Kaizero

Pneumonia is absolute shit, though treatable and hopefully won't keep him down for too long. And, if nothing else, at least it beats the suggestions posted earlier in this thread when about which illness he might've been suffering from

Will be Youtube doing it on their own then, most likely based on what they perceive the context of the video to be. Either way, that suggested videos line-up you got served was top tier

Regardless, this isn't the thread for an xG debate. If people want to continue, let's head to the not worthy of a thread thread or the football pet hates thread

Are you logged into your Youtube account on your browser? (and is that browser Chromium based?) If so, then it'd still be your algorithm throwing up the suggestions. If not, then it's probably random based on the video context pulled by Youtube.

In an ocean of wrong, the statement I've bolded is the worst offender as that's genuinely just not the case. At least not when you get to a semi-professional level. NPxG, xGC and xGBU are much more valuable stats for those positions if we have to play with xG stats, and even then we'd just be scratching the surface as you will find genuinely insightful xG metrics in the data pool – but with endless more layers and nuance than the average xG stat you'll see in the post-match stats section of the BBC (or similar).

Happy to hear you're using Understat, it's the only free-to-use site I've seen that actually offers up a couple of useful stats (though rather simplified variants, still).

FWIW, I used to not mind xG before I entered the world of true footy data rooms after coughing up an insane amount of money to give the agency I started access Can't look at xG the same way ever again. Did you know there's actual analytical stats that actually utilize relevant datasets to inform you whether a player fluffed a chance or not, as well as how badly they fluffed it if they did? Yet, because they need to have something to make people cough up 3k+ annually for access to, they throw xG at the general public instead of actually useful and informative stats?

...you know your suggested videos is based on your own youtube history...right?

"Shots", "Shots on Goal", "Wide Shots" and "Saves" are much more relevant stats for a viewer to get a general gist of how a game went. "xG" is meaningless because it's based on nothing but general vibes and it is absolutely not "accurate", as the unimaginable number of unique variables involved that all would have to be calculated and compared with a non-existent "baseline" for an identical chance the xG is being calculated for that would serve as the basis for either a 0.0 xG or a 1.0 xG. Needless to say, those baselines do not exist – hence the number means absolutely nothing. "This chance made me feel worried, 0.4?" For the record, whilst I vehemently disapprove of "xG" as a metric symbolizing anything whatsoever – I am a massive supporter of analytical data in general.

xG are literally the definition of stats based on nothing but "vibes". The incomprehensible amount of various unique data points that would need to be calculated against a non-existent baseline makes xG meaningless. No professional club, scout, agent, data analyst or coach makes use of xG. There's a vast ocean of other analytical stats that actually mean something to use instead.

xG is the most useless "analytical" stat of all mainstream "analytical" stats. There are most certainly some stats that genuinely provide valuable insight and data, but none of those gets bandied about among your average supporter/pundit. Posted this on the last page as well, but was pretty much at the end of the page so reposting it in case interested people didn't get a chance to look at it.

xG is inherently flawed, as is all means of statistical analysis of football in general. If you, or anyone else, is interested in learning more about why that is, I've uploaded a Tifo video that explains it in much greater detail (and more understandably) than I could dream of doing:

They won't slide out of qualifying for Europe, and only need to keep two out of City, Villa and Chelsea behind them. They'll be very unlucky to finish 6th or 7th IMO.

It was Bournemouth just reneged on the agreed sum, the contract for King was ready to be signed (which wouldn't be the case if a bid hadn't been accepted). King's complaining about being told he'd not be sold to Man Utd after he'd originally been told he was.

1. It is 2. It's not something to be sniffed at, but given the grand scheme of context – it doesn't scream "70 million striker" either. Also, the last part of this point isn't something to brag about, as he finished with 10 league goals... unless, of course, 10 goals for Man Utd's top scoring player in the league is good by Man Utd standards...?

This was confirmed by King less than three weeks ago, fwiw https://www.vg.no/sport/i/bmbjaA/joshua-king-om-manchester-united-avtalen-som-gikk-i-vasken-helt-knust "King says that he went into the office of then-Bournemouth manager Eddie Howe. The Norwegian thanked him for everything he had done for him. But now an opportunity had arisen that he would never get again. Solskjær and United had made an offer. – Then I shared everything and said that I wanted to leave. Because I moved to England to go to United. The dream was to play for United. Now United are struggling with a striker. They have a Norwegian coach who is interested. Put an offer on the table, and I came there for free. And then you say no to 25 million, says King. – He (Eddie Howe) said, “Joshua, I won't stand in your way, but the club wants X number of millions,” says King. On the last day of the transfer window, he just wanted to be by himself. The solution was to sit alone in the jacuzzi in the garden. – I just sat in the jacuzzi for two or three hours waiting for the phone. I called Jim (Solbakken), who was working on that deal. And then I remember reading "Ighalo ready for United". Then I was completely devastated. Then I was way down. That is why I wanted to leave Bournemouth."

Højlund has always been shit. Said it at the time he signed for Man Utd as well, though almost none agreed with me at the time. Feel my opinion back then is fairly vindicated by now, though All that guy's ever been is a hyped up mediocre striker made to sound better than he was, and ever would be, by desperate Danish people shouting about him being "the Danish Isak/Haaland". He was not. The Danes don't have a good striker, just as they 100% sound as if they're choking on potatoes whenever they open their mouths to try saying Højlund isn't just an average striker, at best. They should learn to accept that. I mean... Man Utd paid £64 million (with £8 in add-ons on top of that) for a striker Atalanta had paid £14 million for less than 12 months earlier. Now, if Højlund had actually performed for Atalanta, that wouldn't seem as fucked up as it does looking at it now. He didn't, though, as he finished his lone Atalanta season with a league average of 1 goal per 204 minutes played. Before signing for Atalanta, he played briefly for Sturm Graz where he posted a better record of 1 goal per 173 minutes played in the Austrian Bundesliga. Fast forward through his time at Man Utd and he's currently posting an average of 1 goal per 290 minutes played. 173 professional club appearances in his career to date (not counting national team apps) with 51 goals scored. He's absolute dogshit and Man Utd wasted a shitfuckton of money on a player that hadn't proven jack shit other than the fact Danish people can make such a fuzz about mediocrity that they make Man Utd throw away money.

"25 Biggest Transfer Flops in Premier League History" https://www.givemesport.com/premier-league-biggest-flops-ever-ranked/ What do people think? Any massive errors/omissions made by the ones making that ranking, or fairly spot on?

Whilst on the topic of Bodø/Glimt, I can't wait until the day this book is available in an English version for you guys to read: It's even sort of relevant for us as NUFC supporters as well, as it tackles how it feels like for a club-fanbase to go generations without knowing what winning a trophy feels like – only to suddenly be odds-on favorite to win every national competition your club participates in, as well as putting up a fight in International competitions. It all boils down to making the right choice when they decided to not shut the club down when bankruptcy came knocking at the door, instead deciding to painstakingly search for talent in executive and coaching positions alike from the club's professional level to its youth levels and installing a "club identity" across the board, as well as finding the right people to continue the club's development if someone left their jobs at some point rather than trying to bring in "big name" people that wouldn't further the club's "identity".

Much prefer Villa becoming a challenger than continuing on with the same cartel-clubs season after season. Would that make it theoretically "harder" for us to be one of the teams that qualify for the CL season after season? Maybe, if not most likely, but still... it'd mean more competition between more clubs, which in turn would make qualifying feel much more satisfying and "earned". If the same clubs don't continually qualify for the CL and pocket insane amounts of cash more than the other clubs in the league, it'd make for a more competitive and entertaining league as a whole – which is, to me at least, much more preferable than the same three-four clubs duking it out for the title every season and the rest of the teams just making up the numbers.

These are the stadiums of the teams in this season's EL QF's: Old Trafford – 74 310 Stadio Olimpico – 70 634 Tottenham Hotspur Stadium – 62 850 Groupama Stadium – 59 286 Deutsche Bank Park – 51 500 San Mamés – 53 289 Ibrox Stadium – 50 817 Aspmyra Stadion – 8 270 Why is this relevant to anything, one might ask? Well... The entire city of Bodø has a population of 42 831, meaning the seven stadiums not belonging to Bodø/Glimt could fit the entire population of their city inside them and still have room for more people

Yep, in general I don't think it matters all that much – but given that every now and then you'll find a team or two that are very good at home yet horrid away (or vice versa) – meaning if it's a season where some teams are like that, it will give better insight than the overall PPG numbers This season, Ipswich and Palace are performing vastly better away from home than they are at home. The opposite goes for Man City, Chelsea and Villa who aren't doing the same business away like they are doing at home.

Average 1.52 PPG for our remaining opponents, 1.49 PPG for Villa's remaining opponents.