Other games (2022/23)

[Pata]

2 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

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 

Well it’s simple really and I know you know it too. Four 0.10xG shots is more likely to end with a goal than one 0.35xG shot. Crystal Palace had only few shots but most were high xG chances. Liverpool had a couple of good chances and lots of 0.05-0.12xG shots and their volume puts them ahead of Palace.
 

Why is xG at wrong here? It’s not meant to show which team had the better chances but to calculate every shot together to give one viewpoint of how the game was.

 

If someone looks just at regular stats where goal attempts were 24-7 they would think that Liverpool absolutely battered Palace whereas xG shows that it was much closer due to the high quality of Palace’s attempts.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Pata

[leffe186]

This is rather nice:

 

 

[Fantail Breeze]

4 hours ago, Jaqen said:

TCD makes valid points a lot of the time and people twist his arguements or just come in and give him abuse 

 

Defence mechanism because he’s quite clearly right.

[Guest HTT II]

9 hours ago, SUPERTOON said:

If If that was true, which it isn’t, why would you be judging a 16 year olds stats ?

I’m basing it all on his full career to date. For an attacking player who has literally been given a free reign at Palace and has played left or right and through the middle, his numbers are not the best and you can argue he’s mostly played in a poor team and under a defensive manager, but plenty of players have done likewise, and yet consistently produced decent numbers, our own Wood for example at Burnley…

 

Again, Zaha is clearly talented, but he for me is easy to defend against and is a streaky player very much like ASM. I’d far rather have the Leeds fella or give our own Anderson a chance to develop into a scoring/assisting attacking threat than blow 30m or so on a temperamental 30 year old who flatters to deceive regularly.
 

I also get what KI is saying in that a lot of people who dislike Zaha base it off his body language and because he dives and his a huffy cunt etc. and I too dislike that, but I don’t rate him as a top attacking player at all, so that’s where I base my judgement on him mainly.

[Guest HTT II]

Back to Liverpool, their midfield is very mediocre for an elite team, they lack creativity, drive and pace and dynamism in there and again, they will miss Mane far more than they may have anticipated. Nunez looks like he can finish, but his all-round game is so raw and technically Firminho is a far better footballer. Diaz looks good, but he doesn’t have that raw pace or cunning Mane had and doesn’t make the runs in behind like he did.
 

Milner starting says it all. They have an ageing squad or rather first-team and although they generally buy well and at good prices and sell well too, I think their cycle is over and they now need to reboot and rebuild and that will cost a lot of money because I don’t think their younger players like Elliott and Carvalho are of the level of say Foden at City.

 

Palace’s midfield last night physically at times we’re too much for Milner, Henderson and Elliott, they have lots of dynamism and pace throughout their team in midfield and at the back where as LFC are one paced in midfield and even in defence, it’s just that they play the ball so quick they look like a quick paced team, when in reality they aren’t.

[Doctor Zaius]

 

Masterclass this like

 

 

 

 

[Conjo]

Andersen has had a great start to the season. Thought he was Palace's motm yesterday and last game against Arsenal.

[Yorkie]

Brilliant that, like. I was gonna say it's epic shithousery but it was just basic mind games, really, a lesson in getting under someone's skin. Nunez with a lot to learn, clearly, which I'm sure he will. 

[Kid Icarus]

6 hours ago, Pata said:

Well it’s simple really and I know you know it too. Four 0.10xG shots is more likely to end with a goal than one 0.35xG shot. Crystal Palace had only few shots but most were high xG chances. Liverpool had a couple of good chances and lots of 0.05-0.12xG shots and their volume puts them ahead of Palace.
 

Why is xG at wrong here? It’s not meant to show which team had the better chances but to calculate every shot together to give one viewpoint of how the game was.

 

If someone looks just at regular stats where goal attempts were 24-7 they would think that Liverpool absolutely battered Palace whereas xG shows that it was much closer due to the high quality of Palace’s attempts.

 

 

 

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. 

[The College Dropout]

7 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

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.

 

 

 

This isn’t true. If I’m rude it’s only in retaliation of people making disengenious points time and again and a reaction to outright insults. 
 

Take that poster I’ve just muted. I’ve not directly engaged with his posts (as far as I can see) and this is the 3rd post in the last few days where’s he’s had a dig. Of course I’m going to retaliate. 
 

7 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

You say we shouldn't have signed both Botman and Burn (even though it means never seeing Clark feature again for us, and rightly so), but I disagree. It was the right approach because it improves our squad significantly. You act as though that isn't as important in improving our chances of European qualification. But you claim it wasn't the right move because Burn has low resale value and isn't European level ability and it isn't good for FFP. Again I disagree ... low resale value was not significant with the Burn transfer because he wasn't brought in to move on for profit, and he was not an expensive signing anyway. His £13 million fee over his 2.5 year contract counts as around £5 million a year FFP wise.

 

You seem certain Zaha is worth bringing in at 30 years old in a position where players don't age as well, for £30 million over 3 years, because he'll have this tremendous impact on the team and you compare him to Trippier. I'm sorry but I'm not having that. Trippier was brought in for his ability yes, but just as importantly for his stature in the game and for his leadership and winning experience. Zaha brings none of those intangibles and he is not good enough to justify bringing him in at this stage of his career at £30 million and on a big wage IMO. He'd be a bigger hit than Burn FFP wise as he'd be £10 million a year over a 3 year contract, if we could even get him for £30 million, which I don't think is realistic.

 

We're better off going for a player that we can actually land in that £30 million range who is younger and can be brought in on a 5 year contract, which is what the club is trying to do, as it is better FFP wise. The £30 million fee over the 5 year contract counts as £6 million a year for FFP. If at any point they do move on you are also able to at least also capitalise on that with a fee, which again, is good for the FFP accounts.

 

I don't think Zaha is that good that we can't find a younger player close to that ability or better that can continue to improve. We'll see if I'm right once the window closes I guess.

You’re missing the point again and I’m tired of repeating myself so I’ll keep it brief. 
 

Burn is a good signing. Botman will be a good signing. I’m not sure about both of them right now from a FFP and squad building standpoint as of today. 
 

We shouldn’t sign players permanently that we aim to replace within 12 months (because they lack quality) and who we will struggle to recoup from now. 
 

The Zaha thing is simple. I rate him as transformational, you don’t. That’s really where the conversation ends.  But I’ve not contradicted myself regarding Zaha at all. Zaha is generally regarded as one of the best players outside  the top 6. He has been heavily linked to Arsenal and Spurs in the past. As much as you might personally disagree he would be considered a statement signing. He is not the same type of signing as Dan Burn. 
 

I understand that as a strategy you prefer spending £20-30m on some young player from Ligue 1 than paying a premium on an established PL performer like JM or Zaha. I understand that thinking and why - it has value and if done right can be successful. Personally I think it’s overly risky and the flops will outweigh the hits unless you are getting the top talents. I don’t feel the need to follow you around thread to thread misunderstanding your perspective or wanting to prove you are wrong. It’s an easy to understand valid opinion with pros and cons. Me too, I also have easy to understand opinions with pros and cons. 
 

8 hours ago, Jaqen said:

TCD makes valid points a lot of the time and people twist his arguements or just come in and give him abuse 

 

3 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Defence mechanism because he’s quite clearly right.

This is it. 
 

Twisting my points. 

[Unbelievable]

30 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said:

 

Masterclass this like

 

 

 

 

 

Any manager will be showing that to their defenders in the buildup to playing Liverpool. If just a little roughing up like that makes Darwin loose his marbles and lash out like that he'll not become a success in this league.

[Boo Boy]

ITV SECURES LA LIGA BROADCASTING RIGHTS | www.sportindustry.biz

 

For those who like their spanish football

[The Prophet]

 

Every centre back in the league should be taking notes.

[KaKa]

22 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

 

You’re missing the point again and I’m tired of repeating myself so I’ll keep it brief. 
 

Burn is a good signing. Botman will be a good signing. I’m not sure about both of them right now from a FFP and squad building standpoint as of today. 
 

We shouldn’t sign players permanently that we aim to replace within 12 months (because they lack quality) and who we will struggle to recoup from now. 
 

The Zaha thing is simple. I rate him as transformational, you don’t. That’s really where the conversation ends.  But I’ve not contradicted myself regarding Zaha at all. Zaha is generally regarded as one of the best players outside  the top 6. He has been heavily linked to Arsenal and Spurs in the past. As much as you might personally disagree he would be considered a statement signing. He is not the same type of signing as Dan Burn. 
 

I understand that as a strategy you prefer spending £20-30m on some young player from Ligue 1 than paying a premium on an established PL performer like JM or Zaha. I understand that thinking and why - it has value and if done right can be successful. Personally I think it’s overly risky and the flops will outweigh the hits unless you are getting the top talents. I don’t feel the need to follow you around thread to thread misunderstanding your perspective or wanting to prove you are wrong. It’s an easy to understand valid opinion with pros and cons. Me too, I also have easy to understand opinions with pros and cons.

 

You're point doesn't make sense no matter how often you repeat it.

 

Saying you aren't sure of Botman and Burn FFP wise or squad building wise is not based on any sound reasoning. Their year on year FFP cost, which is based on their fee spread over their contracts is low. And it is a clear upgrade squad wise.

 

So for you to claim otherwise on those two and try to justify Zaha does not fly. He's more costly FFP wise and an equivalent Premier League player or otherwise that is younger can be had without taking the FFP hit we would on Zaha.

 

 

[Guest HTT II]

Lads @KaKa @The College Dropout, let it drop man, shake hands and move on!

[KaKa]

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

Lads @KaKa @The College Dropout, let it drop man, shake hands and move on!It's not a fight ma

 

It's not a fight man!

[Guest HTT II]

Just now, KaKa said:

 

It's not a fight man!

I know, but it’s back and forth arguing the same stuff over and over again, yous are both better than this man 

[The College Dropout]

This is why I call you slow. You're desperate to disagree and be right.

 

It is my opinion that some of the money spent on the LCB position would have been more effectively spent on attacking positions. I think the money spent there has contributed to limiting our attacking options.

 

You disagree. Fine. Move on and stop quoting me.

[Dokko]

11 hours ago, KaKa said:

 

Man City have had a game against Ben Johnson at centre back for West Ham and then Bournemouth who were just trying to keep the score down.

 

Let's see what happens when they start facing a bit better competition. Not convinced yet they'll be as good this year.

 

Let's hope you have the same opinion this time next week after a goalless draw with ourselves.

[TBG]

I know he got booked for it, but the way the commentators went on my stream over Andersen's ''push'' was comical.

 

[KaKa]

25 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is why I call you slow. You're desperate to disagree and be right.

 

It is my opinion that some of the money spent on the LCB position would have been more effectively spent on attacking positions. I think the money spent there has contributed to limiting our attacking options.

 

You disagree. Fine. Move on and stop quoting me.

 

You keep getting abusive because you know you're talking rubbish and you're rattled. It's pretty pathetic really 

 

You clearly didn't understand how FFP actually works. 

 

'The money spent there has limited our attacking options' ... right, because they disagree with certain player valuations that of course means we don't have the budget. I forgot that was another one of your brilliant theories.

 

Man, go sit down somewhere. 

 

[triggs]

1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said:

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. 

Aren't you essentially arguing against the basics of probability here? If you have 4 shots each with a 10% chance of going in and 1 shot with a 35% chance of going in you are more likely to score if you had the 4 chances.

 

I also think you are misremembering the game a bit, Nunez had a couple of good chances and Salah also had a good chance in the first half

[joeyt]

6 minutes ago, triggs said:

Aren't you essentially arguing against the basics of probability here? If you have 4 shots each with a 10% chance of going in and 1 shot with a 35% chance of going in you are more likely to score if you had the 4 chances.

 

I also think you are misremembering the game a bit, Nunez had a couple of good chances and Salah also had a good chance in the first half

 

I'm probably being monumentally thick but this doesn't seem right at all

 

If I shoot 4 times from 30 yards I'm not sure how that makes me more likely to score than if I just have one shot from like 18 yards or whatever

[Kid Icarus]

20 minutes ago, triggs said:

Aren't you essentially arguing against the basics of probability here? If you have 4 shots each with a 10% chance of going in and 1 shot with a 35% chance of going in you are more likely to score if you had the 4 chances.

 

I also think you are misremembering the game a bit, Nunez had a couple of good chances and Salah also had a good chance in the first half

 

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.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by Kid Icarus

[triggs]

1 minute ago, joeyt said:

 

I'm probably being monumentally thick but this doesn't seem right at all

 

If I shoot 4 times from 30 yards I'm not sure how that makes me more likely to score than if I just have one shot from like 18 yards or whatever

xG is based on actual probabilities using past shot data. If you shot 4 times from 30 yards and once from 18 yards I'd imagine the xG would still be lower for the combined 30 yard efforts than the singular 18 yard effort