Kid Icarus

He's just played a lovely little through ball for what should have been a goal.

You got IPTV?

Newcastle fans having unrealistic expectations is a convenient belief to have if you were part of a coaching team that couldn't meet them.

Anyone else watching? Not seeing any of the defensive stuff from him but he looks tidy on the ball.

I think we had more rumours in January. I'm proper parched.

Richarlison maybe, but I remember a lot of 'fucking hell, how the fuck have Leeds signed Raphina!?' posts when that happened

Not sure what's gone on with him, but his fall from grace is Adriano-level

Unless we're about to witness a last day of the transfer window masterclass from Dan Ashworth that involves us getting Paqueta for some stupidely low fee, I just don't believe that we're actually in for him.

The Glazers are shit and shouldn't be anywhere near football, but I'll still find it funny for the most part because I've completely bought into the theatre of football as a spectacle. Man United along with Chelsea and Real Madrid are my chosen panto villains because I've chosen to specifically laugh at the plastics who are only fans of those clubs in the first place because they wanted to take glory out of something that's not their's. For the Glazers, it's just money instead of glory. They too have no true affinity or local connection with the club in the same way that the Glazers don't. They've always been the willingly ripped-off, spoilt brat consumers the likes of the Glazers treat them as so long as they were getting their taste of personal victory from something they have no connection with. I'll still bemoan the whole system and the way things are going and how we're all being turned into consumers, but you can still find it funny where you can.

Ah shit sorry I meant like for a team's xG in a match rather than a players, but presumably the answer's the same anyway and wouldn't be all that useful overall. Cheers for that and the other posts, really interesting

Did the models you use take the player and their form into account as well? Just thinking off the top of my head, that time Torres missed an open goal during his shocking form at Chelsea vs what he'd have been like at Liverpool.

Similarly players who go through one on one and take a heavy touch so they don't shoot and therefore the xG presumably isn't even counted?

I feel like Chelsea now have an even worse case of new toy syndrome. £45m for Anthony Gordon when you have Connor Gallagher, Hudson-Odoi, and Pulisic at home. Just crazy, I don't know what people are seeing in Gordon at that level like.

This had an xG of 0.3 using Opta's model.

It doesn't, it's based on the average shot taker and the average goalkeeper. Leading to players like Messi, or Son in the PL regularly outperforming 'their' xG.

You don't have to wed yourself to it man, along with plenty of other factors it's a known flaw with xG

Again, I'm not sure that's the case. My understanding is that it's simply that 50 shots with a 2% chance have been taken, not that 50 shots taken at 2% have a 100% chance of resulting in a goal. The problem is that xG can be stacked with high volume/low quality chances. Last night Liverpool had 24 lower probability shots and come out with a higher xG than Palace's 7 shots that included a one on one and an open goal. We can disagree about whether that was the case and Palace's chances were higher quality, but being able to stack xG with a higher volume of low quality chances is still a flaw in xG. I don't think it's really a big deal to highlight that, I'm pretty sure it's one of the known issues with it and why things need to pass the eye test etc.

Also bear in mind I'm obviously a layman like, so this is all based on me talking with maths and stats academics at work Christmas parties and them doing their version of party tricks

Well no, because cumulative probability and probably are different. If you toss a coin 100 times in a row, the cumulative probability of getting heads at least once is extremely high, but each time you toss the coin the single probably of getting heads isn't then higher, it's reset to 50% Likewise, if I take 100 shots at 0.01 from the halfway line with the 'keeper on the line, xG shouldn't amount to 1.00 just because I tried something that's extremely unlikely 100 times. Each attempt is still a 0.01. If xG really is cumulative then that's a flaw that should be taken into account, because it can be a bit deceiving. Liverpool did have half chances, but have a higher xG than Palace who had 2 huge chances.

AWSF had the NUFC TV interviewer on last night. Lots of good little snippets of information in there and he more or less never stops talking.

I'm not sure that's actually the case, it can be argued that it's just 4 instances of shots with a very low chance of being a goal (0.10) rather than a case of cumulative probability (0.40) All I'm saying is that the way xG is calculated implies that Liverpool must have had the higher probability of scoring twice, Palace only once, but the devil is in the details because Liverpool seem to have accumulated their xG through a high volume of lower probability shots Vs Palaces low volume of higher probability shots.

I think it's, without getting onto other things, the rudeness about the intelligence of posters, and the arrogance about how intelligent, insightful and erudite he is compared to us mere mortals tbh. Don't think I've seen any abuse that wasn't retaliation. A bit of humility and mutual respect over what is literally just a sport and everyone would get on just fine.

Surpringly low for ASM.

From Sky. Liverpool had 24 shots but there's no chance you could really consider as strong chances in the way Crystal Palace's were

He's a RW