The Europeometer™ (2024/25)

[The College Dropout]

Stats i'm using are slightly different.

 

It has us sligthly overperforming Open Play Xg. With an OP Xg that's 8th in the league between Leicester & Villa. It's decent but we are not a leasing creator of chances from open play. We don't carve teams open like that.

 

The big thing from both is the delta between set piece Xg and actual goals. The eye test suggests 1. We try to score this way - A LOT. 2. We've missed some good chances but also 3. We try to do the same thing a lot and it doesn't work. A lot of low Xg chances falling to players that don't often score.

 

We are a bit of a keep it tight and try and get something from a set-play team. Which is not an approach you would expect from a side going for top 4.... although Spurs are doing exactly that and doing it well enough .

[Guest]

2 hours ago, The Butcher said:

Anything lower than 6th would be really disappointing imo. 

 

Aye, I'm allowing for Spurs keeping up their recent form and Liverpool finally sorting their shit out, there's no guarantee either will happen.

 

I'd be very disappointed if we slipped below one of Brighton, Fulham or Brentford too though. I don't think we will so 6th should be about par from the position we're in now.

[Geogaddi]

I think we will finish 6th which is an excellent season, we were always over achieving to be 3rd or 4th anyway with the squad we have and now our results are levelling out ,few upgrades in the summer and we will challenge top 4 again next season but with a proper squad this time .

[The College Dropout]

It feels like Brighton have been building towards this for years tbf.  
 

 

I think some in the media would be looking to turn on Howe if Fulham or Brentford finish above us. Same folks that will be quiet about Klopp or Moyes. 

[The Prophet]

5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Stats i'm using are slightly different.

 

It has us sligthly overperforming Open Play Xg. With an OP Xg that's 8th in the league between Leicester & Villa. It's decent but we are not a leasing creator of chances from open play. We don't carve teams open like that.

 

The big thing from both is the delta between set piece Xg and actual goals. The eye test suggests 1. We try to score this way - A LOT. 2. We've missed some good chances but also 3. We try to do the same thing a lot and it doesn't work. A lot of low Xg chances falling to players that don't often score.

 

We are a bit of a keep it tight and try and get something from a set-play team. Which is not an approach you would expect from a side going for top 4.... although Spurs are doing exactly that and doing it well enough .

 

This is the problem with using xG in isolation. The eye test alone is enough to know this isn't the case. 

[The College Dropout]

9 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

This is the problem with using xG in isolation. The eye test alone is enough to know this isn't the case. 

What does the eye test tell you?

I don't think we look like scoring many from open play. Man Utd, West Ham, Fulham, Bournemouth we struggled to carve open chances. I think we looked dangerous against Soton but they are terrible. We also looked dangerous but showed poor finishing against Palace & Liverpool but both of those defended terribly. Both look like conceding loads whenever I watch them.

 

I think we get on the front foot, huff and puff and often look devoid of ideas when our tried and tested doesn't work (Almiron to Trippier combo). The huffing and puffing usually leads to loads of set pieces, at times, we definitely play for them - then we get everyone forward for them at every oppurtunity. 

 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by The College Dropout

[Kid Icarus]

I think it's pretty clear to me that we're a team that gets set pieces as a byproduct of the attacking way that we try to win, rather than a team that deliberately relies on getting set pieces as a way to win. 

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

I think it's pretty clear to me that we're a team that gets set pieces as a byproduct of the attacking way that we try to win, rather than a team that deliberately relies on getting set pieces as a way to win. 

I somewhat agree.

 

We do get to the byline ourselves. But when we get there or close, sometimes we do give up trying to work a chance and play for a corner. There are moments we definitely run out of ideas and think a corner is the best form of attack. Likewise, if we win freekicks in the opposition half... we usually get everyone up and get it into the box. When a lot of other teams would simply reset play.

[The Prophet]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

What does the eye test tell you?

I don't think we look like scoring many from open play. Man Utd, West Ham, Fulham, Bournemouth we struggled to carve open chances. I think we looked dangerous against Soton but they are terrible. We also looked dangerous but showed poor finishing against Palace & Liverpool but both of those defended terribly. Both look like conceding loads whenever I watch them.

 

If you combine the eye test, with other factors such as xG, average player position, possession, shot volume, etc. It paints the picture of a well organised, counter-pressing team who tries to win the ball high up the pitch, dominate possession and create a high number of chances. I just don't think we have enough quality to execute it on a consistent basis.

 

There are very few games this season, particularly at home where this hasn't been the case. Our possession numbers are moving in the right direction and are shot volume tends to be high (hence the high number of corners). The problem is our decision making in the final third and the quality (or lack of) of our finishing. 

 

We've been streaky in front of goals all season. Almiron and Wilson hit form at a similar same time and we out performed our xG for a fair few games, but now they've both hit a lean spell and we're seeing the opposite.  

[TRon]

44 minutes ago, STM said:

I'd be shocked if we didn't go on a strong run of form before the end of the season. Whether it's good enough for top 4 is another question.

 

We are at the stage where 1 win changes everything.

 

This I agree with. Our form wasn't a flash in the pan, we have been performing well for best of a year. We were really playing some nice football as well this season, I don't see why we can't go again.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

If we hit any form at all we have a very good chance, given the points and games in hand. 

[BoSelecta]

3 hours ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Does that make sense? Isn't xG based on how good the chance is? 

 

How likely we are to score an individual chance is one thing, but in the abstract they will still count for a number of xG like they do for every team. 

xG doesn’t account for the player on the end of the chance or the quality of the finish. It’s based entirely on the area of the pitch the chance is taken from. So a shot from joelinton which goes over the bar produces exactly the same xG as one from Haaland which goes in the back of the net (taken from the same position on the field).

 

The point I was speculating on was that we’re accumulating a lot of xG from set piece crosses which are falling to burn, schar etc with (seemingly) very little chance of actually being scored. This was being masked earlier in the season by Miggy scoring from extremely low xG positions resulting in some parity between our xG and actual goals scored.

 

Now that we aren’t scoring as many worldies it results in a relatively small reduction in our xG but has a significant impact on our actual goals scored. This has lead to a narrative along the lines of ‘we’re still creating chances, the goals will return’. 
 

The eye test does confirm this feeling; our xG is flattering to deceive at the minute. 

[samptime29]

Feel as though we absolutely have to win the Wolves and Forest games if we want top 4.

[TRon]

One of the issues is that many of our forwards don't strike the ball particularly well. Joelinton (although not sure he's still classed as a forward), Almiron and Willock are all pretty tame in the shooting department. ASM is better, but doesn't usually get his shot off quick enough. This is where a James Maddison type of signing would see a massive improvement in xG.

[Guest]

Having Spurs and Brighton at home is huge. Tbh we shouldn't be giving up on Man Utd just yet. 8 points with a game in hand and they have to come here. It's in our control to be within 2 points. Might not feel like it but we've got it in us to have a second wind, a run like the end of last season or pre-World Cup this season and we're back in it.

[SteV]

Brighton’s fixture congestion starting to look pretty bad now.

[Armchair Pundit]

I don't know why, but I've got a feeling we're going to pick up again now that the cup's done. I honestly think it's been distracting the players.

[SAK]

Can be done but Howe needs to be ruthless now and make the changes. Isak for Wilson, drop Almiron and swap ASM to the right so he can use his pace and trickery to go on the outside & cross, Gordon for Almiron taking ASMs place on the left. Target for Burn.

 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by SAK

[Lush Vlad]

Howe has almost always played with inverted wingers this season, hasn’t he? I just don’t think he’ll go with that. 
 

No way he plays ASM with Trippier on the right, either. 

[WilliamPS]

Also is Isak a player to lob crosses at? He will want through balls. 

[The Prophet]

Some interesting snippets confirming what we all thought...

 

"Since the top flight’s post-Qatar return, however, no side has been as wasteful in front of goal. Across eight games, Newcastle have scored only six times, yet their xG has been 13.1, meaning a negative differential of 7.1.

 

Across the season, Newcastle’s goals-to-xG differential now stands at -3.09 (35 goals from an xG of 38.09), which is the seventh-worst in the top flight and the worst among the Premier League’s current top nine.

 

...

 

Although they are taking fractionally fewer shots per game (13.6 to 14.5) and efforts on target (4.5 to 5.3), Newcastle’s touches in the opposition box per match have remained steady (30.0 to 30.3).

 

What’s more, Newcastle’s xG per game has dropped by only 0.02 since the restart (1.64 from 1.66), showing that the quality of their opportunities has not greatly diminished. In fact, from the sixth-highest xG per game in the top flight post-Christmas (they had the fourth-highest pre-World Cup), they now have the seventh-worst goals-per-game return.

 

Newcastle are also missing a greater number of what Opta describes as “big chances”, up to 2.4 from 1.6. Their conversion rate of big chances has dropped to 24 per cent, from a pre-Christmas average of 36.8 per cent. That is the fifth-worst ratio in the Premier League and the lowest conversion rate among the top-nine sides.

 

...

 

With Almiron’s hit rate diminishing as expected, Newcastle have needed alternative scorers to start finding the back of the net regularly. But nobody has stepped up, with Wilson in particular proving uncharacteristically ineffective in front of goal.

 

...

 

While Wilson’s goals per 90 has dropped from 0.68 to 0.24 either side of the World Cup, his xG per 90 value has not fallen as sharply (from 0.70 to 0.53). In fact, Wilson has been taking more shots per 90 (3.67, up from 3.17), has had more shots on target per 90 (1.96, from 1.25) and has had a greater number of touches in the opposition box per 90 (7.58, from 5.55).

 

Pre-World Cup in 2022-23, Wilson’s goalscoring was pretty much aligned with his xG, with both rising until the domestic campaign’s pause.

 

Since the restart, Newcastle’s No 9 has still been provided with good-quality chances by his team-mates, though he has failed to finish them at his previous rate, shown by the sharp drop towards the end of the graph, something which happens to strikers as they go through troughs in form. From 15 post-World Cup shots, including seven against Fulham in January, Wilson has generated an xG of 2.1 and has scored only once. Although that is not disastrous by general standards, it is noticeably below the previous levels he has reached for Newcastle.

 

...

 

Isak’s attacking statistics for Newcastle so far and, although it is too small a sample size to be able to draw definitive conclusions from, his goals per 90 (0.46) and xG per 90 (0.63) have exceeded Wilson’s since the World Cup, despite him taking fewer shots per 90 (2.32) and having had fewer “big chances” per 90 (0.93).

 

....

 

Set-piece profligacy is also a frustration, with Newcastle underperforming their xG from dead-ball situations by 6.32. Newcastle have created 130 shots from set pieces at an xG of 12.32, the highest in the Premier League, yet they have scored only six goals. It would help if Fabian Schar (one goal from 3.03 xG), Dan Burn (zero goals from 1.06 xG) and Sven Botman (zero goals from 0.92 xG) started contributing from time to time, too."

[The Prophet]

Tl;dr - when it clicks, we're going to dish out some absolute hidings.

 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

Tl;dr - when it clicks, we're going to dish out some absolute hidings.

 

Not with an average of 1.6xg per game we aren’t. 

[The Prophet]

2 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Not with an average of 1.6xg per game we aren’t. 

 

Average is the key word though. There will be games where we overperform our xG.

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, The Prophet said:

 

Average is the key word though. There will be games where we overperform our xG.

Indeed, we lack the guile to give our hidings to teams sitting deep against us at present. We won’t finish top four this season but it will be an interesting summer. 
 

My totally unsolicited hot take is we will see one of Wilson, Bruno or ASM leave in the summer.