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

[PRL]

9 minutes ago, Sempiternal said:

I like Yoro, I think he will be really good in time. The rest of the squad is very poor though. 

Completely disagree on this (and realise I’m in the minority). Every time I’ve watched him I’ve thought he looks a liability and cannot believe he was tipped for Real Madrid. I know he’s young, was injured, new to league etc so I could very well be completely wrong, but look at the lad from City who (I think) is younger, played less games before his move, also from the French league and cost a lot less, and I would pick him every time (not just because we wanted to sign him too!)

 

edit - Khusanov actually 18 months older. But, born on 29th Feb, so on a technicality he’s younger as he’s only actually had 5 birthdays. 

 

 

Edited April 14 by PRL

[Skeletor]

There aren't many Man Yoo players I would take tbh. Mainoo obviously has those raw ingredients and Howe would turn him into a superstar I'm sure. Garnacho too if Big Joe was allowed to lump him one every time he behaved like a cunt. The rest are either past it now or just don't have it.

[Big Geordie]

Is it just me who thinks that XG is a steaming pile of shite?

[Kaizero]

8 minutes ago, Big Geordie said:

Is it just me who thinks that XG is a steaming pile of shite?

 

xG is the most useless "analytical" stat of all mainstream "analytical" stats. There are most certainly some stats that genuinely provide valuable insight and data, but none of those gets bandied about among your average supporter/pundit.

 

 

Posted this on the last page as well, but was pretty much at the end of the page so reposting it in case interested people didn't get a chance to look at it. 

[PRL]

3 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

xG is the most useless "analytical" stat of all mainstream "analytical" stats. There are most certainly some stats that genuinely provide valuable insight and data, but none of those gets bandied about among your average supporter/pundit.

 

 

Posted this on the last page as well, but was pretty much at the end of the page so reposting it in case interested people didn't get a chance to look at it. 

Had a watch. Interesting. I guess the bit that gets me is the big old list of things that have to be considered when deciding xG, then you have a decision being made I’m assuming manually to assign a random percentage based on all those stats, often within a matter of seconds of it occurring if BBC site updates are industry standard. 
 

I completely agree it’s a useful directional indicator for a match, but beyond that I don’t think there’s much real science to it at all. 

 

 

Edited April 14 by PRL

[Hovagod]

XG is always referred to as a stat, but what’s it actually based on? It’s stupid that Isak and, say, Burn are giving the same percentage chance of scoring from any one given position. Plus, you know, some goalkeepers are better than others. You can’t quantify a chance. I’m not violently opposed to it, I don’t think people that find it useful are virgins, but I fail to see much practical benefit to it. 

[gbandit]

38 minutes ago, Sempiternal said:

And Harry Amass will be quality, best full back I saw at u18 level. Really think he will turn out great 

Had a lovely moment going forward. His main issue was physicality as he got bullied off the ball several times but that’s to be expected at his age 

[Jimburst]

24 minutes ago, Hovagod said:

XG is always referred to as a stat, but what’s it actually based on? It’s stupid that Isak and, say, Burn are giving the same percentage chance of scoring from any one given position. Plus, you know, some goalkeepers are better than others. You can’t quantify a chance. I’m not violently opposed to it, I don’t think people that find it useful are virgins, but I fail to see much practical benefit to it. 

 

The stat is independent of those variables, meaning you have to take that into account. Good players outscore their XG, that's a sign of being a good player. Same idea for goalkeepers.

 

The practicalities are exactly that, I think. It's kinda like saying if every player in the league had x chance, how many times would it go in? Strikers outperform, defenders underperform. 

 

I think the weird thing about xG is that the numbers don't agree with our instincts, but really even the best strikers in the league (Isak, Haaland, Salah) miss presentable chances every single game. Even if that's 1 chance missed, 1 chance scored (which is probably what shit-hot Isak is doing atm), you can easily see how fairly easy looking chances can be 0.5 xG.

[Sempiternal]

25 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Had a lovely moment going forward. His main issue was physicality as he got bullied off the ball several times but that’s to be expected at his age 

Definitely. Once he adjusts and gets bigger/stronger he’s going to be great I think. I’d suggest buying him but we are fine for full backs. 

[Nucasol]

28 minutes ago, gbandit said:

Had a lovely moment going forward. His main issue was physicality as he got bullied off the ball several times but that’s to be expected at his age 

I think Wor Fabby pinched his nips at one point!

[Kaizero]

1 minute ago, Jimburst said:

 

The stat is independent of those variables, meaning you have to take that into account. Good players outscore their XG, that's a sign of being a good player. Same idea for goalkeepers.

 

The practicalities are exactly that, I think. It's kinda like saying if every player in the league had x chance, how many times would it go in? Strikers outperform, defenders underperform. 

 

I think the weird thing about xG is that the numbers don't agree with our instincts, but really even the best strikers in the league (Isak, Haaland, Salah) miss presentable chances every single game. Even if that's 1 chance missed, 1 chance scored (which is probably what shit-hot Isak is doing atm), you can easily see how fairly easy looking chances can be 0.5 xG.

 

xG are literally the definition of stats based on nothing but "vibes". The incomprehensible amount of various unique data points that would need to be calculated against a non-existent baseline makes xG meaningless. No professional club, scout, agent, data analyst or coach makes use of xG. There's a vast ocean of other analytical stats that actually mean something to use instead.

[Jimburst]

Is it not, "when a shot is taken from this position, how often is it scored?"

[PRL]

Just now, Jimburst said:

Is it not, "when a shot is taken from this position, how often is it scored?"

If you watch the video above, skip to the last minute, it tells you all the considerations supposedly used. Makes no sense and shows completely subjective and pretty much pointless beyond directional indicator.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I assumed it was calculated mathematically like, aye. I would guess all of the shots taken in the league versus how many scored and didn't?

 

I'll watch the video at some point. 

 

 

Edited April 14 by AyeDubbleYoo

[joeyt]

Seemed to be loads of slips yesterday, felt like the pitch had been watered too much

 

Murphy made a beeline for the groundsman at HT to tell him how wet it was

[Hanshithispantz]

3 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

 

xG are literally the definition of stats based on nothing but "vibes". The incomprehensible amount of various unique data points that would need to be calculated against a non-existent baseline makes xG meaningless. No professional club, scout, agent, data analyst or coach makes use of xG. There's a vast ocean of other analytical stats that actually mean something to use instead.

Do you think they put xG on MotD for scouts like? 

 

xG is a vaguely accurate marker that people can use alongside possession, SoT, shot map's etc to get a general gist of how a game went. 

[Froggy]

10 minutes ago, joeyt said:

Seemed to be loads of slips yesterday, felt like the pitch had been watered too much

 

Murphy made a beeline for the groundsman at HT to tell him how wet it was

 

You got a goal from it.

[Nucasol]

Me watching back how half arsed Eriksen was for the Barnes 2nd goal.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Not sure he was half arsed, he just can’t run. 

[Nucasol]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Not sure he was half arsed, he just can’t run. 

Either way, delectable.

[Dokko]

4 hours 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?

 

Well sell him for more than that in the summer to Saudi, and no one can say shit, that's his market value. 

[Cf]

1 hour ago, Kaizero said:

 

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:

 

 

 

That video doesn't make the conclusion you come up with at all.

 

Even with xG it says "it's far from perfect and hard to calculate compared to other sports".

 

The central premise that there are so many moving parts to football, and loads of permutations of how things will play out is a good one. But it doesn't follow that suddenly all stats are inherently flawed. Just that they're harder to usefully calculate and interpret. In other words you'll need some very skilled people to do so.

 

The thing I like about xG is it brings the concept of variance into the mainstream. People say it's a results based business but this is often taken too far.

 

"Eddie Howe got it spot on today and Newcastle move into the European spots"

 

"Eddie Howe got it totally wrong and Newcastle find themselves in the bottom half of the table"

 

Give us the ability to rewind time and replay a match and those are two perfectly normal headlines you'll see for the exact same setup. In one reality we converted that chance early on. In another we didn't and let the other team into the match.

 

Also apparently YouTube/The Algorithm/Me doesn't like Europe. Bit harsh on Salah too. In fact wtf is going on here 

 

[LionOfGosforth]

11 minutes ago, Nucasol said:

Me watching back how half arsed Eriksen was for the Barnes 2nd goal.

 

 

It was almost sad watching him. Been a great player in his career but trying to compete in there with our midfield 3 is a thankless task when you can barely run. There were times i'd see us up the pitch and idly think "where's their midfielders?" and then Eriksen would amble just into view, like a little old man trying to run with teenagers. 

[Big River]

30 minutes ago, joeyt said:

Seemed to be loads of slips yesterday, felt like the pitch had been watered too much

 

Murphy made a beeline for the groundsman at HT to tell him how wet it was

 

they were watering our right wing for almost all of half time. must have been something we had identified.

 

small margins. we operate on a totally different level these days. all down to the gaffer!

[Kaizero]

39 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Do you think they put xG on MotD for scouts like? 

 

xG is a vaguely accurate marker that people can use alongside possession, SoT, shot map's etc to get a general gist of how a game went. 

 

"Shots", "Shots on Goal", "Wide Shots" and "Saves" are much more relevant stats for a viewer to get a general gist of how a game went. "xG" is meaningless because it's based on nothing but general vibes and it is absolutely not "accurate", as the unimaginable number of unique variables involved that all would have to be calculated and compared with a non-existent "baseline" for an identical chance the xG is being calculated for that would serve as the basis for either a 0.0 xG or a 1.0 xG. Needless to say, those baselines do not exist – hence the number means absolutely nothing.

 

 

"This chance made me feel worried, 0.4?"

 

 

For the record, whilst I vehemently disapprove of "xG" as a metric symbolizing anything whatsoever – I am a massive supporter of analytical data in general. 

 

 

 

Edited April 14 by Kaizero