JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
Yes indeed.
It's great for the boot to be on the other foot
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
*** OMT: Tottenham Hotspur vs Leicester City ***
- Thread starter bjholmem
- Start date
It's great for the boot to be on the other foot
parklane1
Tony Galvin
StephenH
David Ginola
JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
Dammit!!!!
JerusalemMan
Chris Perry
And saying second in a two horse race is maybe tipping too far into parody.
But I commend your effort and acknowledge there must be strain in attempting to don that particular mask for very long.
But I commend your effort and acknowledge there must be strain in attempting to don that particular mask for very long.
It’s an easy parody line to pull off though, as they literally walk the streets here, breathing through their perma-open mouths, and repeating the phrase in a long macaronic drone.
@Rorschach they must be absolutely rinsing through the vasalene
And arse holes
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I think @Raziel nails it, to be honest.
And @parklane1 . I saw the game, and at no point felt "we've got away with one here". Which I should had we been so obviously outplayed.
That looks like 4 nailed on chances right in front of goal. Id guess Grays hilarious header would be one of them, which stacks up to Raziels point. Another I remember shot right at Lloris, made it easy on him. Theres another.
I dont actually know how xg decides upon the quality of a chance, but I suspect it is completely lacking in context.
I often refer back to the first time we beat Arsenal at the Lane under Redknapp. We deliberately sat very deep and countered. Defended across the box and pushed their play wide where they were useless. And beat them, actually quite comfortably, thanks to a very astute game plan.
The stats would have it we were utterly outclassed in every respect. They will have had going on 80% possession, shots into the double figures, 2x (or3) the passes we had, most of the play in our third...
And yet the reality is we were comfortable, in control, and frankly the better team on the day fully deserving of the three points.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Yep, just more noise to talk about. I didn't need them before the interweb and I don't need them now. I ignore them, apart from of the global ones i.e. possession, shots on target etc.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Stats can be very interesting to back up an observation, or not, and add context to points in discussion.
They arent the end all/be all people like to make out though.
xg is the newest fad, but even that is far from fool proof.
Stats have their proper place, but IMO are often miss used.
They arent the end all/be all people like to make out though.
xg is the newest fad, but even that is far from fool proof.
Stats have their proper place, but IMO are often miss used.
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
When I first read that, I thought you were talking about your virginity!That reminds me of when i first took my girl, she actually cuddled up and fell a sleep.
Lemonade Money
Les Medley
Well take away their pen that shouldn't have been, and add our pen that should, and what does that do for your xG?
Not sure if fortunate or efficient is the word for our display, but the stats are quite clear, Leicester created more good chances than us, and would've normally won that match (as we normally would've won the United game a few weeks back). Still though, you win some, you lose some.
elyid
Milija Aleksic
xG is not necessarily meaningful though as it doesn't take into account all variables. (don't think it even accounts for if the player is marked or has a free shot at goal etc.)
i.e. Sanchez chance was a free header with a high chance to score (almost guaranteed to score) and Son's was a 1-on-1 at the end but sufficiently far out than xG was probably very low.
i.e. Sanchez chance was a free header with a high chance to score (almost guaranteed to score) and Son's was a 1-on-1 at the end but sufficiently far out than xG was probably very low.
Classic - citing an opinion, while explicitly stating that you've chosen not to investigate whether or not it's valid. (Not classic of you, just people in general
)Exhibit B: Look at the graph directly above your post - actually the Son chance had a slightly better XG (the square is slightly bigger).
---------
[Not quoting anyone directly] And who are these people that apparently believe stats are the be all and end all? It seems to me that most people who like stats see them as a useful tool to sit alongside one's own direct observations, rather than replace them. If you don't find stats interesting then fair enough, but seems like a bit of a strawman argument to say that they're 'not the be all and end all' etc - hardly anyone (if anyone at all) is saying that they are.
Also XG doesn't claim to take into account quality of player taking the chance, nor should it IMO - it makes the stat clearer and more specific. E.g. Leicester clearly created better chances than us overall (according to stats and my own eyes), but didn't take them as well - in part because we have better players.
Last edited: