• 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 vs Wolves ***

billyiddo said:
I'll take it to an extreme to make the point - someone pulls off a cracking shot from 50 yards out that just sails past the post. Now that was a shot that was close to going in but not a great chance to score from
Click to expand...
I get your point but the chances in question were not 50 yard bangers.
 
Lilbaz said:
We all wish we were totally dominating and destroying teams. We're not at the moment but still getting points.
Click to expand...
I’m happy we are getting the points but its not convincing, we don’t seem to be fluid in what ever the idea is. I just want to see a style of play but it seems we play brick in the first half and get better in the second half and get a bit fortunate along the way.
 
Yiddo said:
I’m happy we are getting the points but its not convincing, we don’t seem to be fluid in what ever the idea is. I just want to see a style of play but it seems we play brick in the first half and get better in the second half and get a bit fortunate along the way.
Click to expand...

True. But we're not the finished article yet by a long shot. We've improved massively under conte, but it's going to take a while yet till we have the team and playstyle he wants.
 
billyiddo said:
In fairness it doesn't measure shots off target, but I'm confident if the chances he is talking about were on target they wouldn't have drastically changed the xg rating of the game, neither were gilt edged chances
Click to expand...
While there are various xG methodologies, so you can't compare one system with another, I'm sure the most commonly used ones grant an xG value to every shot. If a shot isn't taken, there's no xG to be calculated but, if it is, it gets an xG value regardless of whether it was on target or not. So shanking it wide from a yard out would have an xG of .98 or thereabouts.
 
Yiddo said:
If they were on target they were in the goal.
Click to expand...

If the shots were on target... and the keeper didn't save it, sure they were goals - same as any other shot?

The point is whether it was a good chance or not, not whether it came close to going in.
 
FatBloke said:
While there are various xG methodologies, so you can't compare one system with another, I'm sure the most commonly used ones grant an xG value to every shot. If a shot isn't taken, there's no xG to be calculated but, if it is, it gets an xG value regardless of whether it was on target or not. So shanking it wide from a yard out would have an xG of .98 or thereabouts.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of that, cheers
 
Yiddo said:
I get your point but the chances in question were not 50 yard bangers.
Click to expand...

Well i did say i was taking it to an extreme tbf, i just don't think the chances were particularly good, they just happened to come close - that was the point i was making.

We had more/better chances over the course of the game so on balance of chances it was a deserved win. Us not playing well by our own standards and Wolves have a couple of good shots doesn't change that. I actually think after going 1 up we looked good to get a second and make it a more comfortable scoreline.
 
billyiddo said:
If the shots were on target... and the keeper didn't save it, sure they were goals - same as any other shot?

The point is whether it was a good chance or not, not whether it came close to going in.
Click to expand...
But to say that it wouldn’t be much more effective if it was on target is obviously wrong.
 
Yiddo said:
But to say that it wouldn’t be much more effective if it was on target is obviously wrong.
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with whether on target or not. As @FatBloke explained, every shot gets an xG value based on where it's taken from and under what conditions, not based on whether it's on target. xG basically measures the quality of the chance, not the outcome. So when you look at a scoreline you can get a sense if a team got lucky with their chances (low xG with many shots, but scored a couple of goals), or pretty much scored what they should have scored (e.g. had xG 2.5 with 5 total shots and scored 3 goals).

Wolves had an xG of 0.69 from 20 shots and none of them had an xG rating higher than 0.1. So their best chance had a 10% probability of going in. In other words, they hardly managed to scare us. Just because one of them happened to be close to the post doesn't mean diddly.
 
alekaras said:
Has nothing to do with whether on target or not. As @FatBloke explained, every shot gets an xG value based on where it's taken from and under what conditions, not based on whether it's on target. xG basically measures the quality of the chance, not the outcome. So when you look at a scoreline you can get a sense if a team got lucky with their chances (low xG with many shots, but scored a couple of goals), or pretty much scored what they should have scored (e.g. had xG 2.5 with 5 total shots and scored 3 goals).

Wolves had an xG of 0.69 from 20 shots and none of them had an xG rating higher than 0.1. So their best chance had a 10% probability of going in. In other words, they hardly managed to scare us. Just because one of them happened to be close to the post doesn't mean diddly.
Click to expand...
It’s the age old issue of quality vs quantity
We regularly have that vs wolves where they spank shots at us fork everywhere but rarely are they decent ones
 
Might seem an odd question re: XG but does it take into account shots not taken? When someone should have shot but takes too many touches or squares the ball badly and the opportunity is lost?
 
alekaras said:
Has nothing to do with whether on target or not. As @FatBloke explained, every shot gets an xG value based on where it's taken from and under what conditions, not based on whether it's on target. xG basically measures the quality of the chance, not the outcome. So when you look at a scoreline you can get a sense if a team got lucky with their chances (low xG with many shots, but scored a couple of goals), or pretty much scored what they should have scored (e.g. had xG 2.5 with 5 total shots and scored 3 goals).

Wolves had an xG of 0.69 from 20 shots and none of them had an xG rating higher than 0.1. So their best chance had a 10% probability of going in. In other words, they hardly managed to scare us. Just because one of them happened to be close to the post doesn't mean diddly.
Click to expand...

I think xG definitely has a place. It certainly adds some context to the “Shots” stat which sometimes leaves me wondering if I’m watching the same game when I see it in isolation.

However, I’m amazed that header that went just wide was less than .1. That looked a really good chance to me.
 
Was another game vs a team playing with no striker
Means they can smother midfield but also means their attack has no focal point
Be interesting to see if more teams try thsi
 
DeanoAustin said:
I think xG definitely has a place. It certainly adds some context to the “Shots” stat which sometimes leaves me wondering if I’m watching the same game when I see it in isolation.

However, I’m amazed that header that went just wide was less than .1. That looked a really good chance to me.
Click to expand...
Actually that had an xG of 0.04. it was a shot from Ait Nouri from an angle, but close to goal that had the highest xG.
 
alekaras said:
Actually that had an xG of 0.04. it was a shot from Ait Nouri from an angle, but close to goal that had the highest xG.
Click to expand...

That’s where I’m struggling with the methodology then. That suggests that that chance only goes in 4 times out of 100. I’d have serious doubts about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back