Pata

Looked like that contact was all just Saka, well done refs.

It has been a pretty good advert of CL football tbh.

Wew

That’s a replica of Barnes’ second goal against West Ham.

Rodri having a mare.

Nee way mate. Bruno being unbreakable is the only reason they haven't been midtable club for yonks now.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 (?).

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.

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

I'm laughing at you sir.

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

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?

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.

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

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.