gbandit Posted Monday at 11:57 Share Posted Monday at 11:57 Atmosphere was quality second half, was ok first half but tailed off a bit at times Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sempiternal Posted Monday at 11:57 Share Posted Monday at 11:57 I like Yoro, I think he will be really good in time. The rest of the squad is very poor though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted Monday at 11:58 Share Posted Monday at 11:58 Just now, Froggy said:  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. I mean, until recently (or currently) we still had / have Jamal Lewis, Isaac Hayden, Jeff Hendrick and others on the books, so it’s definitely a more recent phenomenon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sempiternal Posted Monday at 11:58 Share Posted Monday at 11:58 And Harry Amass will be quality, best full back I saw at u18 level. Really think he will turn out great Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted Monday at 12:00 Share Posted Monday at 12:00 (edited) 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 Monday at 12:07 by PRL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skeletor Posted Monday at 12:03 Share Posted Monday at 12:03 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Geordie Posted Monday at 12:09 Share Posted Monday at 12:09 Is it just me who thinks that XG is a steaming pile of shite? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted Monday at 12:20 Share Posted Monday at 12:20 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted Monday at 12:23 Share Posted Monday at 12:23 (edited) 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 Monday at 12:24 by PRL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hovagod Posted Monday at 12:31 Share Posted Monday at 12:31 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbandit Posted Monday at 12:37 Share Posted Monday at 12:37 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimburst Posted Monday at 13:03 Share Posted Monday at 13:03 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sempiternal Posted Monday at 13:04 Share Posted Monday at 13:04 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Monday at 13:06 Share Posted Monday at 13:06 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! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaizero Posted Monday at 13:09 Share Posted Monday at 13:09 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimburst Posted Monday at 13:11 Share Posted Monday at 13:11 Is it not, "when a shot is taken from this position, how often is it scored?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PRL Posted Monday at 13:12 Share Posted Monday at 13:12 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted Monday at 13:13 Share Posted Monday at 13:13 (edited) 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 Monday at 13:13 by AyeDubbleYoo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeyt Posted Monday at 13:14 Share Posted Monday at 13:14 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted Monday at 13:15 Share Posted Monday at 13:15 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froggy Posted Monday at 13:24 Share Posted Monday at 13:24 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Monday at 13:30 Share Posted Monday at 13:30 Me watching back how half arsed Eriksen was for the Barnes 2nd goal. Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted Monday at 13:36 Share Posted Monday at 13:36 Not sure he was half arsed, he just can’t run. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucasol Posted Monday at 13:38 Share Posted Monday at 13:38 1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said: Not sure he was half arsed, he just can’t run. Either way, delectable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted Monday at 13:39 Share Posted Monday at 13:39 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now