him to track back but he looks like not responding. Gordon has been one of our best players this season, imo before xmas he was tracking more back. The way Howe wants us to play(like we played last season) everyone has to be on board and work for each other, is he starting to loose some players? I cant see Bruno and Isak wanting to stay if we in the future play like we have done for most of this season. 

Hard-fought 1-0 away win with half the squad missing and you are speculating if Howe has lost the players? Fucking desperate to have a whinge.

10 minutes ago, Shak said:

What's the directive for refs when they're sent to the monitor? Feels they almost have to agree with the VAR?

It's a garbage system, think the on-field ref has gone against VAR only once or twice in the PL after going to the monitor. Baffles my mind why the ref can't be called there (or go there by himself as he's not sure about his decision) and make a decision based on what he sees from the replays. 

You could tell the ref today wasn't keen about disallowing that goal but went with the easy decision ie. follow the protocol.

Just now, Kid Icarus said:

Maybe I need a rematch, my first reaction was that he had some blunders, poor balls, and was losing runners. I thought Burn was the imperious one of the two.

Aye. He was class after the injury but definitely below his usual standards and gifted them their best chance from absolutely nothing.

5 minutes ago, Ronaldo said:

Great win. Schar and Bruno absolutely imperious. We lack so much quality in the final ball but eff all can be done until summer about that.

Schär was imperious despite the massive Bramble moment?

Thought Burn was imperious, especially after some posters said he can't play CB at all.

GTFI!!!!!!!