|
Post by milesfenton on Apr 3, 2024 8:29:04 GMT
Don’t really know (or particularly care about) the scientific basis to calculate xG but Flashscore has us at 0.46 v Wigan 1.53 ! Barnsley match has us at 0.27 v 1.28 ? So a combined 0.73 v 2.81, which as a tool to judge the quality of chances created (rather than a predictor of individual results) doesn't sound quite right for the chances we've created, but does sound about right for the chances the opposition made. Our chances/goals:- The OG doesn't regiser - The dissalowed goal doesn't register - Andrew's free kick would have a very low probability - Ahadme's first header is from a pretty unlikely position - I doubt that statistically many headers are scored from that far out with that many defenders between him and the goal (if that factors into this version of xG) - Ahadme's two on Monday were very nice finishes, but probably no better than 1-5ish chances each really. - However, that still leaves 11 other shots we took across the two matches. I don't think they've all been that low quality to have such a low figure overall (particularly some like Kaikai's). Opposition chances/goals:- The penalty will be 0.75-0.85ish, possibly closer to 0.95 if they combine it as a chance with the rebound (some would, some wouldn't) - The one on one they scored will be 0.40-0.50ish - The far post tap in Barnsley missed would be around 0.50ish again - Depending on whether or not the penalty rebound counted as an additional shot (they made contact but whiffed it so badly it might not count at all...) there were 24 or 25 other shots we conceded across the matches.
|
|
Wingco's Boy
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,109
Favourite CUFC player: Dion Dublin
Favourite CUFC match: Newcastle FAC 3rd round 2022
|
Post by Wingco's Boy on Apr 3, 2024 8:47:23 GMT
Don’t really know (or particularly care about) the scientific basis to calculate xG but Flashscore has us at 0.46 v Wigan 1.53 ! Barnsley match has us at 0.27 v 1.28 ? So a combined 0.73 v 2.81, which as a tool to judge the quality of chances created (rather than a predictor of individual results) doesn't sound quite right for the chances we've created, but does sound about right for the chances the opposition made. Our chances/goals:- The OG doesn't regiser - The dissalowed goal doesn't register - Andrew's free kick would have a very low probability - Ahadme's first header is from a pretty unlikely position - I doubt that statistically many headers are scored from that far out with that many defenders between him and the goal (if that factors into this version of xG) - Ahadme's two on Monday were very nice finishes, but probably no better than 1-5ish chances each really. - However, that still leaves 11 other shots we took across the two matches. I don't think they've all been that low quality to have such a low figure overall (particularly some like Kaikai's). Opposition chances/goals:- The penalty will be 0.75-0.85ish, possibly closer to 0.95 if they combine it as a chance with the rebound (some would, some wouldn't) - The one on one they scored will be 0.40-0.50ish - The far post tap in Barnsley missed would be around 0.50ish again - Depending on whether or not the penalty rebound counted as an additional shot (they made contact but whiffed it so badly it might not count at all...) there were 24 or 25 other shots we conceded across the matches. Let’s face it, xG isn’t an actual measurable event, like a corner, throw-in, or god forbid a goal, it involves a human being making a judgement as to the quality of the chance. Different analysts would judge chances differently. Which is why it’s such a waste of everyone’s time.
|
|
|
Post by saltyvinegar on Apr 3, 2024 9:40:40 GMT
xG isn't normally on my radar but it would definitely skew anyone's opinion on the 2 games who didn't watch them as even if I took off my Amber tinted specs, we were definitely not lucky to win both games
|
|
|
Post by milesfenton on Apr 3, 2024 9:41:17 GMT
So a combined 0.73 v 2.81, which as a tool to judge the quality of chances created (rather than a predictor of individual results) doesn't sound quite right for the chances we've created, but does sound about right for the chances the opposition made. Our chances/goals:- The OG doesn't regiser - The dissalowed goal doesn't register - Andrew's free kick would have a very low probability - Ahadme's first header is from a pretty unlikely position - I doubt that statistically many headers are scored from that far out with that many defenders between him and the goal (if that factors into this version of xG) - Ahadme's two on Monday were very nice finishes, but probably no better than 1-5ish chances each really. - However, that still leaves 11 other shots we took across the two matches. I don't think they've all been that low quality to have such a low figure overall (particularly some like Kaikai's). Opposition chances/goals:- The penalty will be 0.75-0.85ish, possibly closer to 0.95 if they combine it as a chance with the rebound (some would, some wouldn't) - The one on one they scored will be 0.40-0.50ish - The far post tap in Barnsley missed would be around 0.50ish again - Depending on whether or not the penalty rebound counted as an additional shot (they made contact but whiffed it so badly it might not count at all...) there were 24 or 25 other shots we conceded across the matches. Let’s face it, xG isn’t an actual measurable event, like a corner, throw-in, or god forbid a goal, it involves a human being making a judgement as to the quality of the chance. Different analysts would judge chances differently. Which is why it’s such a waste of everyone’s time. I wouldn't go as far as saying its a waste of time, but I think its not neccesarily that useful on a match-by-match basis. Over the course of a run of games or a whole season I think it can be interesting and help bridge the gap between more objective statistics and our own varying opinions. For example, Brophy's assists to Morrison and Ahadme both go down at the end of the day as equal. Over a longer term set of more subjective stats though, they'd show very different xA values.
|
|
|
Post by artvandelay on Apr 3, 2024 9:44:48 GMT
Let’s face it, xG isn’t an actual measurable event, like a corner, throw-in, or god forbid a goal, it involves a human being making a judgement as to the quality of the chance. Different analysts would judge chances differently. Which is why it’s such a waste of everyone’s time. I wouldn't go as far as saying its a waste of time, but I think its not neccesarily that useful on a match-by-match basis. Over the course of a run of games or a whole season I think it can be interesting and help bridge the gap between more objective statistics and our own varying opinions. For example, Brophy's assists to Morrison and Ahadme both go down at the end of the day as equal. Over a longer term set of more subjective stats though, they'd show very different xA values. It's absolute nonsense introduced to appeal to Americans who need to quantify every minor detail in sport because things like baseball and American Football are easily quantifiable. Personally, it's another one of the thousand cuts that makes the modern game so completely unbearable.
|
|
|
Post by undertheabbeystand on Apr 3, 2024 11:54:16 GMT
|
|
lionel
Reserve team substitute
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by lionel on Apr 3, 2024 16:39:42 GMT
When Garry Monk says ' We are having a two week training block': all teams should worry!
When Gassan says 'I'm fit': all teams should worry.
When Danny says 'I'm having that freekick': all teams should worry.
|
|
|
Post by funkymonk on Apr 3, 2024 17:48:16 GMT
When Tom Walker has gone to the bar: All teams should worry.
(Another grand episode lads!)
|
|