Manchester City 4-0 Newcastle United - 15/02/2025

[nufc123]

22 minutes ago, The Butcher said:

The last NUFC player to score at the Etihad in the league. Think I read it somewhere. Might be wrong.

Its insane  

[JT24]

How today felt. 

[Pixelphish]

10 hours ago, leffe186 said:

Hi 

 

Ok fair point, mate.

 

[David Edgar]

Scoring 4 from 7 shots on target (worth about 2xg) is not normal. 

 

Pope back next game please x

[bobbydazzla]

No offence intended like, but can I just point out that xG is a load of codswallop 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 08:54 by bobbydazzla

[Wilson]

Wew little early to be dropping C-bombs mate

[Dr.Spaceman]

2 hours ago, bobbydazzla said:

No offence intended like, but can I just point out that xG is a load of codswallop 

 

 

 

 

Wrong. What do you think it means?

[HaydnNUFC]

It’s for hipsters and stat nonces but xG is a decent metric to use tbf. If your xG is high but the results in games don’t reflect it, it suggests that you create but miss loads of chances and your striker is shit. Vice versa.

 

If across a season you’re losing games on xG but you’re winning games you’re either quite lucky and/or are an incredibly defensive side with a clinical striker. I imagine under Stephen Roger we were losing on xG every week. Suggests that, as was proven, we were fucking shit.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 11:57 by HaydnNUFC

[bobbydazzla]

34 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

 

Wrong. What do you think it means?

It means nowt 

 

For 100+ years people have watched a football game and said “we’re creating many / not many chances and we’re converting / not converting those chances into goals”

 

But now the Lawrence Logic stat nonces have decided to call that basic observation xG and think it’s some revolutionary scientific revelation 

 

It’s just unnecessary bollocks and the sort of nerdy borefest that’s ruining football as an entertaining sport 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:05 by bobbydazzla

[nufc123]

Just now, bobbydazzla said:

It means nowt 

It means something. If you have a high xg number you have created many chances. If its low you have created little.

[bowlingcrofty]

7 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

It means nowt 

 

For 100+ years people have watched a football game and said “we’re creating many / not many chances and we’re converting / not converting those chances into goals”

 

But now the Lawrence Logic stat nonces have decided to call that basic observation xG and think it’s some revolutionary scientific revelation 

 

It’s just unnecessary bollocks and the sort of nerdy borefest that’s ruining football as an entertaining sport 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a statistic that backs up what you saw with numbers.

Does shots, shots on target or possession also piss you off? 

[bobbydazzla]

1 minute ago, nufc123 said:

It means something. If you have a high xg number you have created many chances. If its low you have created little.

I know that man, I’m not daft

 

It means nowt because it’s just some stat noncery thrown around by nerds

 

I could create a stat that showed me how tight Bruno tied his boot laces before each game, it will produce a measurable metric but it’s dull as fuck and just stats for stats sake

 

Here’s all the xG you need:

 

Did we create chances ? Yes / no

Did we turn those chances into goals ? Yes / no

 

[madras]

3 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

I know that man, I’m not daft

 

It means nowt because it’s just some stat noncery thrown around by nerds

 

I could create a stat that showed me how tight Bruno tied his boot laces before each game, it will produce a measurable metric but it’s dull as fuck and just stats for stats sake

 

Here’s all the xG you need:

 

Did we create chances ? Yes / no

Did we turn those chances into goals ? Yes / no

 

And there's no difference between the clearness of those chances or the amount ?

[nufc123]

1 minute ago, bobbydazzla said:

I know that man, I’m not daft

Well you said it doesnt mean anything, it does.

[bobbydazzla]

1 minute ago, bowlingcrofty said:

It's a statistic that backs up what you saw with numbers.

Does shots, shots on target or possession also piss you off? 

Did we take a shot ? Yes / no

Did the shot go on target ? Yes / no

Have we had a lot of the ball ? Yes / no

 

None of those is even in the same league as the xG gubbins 

[madras]

Just now, bobbydazzla said:

Did we take a shot ? Yes / no

Did the shot go on target ? Yes / no

Have we had a lot of the ball ? Yes / no

 

None of those is even in the same league as the xG gubbins 

Was the shot an open goal from two yards or from 20yds through a crowded goal mouth ?

[bobbydazzla]

4 minutes ago, madras said:

And there's no difference between the clearness of those chances or the amount ?

What is “clearness of chances” ? It’s just more nonsense 

 

Being 20 yards out and lining up a thunderbastard is a clear chance for Schar, being in front of an open goal with the ball on his right peg is not a clear chance for Miggy 

 

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:20 by bobbydazzla

[madras]

2 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

What is “clearness of chances” ? It’s just more nonsense 

 

Being 20 yards out and lining up a thunderbastard is a clear chance for Schar, being in front of an open goal with the ball on his right peg is not a clear chance for Miggy 

 

 

It's not and that's why Miggy scored more. But as you say, you've never came out from a match and said "fuck me we were lucky there, they had 4or 5 great chances and we squeaked a half chance"

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:22 by madras

[El Prontonise]

Go on @bobbydazzla.  Sick of hearing about xG, prefer to judge games by watching them.

[madras]

Just now, El Prontonise said:

Go on @bobbydazzla.  Sick of hearing about xG, prefer to judge games by watching them.

What about games you don't watch. What I see always takes precedence but xG is a decent guide for games I don't see.

[bobbydazzla]

4 minutes ago, madras said:

It's not and that's why Miggy scored more. But as you say, you've never came out from a match and said "fuck me we were lucky there, they had 4or 5 great chances and we squeaked a half chance"

 

 

 

I’ve come out of a match and said that hundreds of times 

 

I’ve never, ever, ever come out of a match and said “our xG was blah blah blah”

[Lush Vlad]

People who don’t understand xG properly. Getting so bent out of shape about it all will never not be funny  Roy Keane and Souness types all over the gaff. 

 

It’s not the be all and end all and I think some context is required. But it is a good metric to use. Especially to try and back up any argument about team’s being lucky or unlucky in a game. Or whether a team is over-achieving and in a false position off a run of form. Things like that. 
 

There’s a reason why pro teams all use stats like this and advanced analytics.
 

Whether it is boring or not is a different argument entirely…….

[bobbydazzla]

I’m going to create a new statistical system that tells me how many people who quote xG have ever been successful in tapping lasses

 

[bobbydazzla]

3 minutes ago, Lush Vlad said:

People who don’t understand xG properly. Getting so bent out of shape about it all will never not be funny  Roy Keane and Souness types all over the gaff. 

 

It’s not the be all and end all and I think some context is required. But it is a good metric to use. Especially to try and back up any argument about team’s being lucky or unlucky in a game. Or whether a team is over-achieving and in a false position off a run of form. Things like that. 
 

There’s a reason why pro teams all use stats like this and advanced analytics.
 

Whether it is boring or not is a different argument entirely…….

For clarity, I understand xG.
 

I just think it’s stat noncery gone daft and there’s no need for Joe Public football fans to be spaffing on about it 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:34 by bobbydazzla

[Dr.Spaceman]

I think we've found the hardest poster on N-O here