Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[gjohnson]

On 29/01/2025 at 15:53, BoSelecta said:

People slating xG as it doesn’t account for the player are missing the point. You can have elite finishers who will always outperform their xG (eg Son, historically) and shite kickers who fall below the statistical average (Calvert Lewin).

 

Comparing actual goals scored to xG gives you how good a finisher someone is (or how much of a hot streak they are on….Chris Wood). The more data the better, as always with stats. 

A pelanty is 0.7 or 0.8xg I 

I would like to see anyone who says xg means anything hung drawn and quartered.  It's like saying using last week's lottery numbers mean I will win this week. 

 

Useless shite the tv companies use to drive a conversion where there's nothing to be had

[TRon]

4 hours ago, BergenMagpie said:

Remember him barely getting a touch / crossing the halfway line as it was peak @Alan Pardew ball. Recall him missing a sitter or two, but the pressure was pretty heavy to take the one or two chances we got a game. Think even prime Messi would've struggled in that side

 

Felt like the Jon Dahl Tomasson signing under Dalglish. Right player, wrong time and manager.

[BoSelecta]

19 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

I would like to see anyone who says xg means anything hung drawn and quartered.  It's like saying using last week's lottery numbers mean I will win this week. 

 

Useless shite the tv companies use to drive a conversion where there's nothing to be had

Horses for courses. I find it interesting, maybe because I’m an FPL nerd.

[madras]

22 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

I would like to see anyone who says xg means anything hung drawn and quartered.  It's like saying using last week's lottery numbers mean I will win this week. 

 

Useless shite the tv companies use to drive a conversion where there's nothing to be had

It's not like that at all, it just gives you a description of a game that's been played in stat form.

 

Like I've said many times before, we've all had those conversations "how did we lose that when we had etc etc" all xG does is put it in stat form. It can be handy for games you didn't see.

[gjohnson]

3 minutes ago, madras said:

It's not like that at all, it just gives you a description of a game that's been played in stat form.

 

Like I've said many times before, we've all had those conversations "how did we lose that when we had etc etc" all xG does is put it in stat form. It can be handy for games you didn't see.

You are perfectly describing my point...but xg is just a fancy way of showing "shots on target vs total shots". Unneeded, unnecessary and worthless

[madras]

Just now, gjohnson said:

You are perfectly describing my point...but xg is just a fancy way of showing "shots on target vs total shots". Unneeded, unnecessary and worthless

No because a shot from 3yds out with no keeper rates higher than a 30yd dribbler that the keeper throws his hat on.

[Pata]

44 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

It's like saying using last week's lottery numbers mean I will win this week. 

 

It's not though.

[gjohnson]

38 minutes ago, madras said:

No because a shot from 3yds out with no keeper rates higher than a 30yd dribbler that the keeper throws his hat on.

Exactly my point about Luuk de Jong earlier....he could miss an open goal from 2 yards out....gets an xg of 1. Still no goal...pointless stat...

 

Robert hits a 45 yard screamer....hits the bar goes over xg 0.001. Still no goal irrelevant.

 

Robert repeats same trick vs spurs (who else) scores...xg 0.001, goal 

 

Perez miss kicks in midfield, it bounces of Diames heel...goal. xg -20. Goal. Counts.

 

Andersson...open goal, no defender, no gk, xg 1. Trips over a slightly long blade of grass.

 

[High Five o]

As with statistics in general, best viewed with large datasets.

 

Abnormalities as described above happens, but in many cases equals each other over an time period.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by High Five o

[madras]

24 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

Exactly my point about Luuk de Jong earlier....he could miss an open goal from 2 yards out....gets an xg of 1. Still no goal...pointless stat...

 

Robert hits a 45 yard screamer....hits the bar goes over xg 0.001. Still no goal irrelevant.

 

Robert repeats same trick vs spurs (who else) scores...xg 0.001, goal 

 

Perez miss kicks in midfield, it bounces of Diames heel...goal. xg -20. Goal. Counts.

 

Andersson...open goal, no defender, no gk, xg 1. Trips over a slightly long blade of grass.

 

So you don't watch games and think "they were all over them and still got beat, they created loads of great  chances against one half chance" ?

 

If you hadn't watched our game V PSG away you'd think 1-1, quite even where as they had the majority of the play and created loads of good  chances which was reflected in the xG

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by madras

[gjohnson]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

So you don't watch games and think "they were all over them and still got beat, they created loads of great  chances against one half chance" ?

 

If you hadn't watched he'd our game V PSG away you'd think 1-1, quite even where as they had the majority of the play and created loads of good  chances.

I watch plenty of games where we batter teams with shots and still end up losing. Xg doesn't change it.

 

When we get points for xG then I might pay attention

[madras]

42 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

I watch plenty of games where we batter teams with shots and still end up losing. Xg doesn't change it.

 

When we get points for xG then I might pay attention

Do you not think at times " we were lucky there, got to play better than that in future". You see, I get nervous when we win playing shit because you can rarely keep it up, where as if you play well consistently, creating good chances the wins tend to come.

 

It's just a guide for me, a one that you don't need because you've never said " we were lucky there" or "we were robbed".

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by madras

[BergenMagpie]

22 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

I watch plenty of games where we batter teams with shots and still end up losing. Xg doesn't change it.

 

When we get points for xG then I might pay attention

I agree its sometimes scuffed, but as long as its standardised its pretty helpful.

You can look up the stats of a game where a team lost while having 65% possession and 25 shots with 15 on target and think its crazy that they lost, but then they might've just passed the ball along Swansealona style and taken loads of long range shots straight at the keeper. xG gives a better indication when complimented with the other stats

[bowlingcrofty]

32 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

I watch plenty of games where we batter teams with shots and still end up losing. Xg doesn't change it.

 

When we get points for xG then I might pay attention

Nor is it supposed to change it..it's supposed to explain it with statistics 

Why are you so angry against a statistic that just helps to paint a picture? 

[Pata]

9 minutes ago, BergenMagpie said:

I agree its sometimes scuffed, but as long as its standardised its pretty helpful.

You can look up the stats of a game where a team lost while having 65% possession and 25 shots with 15 on target and think its crazy that they lost, but then they might've just passed the ball along Swansealona style and taken loads of long range shots straight at the keeper. xG gives a better indication when complimented with the other stats

 

Spurs at SJP this season was a good example of this, loads of possession and shots but never really troubled us. You look at those stats and think we were battered all game but xG ended up being pretty even and showing a much better picture of the match than 'traditional' stats.

 

Works the other way too, Arsenal away at Carabao I felt we were quite comfortable defending but their xG was around 3.50 iirc. Was shocked that it was so high after the match. It's not perfect but when I want to have an idea about a match I didn't watch, I always check the xG first.

[Hudson]

Is xG part of PSR now and how does it effect us 🤔 

[The College Dropout]

1 hour ago, Pata said:

 

Spurs at SJP this season was a good example of this, loads of possession and shots but never really troubled us. You look at those stats and think we were battered all game but xG ended up being pretty even and showing a much better picture of the match than 'traditional' stats.

 

Works the other way too, Arsenal away at Carabao I felt we were quite comfortable defending but their xG was around 3.50 iirc. Was shocked that it was so high after the match. It's not perfect but when I want to have an idea about a match I didn't watch, I always check the xG first.

Havertz missed a sitter. Missed a 1v1.  Timber chance was decent too.  
 

A lot of that xg would be low quality shots but they had 2-3 big chances. 

[Turnbull2000]

Reading Aston Villa are set to pocket £70m through this new CL format? Fuck me, that could give them a massive PRS advantage over us over the new few seasons.

[PauloGeordio]

16 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

Reading Aston Villa are set to pocket £70m through this new CL format? Fuck me, that could give them a massive PRS advantage over us over the new few seasons.

More reason for us to qualify and kick on.

[Ben]

2 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

More reason for us to qualify and kick on.

 

Weakening the squad probably not the best move then.

[alexf]

Does anyone feel like it's inevitable that we need to sell one of they core players for a minimum £70m+ in order to try and start building again? 

 

I don't see any other solutions at the moment. The  squad was already getting stale and it was only the return of Tonali that has helped boost it this season but there's very little beneath the first 11. 

 

It doesn't seem like we are able to sell the deadwood for sufficient funds to be able to kick on, in the same way other clubs are able to do. 

 

Seems like we're pinning everything on getting top 5 this year but it's gonna be a tall ask with so many teams competing for it. 

[PauloGeordio]

15 minutes ago, Ben said:

 

Weakening the squad probably not the best move then.

Miggy that's barely played for us lately? Giving us incoming funds, money off the wage bill and more money to spend in the summer when the market is more favourable to deal in (and hopefully in Europe/Champions league) where we'll be able to attract better stock. It's all ifs and buts, but IF it goes like that we're in a good place. Lets see what comes.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by PauloGeordio

[Rod]

3 minutes ago, alexf said:

Does anyone feel like it's inevitable that we need to sell one of they core players for a minimum £70m+ in order to try and start building again? 

 

I don't see any other solutions at the moment. The  squad was already getting stale and it was only the return of Tonali that has helped boost it this season but there's very little beneath the first 11. 

 

It doesn't seem like we are able to sell the deadwood for sufficient funds to be able to kick on, in the same way other clubs are able to do. 

 

Seems like we're pinning everything on getting top 5 this year but it's gonna be a tall ask with so many teams competing for it. 

I honestly believe that no player is leaving Newcastle unless the management team say otherwise.  What I mean is there is no chance of a "big hitter" leaving.  We are building a formidable side.  No one of importance is leaving.

[alexf]

18 minutes ago, Rod said:

I honestly believe that no player is leaving Newcastle unless the management team say otherwise.  What I mean is there is no chance of a "big hitter" leaving.  We are building a formidable side.  No one of importance is leaving.

No I can see that...the strategy so far has been not to cash in on any of our real assets. But is this method working? 

 

You say we are building a formidable side but most of that building was done awhile ago. We have been needing a new RW, RCB and replacement for Wilson for a while now but from the sounds of it we aren't able to do that and I even have doubts if we can get all that done in the summer with the funds it would take to get players better than what we have. 

 

Without top 5 this season we are going to be vulnerable to the cartel flying around like vultures for our star players. Likewise if we get champions league, we aren't going to have the funds or the wages to revenue space to flesh out the squad necessary to avoid another season like last year. 

 

Sorry I think my general bleak outlook to life at the mo is filtering over into my pessimism about PSR and how frustrating it is, knowing this squad is only a few key players from doing something special. 

[Rod]

7 minutes ago, alexf said:

No I can see that...the strategy so far has been not to cash in on any of our real assets. But is this method working? 

 

You say we are building a formidable side but most of that building was done awhile ago. We have been needing a new RW, RCB and replacement for Wilson for a while now but from the sounds of it we aren't able to do that and I even have doubts if we can get all that done in the summer with the funds it would take to get players better than what we have. 

 

Without top 5 this season we are going to be vulnerable to the cartel flying around like vultures for our star players. Likewise if we get champions league, we aren't going to have the funds or the wages to revenue space to flesh out the squad necessary to avoid another season like last year. 

 

Sorry I think my general bleak outlook to life at the mo is filtering over into my pessimism about PSR and how frustrating it is, knowing this squad is only a few key players from doing something special. 

We are 4th/5th top with this group of players at the moment so we are not exactly desperate.  We are doing better than ok.  Yes we need reinforcements to compete with the best but we are gradually getting there.  We are in a good place!