Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Other games (2024/25)

simonsays

by simonsays
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Froggy

Froggy

Posted
Posted
Just now, Froggy said:

 

Antony's was 0.28 believe it or not. xG doesn't take the keepers position into account. 

 

Amad's third was 0.68. 

 

xG is a load of bollocks like. :lol:

 

And for what it's worth, Southampton had 1.54 xG and 0.81 of that was for the Fernandes chance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
et tu brute

et tu brute

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

They were tiring and dropping deeper and deeper.

 

However, in hindsight he should have probably just left them out there.

 

Aribo, Ugochukwu and Mateus Fernandes were schooling them in midfield.

 

Downes and Smallbone were so poor when they came on.

 

 


They were still a threat, he brought the  subs on who had no legs and couldn't keep hold of any possession 

Link to post
Share on other sites
KaKa

KaKa

Posted
Posted
Just now, et tu brute said:


They were still a threat, he brought the  subs on who had no legs and couldn't keep hold of any possession 

 

Yeah, 100%.

 

His first 11 selection was great. Especially bringing Sulemana back into the fold.

 

But it appears he doesn't really yet realise how much of a disaster his backups are.

 

You're absolutely right, no legs and incapable of keeping the ball.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lush Vlad

Lush Vlad

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Antony's was 0.28 believe it or not. xG doesn't take the keepers position into account. 

 

Amad's third was 0.68. 

 

xG is a load of bollocks like. :lol:


Yeah. Mad when it is broken down like that. See loads of different ones. So guessing the models have slight differences. Live Score often seems really stingy for example. 
 

Mental that an open goal tap in like that has a lower xG than a penalty. Or Antony’s 2-3 yards out. But if the keeper position isn’t factored in. Then individual massive chances like that seem pointless to even discuss on their own with xG. 
 

Anyway, congratulations on your historic win. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pata

Pata

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Antony's was 0.28 believe it or not. xG doesn't take the keepers position into account. 

 

Amad's third was 0.68. 

 

xG is a load of bollocks like. :lol:

 

As if. Use some better sources ffs. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
KaKa

KaKa

Posted
Posted
Just now, Froggy said:

 

Hope he hasn't ruined Yoro's career. :lol:

 

Looks terrified of pace running at him. That was actually shocking.

 

Not sure he'll be able to play that wide centre back position. Not in the short term anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lush Vlad

Lush Vlad

Posted
Posted
Just now, KaKa said:

 

Looks terrified of pace running at him. That was actually shocking.

 

Not sure he'll be able to play that wide centre back position. Not in the short term anyway.


Hope he plays there up at SJP :lol: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pata

Pata

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

You're using understat which has Amad's third as 0.39. :lol:

 

It's easy and free to use but not that great tbh. Saying xG doesn't care about the goalie is just wrong though. I'm not sure if understat's numbers get fixed by a human afterwards.

 

 

Edited by Pata

Link to post
Share on other sites
Froggy

Froggy

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Pata said:

It's easy and free to use but not that great tbh. Saying xG doesn't care about the goalie is just wrong though. I'm not sure if understat's numbers get fixed by a human afterwards.

 

A lot of xG models genuinely don't. I don't like it either way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Checko

Checko

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Antony's was 0.28 believe it or not. xG doesn't take the keepers position into account. 

 

Amad's third was 0.68. 

 

xG is a load of bollocks like. :lol:

Should do tbf, would be a bit of a mad system to not take into account whether there's a goalkeeper in front of the striker or not:

 

"Opta’s xG model [...]

The model uses several variables from before, and up to, the exact moment the shot was taken. It evaluates how over 20 variables affect the likelihood of a goal being scored. Some of the most important factors are listed below:

Distance to the goal.

Angle to the goal.

Goalkeeper position, giving us information on the likelihood that they’re able to make a save.

[...]" https://theanalyst.com/2023/08/what-is-expected-goals-xg
 

xG is meant to measure how many goals were likely to be scored from the shots that were taken, as far as I understand it. It doesn't say who played better [though it can imply it] because you could be crap and get gifted a couple of gilt edge chances with a poor back pass, dumb penalty etc that boosts the xG.

 

Similarly you can carve a team open 5 times and each time the striker's a trimmed toenail short of putting a cross in a empty net, but no xG as no shot.

 

xG is useful, but it has its limitations. I think it's most useful for evaluating how clinical players are over a long period of time. It's overly obessing with xG & thinking it's the be all and end all that's for nonces.

 

 

Edited by Checko

Link to post
Share on other sites
TaylorJ_01

TaylorJ_01

Posted
Posted

Antony is fun to watch, in that he's remarkably bad. 

 

Yoro had a shocker. Ugarte was mince. Loads of bad performances. 

 

However, Southampton's changes were awful. All those random regens added zero and let Man Utd take control. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...