timeEd32

The stats back you up pretty much across the board. He played 19 passes to Bruno's 35 and Longstaff's 28. Only 58% accuracy compared to 71% and 86%. He had 0 shots compared to 3 combined by the other two. He had less touches and 0 tackles (compared to 2 each for Bruno and Longstaff). He did have two interceptions. WhoScored ratings: Bruno: 7.5 Longstaff: 7.85 Tonali: 6.48 (the lowest of the starting outfield players) That said, I do think it was an improvement and another positive step since halftime of the City game.

There are different models out there, so it may depend and this is an area that has been evolving. Isak's and Almiron's shots can be evaluated in isolation in terms of the opportunity for each, but as a team Newcastle could only score one goal from that sequence which is accounted for in adjusted xG. From FBref, which uses Opta: So if that was Nurnberg's only attack the whole game they would end with a team xG of 0.93, but they'd have a player with an xG of 0.79 and a player with an xG of 0.69.

"I think here at home we don't have a choice really in how we best need to play." Dortmund better be ready.

9 was the lowest 2nd place finisher last year (Dortmund). Three teams went through with 10 points. The average was 11.375 as there were a few groups dominated by two teams. Two years ago the average was 9.75 and at a glance most looked more competitive. You'd expect our group to be a lower number at this point (unless we run away with it with PSG).

I think it's because of the positioning of the defender and the goalkeeper. xG does not account for the fact that the attacker is 6'7" and also a local boy staring at a chance to score a Champions League goal. If it knew that the xG would be 1.0.

Just watched the highlights (again). Schar's goal is instantly iconic, but in 20 years the first one will provide a great snapshot of this team. It starts with a half-hearted press, but then PSG play the ball back to a CB again and at that moment Gordon, who had been all the way on the right because of the FK before, pushes in. Tonali has the RB covered, Isak is blocking a path to the other CB, and Longstaff and Bruno are on the CMs. In a split second it went from an innocuous situation to danger, forcing a turnover. And then I love a good rebound goal and this one is complete with Miggy's one-footedness in all its glory.

Top of the group after Matchday 2. Incredible. That's another £2.4m in the coffers.

Does not compute

THIS FUCKING TEAM

Bruno

That was exhausting. Can't believe we have to do it again.

So hard to press players this technically good. Making a couple mistakes but I also don't think we can do this for 90 minutes.

Pope's kicking on full display so far.

And Andres Cordero. Ugh.

The Paramount crew seems genuinely blown away by the atmosphere.

I've seen enough. The kid can play.

Wasn't called. Showed really good strength to win the ball for the initial pass.

Ah, so close. Good play, probably should have scored.

Absolutely useless in every facet of life right now.

A single host country is better, but I think it's become very hard to many single countries to host the World Cup (or Olympics) so I'm fine with Morocco, Portugal, and Spain as co-hosts. It's only a few games but so needless to add the South America part. If you want it there for the 100th anniversary then just put it there.

This is so dumb.

There's no basis for this and it would have caused its own kind of chaos, but they could have fixed everything by stopping the game, giving the goal, and turning the clock back. Spurs fans in the stadium would have lost their minds though.

I'm very torn about this game. I think the crowd / occasion could drive us and I think we're capable of playing with them on our day, but fear they are capable of tearing us apart too.

Eh, doesn't clarify because no one will really know. He's saying it's good because it's a further commitment from the owners, but it doesn't tell us anything about future spending capabilities. It doesn't really "fix" FFP unless all of that money is being used for the things you can take deductions on (which would be bold and also seems unlikely).

Was it referring to the £30m extra per year you can have in losses if backed by funding or deductions from investments in things like youth and women's football, community, etc? I think pretty much anyone doing FFP math is basing it on £105m allowable losses over a three year period, so the former isn't that interesting. The latter is more interesting though as it does seem like one of the biggest FFP loopholes out there. It's quite vague and you wouldn't even really know the impact of it until accounts come out a couple years later.