Newcastle United 4-1 Manchester United - 13/04/2025

[ponsaelius]

32 minutes ago, SteV said:

Hugely debatable, and we’ve sold him for 20 big ones.

 

Whereas you’ll be getting sweet FA for Eriksen.

 

I think the fact we've managed to sell Kelly makes clear the rumoured wages are bollocks tbh.

[JP]

1 minute ago, Froggy said:

 

What about the 30 year old, third choice keeper that cost £20m and is on £50k a week? Just a PSR write off?

 

Yes. Well known this is a mutual agreement with Forest to loophole PSR with the Anderson deal.

 

A Man United fan cannot be coming at us for recruitment policies/contract structure 

 

I'd argue we're top 3 in the league for both the above since the takeover.

[Froggy]

3 minutes ago, JP said:

Yes. Well known this is a mutual agreement with Forest to loophole PSR with the Anderson deal.

 

A Man United fan cannot be coming at us for recruitment policies/contract structure 

 

I'd argue we're top 3 in the league for both the above since the takeover.

 

Corruption.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

Corruption.

That will be what got Masters appointed or what saved you from your FFP breach. 

[PRL]

Two random, completely pointless and unrelated bugbears relating to yesterday. 
 

Firstly, I was on this thread whining about the atmosphere having been at our last few games against the Mancs and the atmosphere being great each time. Then hearing from those who attended and watching the highlights with the radio newcastle commentary, it’s clear there’s a concerted effort to mute the stadium noise by Sky. Why is this? Exactly the same with the cup final and I can only assume most other games. I need to stop judging the crowd based on the telly coverage as its bollocks. Ashamed it’s taken me this long to fully twig. 
 

Secondly, xG is such a load of nonsense. Never been a fan, but just looking at yesterday and seeing us having below 2 and just above 2 with those posted on here - how can that be? Surely Barnes first goal was as close to 1 as you can get? Bruno must have been 0.6/0.7 at least and while Barnes second was a great finish, it belies the fact that more often than not you expect the ball to go in from there when he’s clean through on goal. Add in the Isak chance saved from six yards, Tonali’s goal and a few long range close calls (Murphy, Tonali) and any that I’ve forgotten, the idea we should have expected 2 goals in that game is a nonsense. 

[midds]

Tonali goal was 0.2

Garnacho was 0.1

Barnes 1 was 0.54

Bruno was 0.46

Barnes 2 was 0.25

[r0cafella]

When it comes to XG the thing to actually think about is XG per chance as midds has nicely displayed above. 

[PRL]

1 minute ago, midds said:

Tonali goal was 0.2

Garnacho was 0.1

Barnes 1 was 0.54

Bruno was 0.46

Barnes 2 was 0.25

How does that work? Isn’t it based on where the shot is taken rather than any of the build up? How can a basically open goal from 3 yards be 0.54? 

[midds]

1 minute ago, PRL said:

How does that work? Isn’t it based on where the shot is taken rather than any of the build up? How can a basically open goal from 3 yards be 0.54? 

Honestly not sure of the mechanics of when the 'shot/chance' is measured? Could be factoring in Barnes may not have reached the cut-back from Murphy maybe? On the face of it the shot was from a yard out and virtually impossible to miss

 

It's an imperfect system tbh, it just helps to tell the story of the match

[PRL]

1 minute ago, midds said:

Honestly not sure of the mechanics of when the 'shot/chance' is measured? Could be factoring in Barnes may not have reached the cut-back from Murphy maybe? On the face of it the shot was from a yard out and virtually impossible to miss

 

It's an imperfect system tbh, it just helps to tell the story of the match

Fair. I think it’s because they always show the dot and then apply the percentage so I’ve always assumed it’s based on the pure chance and whether it should be scored. I score this 9 times out of 10, let alone Barnes!

[jack j]

Sure there is an XG league table somewhere. If there is where are we in it?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

6 minutes ago, PRL said:

Fair. I think it’s because they always show the dot and then apply the percentage so I’ve always assumed it’s based on the pure chance and whether it should be scored. I score this 9 times out of 10, let alone Barnes!

I don’t know how it works but I assume it doesn’t factor in where the GK and defenders are. Like, you could have a chance on that same spot and have a keeper in front of you and defenders trying to block it. Dunno. 

[KingArthur]

5 minutes ago, jack j said:

Sure there is an XG league table somewhere. If there is where are we in it?

Understat has some sort of

 

https://understat.com/league/EPL

[Checko]

There were a couple of players on the line so that probably reduced Barnes' xG a bit. Also I think it's easy to overestimate how easy it is to score chances. Even the best players miss a lot of decent chances.

 

xG is useful in that is says roughly how many goals would have likely been scored from the shots taken. But that's still only limited information. That doesn't by itself say which team was better or deserved to win.

 

eg. You could get a lot of xG from a terrible backpass and a dumb penalty. Doesn't mean you played well to get that xG

You could dominate and have a ton of crosses just miss their man at the far post by an inch and get no xG for it.

 

I think xG's often most useful as a long-term trend where things will average out a bit. I think it's also very good for showing which players are clinical finishers or not, particularly over a long period of time. If you see a player who is consistently outperfomring their xG over multiple seasons then you can be pretty confident they're a good finisher. If they're massively underperforming year after year then they're probably Darwin Nunez of DCL.

 

xG can gives you some information, but adding other stats like shots, shots on target, big chances, touches in opponents box etc. will give a much more rounded view of the game and who deserved to win.

[Skeletor]

2 hours ago, David Edgar said:

 

Oh woe is them. This shouldn't be a big news story. The on-form team in the country who are currently 4th in the table battering a bottom-half side? It's just another day in the Prem.

 

If anything, the main focus should be on the race for the Champions League. Not about those teams battling to finish 13th.

 

 

 

 

Suffering is part of being a real football fan. Welcome to the world glory hunters.

[jack j]

1 minute ago, KingArthur said:

Understat has some sort of

 

https://understat.com/league/EPL

Does that mean we should be 6th and barely above 8th?

[NG32]

1 hour ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Even in the first half we could've scored 3 or 4. 

Absolutely, I think if it was a pressure game against another top 7 side we would have been more clinical...The fact Man Utd were so open it looked like our players knew another chance was always round the corner. 

[TRon]

54 minutes ago, PRL said:

Two random, completely pointless and unrelated bugbears relating to yesterday. 
 

Firstly, I was on this thread whining about the atmosphere having been at our last few games against the Mancs and the atmosphere being great each time. Then hearing from those who attended and watching the highlights with the radio newcastle commentary, it’s clear there’s a concerted effort to mute the stadium noise by Sky. Why is this? Exactly the same with the cup final and I can only assume most other games. I need to stop judging the crowd based on the telly coverage as its bollocks. Ashamed it’s taken me this long to fully twig. 
 

Secondly, xG is such a load of nonsense. Never been a fan, but just looking at yesterday and seeing us having below 2 and just above 2 with those posted on here - how can that be? Surely Barnes first goal was as close to 1 as you can get? Bruno must have been 0.6/0.7 at least and while Barnes second was a great finish, it belies the fact that more often than not you expect the ball to go in from there when he’s clean through on goal. Add in the Isak chance saved from six yards, Tonali’s goal and a few long range close calls (Murphy, Tonali) and any that I’ve forgotten, the idea we should have expected 2 goals in that game is a nonsense. 

 

Muting the stadium noise is these corporations shooting themselves in the foot. It's the atmosphere that sells the PL, not the commentators wanking each other off in the commentary box. I'm sure there must be a happy medium where the crowd noise comes through loud and clear, but you can still hear what the commentator is saying (assuming you want to).

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Froggy said:

 

What about the 30 year old, third choice keeper that cost £20m and is on £50k a week? Just a PSR write off?

Literally that yeah.  Offset by the Anderson sale the other way. Slim pickings trying trying to find a Howe signing that was a dud, so I understand the difficult position you're in. 

[gbandit]

2 hours ago, SUPERTOON said:

 

That’s hilarious man, their keeper had several near misses before this one as well. Gordon and Isak almost caught him at different points 

[gbandit]

56 minutes ago, jack j said:

Sure there is an XG league table somewhere. If there is where are we in it?

@bobbydazzla keeps track I think 

[bobbydazzla]

4 minutes ago, gbandit said:

@bobbydazzla keeps track I think 

[Kaizero]

1 hour ago, Checko said:

There were a couple of players on the line so that probably reduced Barnes' xG a bit. Also I think it's easy to overestimate how easy it is to score chances. Even the best players miss a lot of decent chances.

 

xG is useful in that is says roughly how many goals would have likely been scored from the shots taken. But that's still only limited information. That doesn't by itself say which team was better or deserved to win.

 

eg. You could get a lot of xG from a terrible backpass and a dumb penalty. Doesn't mean you played well to get that xG

You could dominate and have a ton of crosses just miss their man at the far post by an inch and get no xG for it.

 

I think xG's often most useful as a long-term trend where things will average out a bit. I think it's also very good for showing which players are clinical finishers or not, particularly over a long period of time. If you see a player who is consistently outperfomring their xG over multiple seasons then you can be pretty confident they're a good finisher. If they're massively underperforming year after year then they're probably Darwin Nunez of DCL.

 

xG can gives you some information, but adding other stats like shots, shots on target, big chances, touches in opponents box etc. will give a much more rounded view of the game and who deserved to win.

 

xG is inherently flawed, as is all means of statistical analysis of football in general. If you, or anyone else, is interested in learning more about why that is, I've uploaded a Tifo video that explains it in much greater detail (and more understandably) than I could dream of doing:

 

 

[pedro111]

1 hour ago, PRL said:

Two random, completely pointless and unrelated bugbears relating to yesterday. 
 

Firstly, I was on this thread whining about the atmosphere having been at our last few games against the Mancs and the atmosphere being great each time. Then hearing from those who attended and watching the highlights with the radio newcastle commentary, it’s clear there’s a concerted effort to mute the stadium noise by Sky. Why is this? Exactly the same with the cup final and I can only assume most other games. I need to stop judging the crowd based on the telly coverage as its bollocks. Ashamed it’s taken me this long to fully twig. 

 

Exactly what I thought. I watched it on TV and the atmosphere seemed terrible. I'm thinking we are battering them and the place just seemed dead. I couldn't believe it with 10 mins to go all you could hear was a few hundred away fans chanting away. It's like they went and stuck their microphones right next to their support. Same at Wembley, it's crazy that's why I was surprised when people said the atmosphere was great! There's something fishy gan on, like.

 

On a related note isn't it crazy to see the great man united support reduced to playing the plucky loser role we know so well as Newcastle fans? It's mental.

 

 

Edited Monday at 11:42 by pedro111

[Froggy]

39 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Literally that yeah.  Offset by the Anderson sale the other way. Slim pickings trying trying to find a Howe signing that was a dud, so I understand the difficult position you're in. 

 

Your board does a good job of moving players on before they become duds, that's for sure. We just give them a new contract.