*******Spurs v PSG*******Official OMT*******

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Possession says more about style of play and game flow than quality.

Shots, and somewhat better xG tells a bit. It won't tell if a team will win or lose a game. But give me an xG for of 0.1 or 2.0 in any given game and I'll take the latter. Give us an average xG for of 1.5 for the rest of the season and we're almost certainly going to get better results than if it's 1.0 (assuming no changes to xG against).

Results are what matters. But results are over time clearly linked to performances. xG gives an indication of performance while obviously not being some perfect factual answer. I'd rather see a loss with xG numbers like against PSG than a loss with xG numbers like against Arsenal. At least the PSG game gives us some realistic reasons to think we'll do well in the future.

The xG thing reminds me of the formulas used by all those blokes ripping up their betting slips in the bookies.

 

[Mikey10]

I have to admit, i wasn't impressed yesterday once it went to 3-2....

i felt the players were starting to tire and we needed fresh legs to try and wrestle possession back and go back on the attack to get an equaliser.

Instead he seemed to freeze and sit on his hands while things unfolded and his subs i think actually made us worse and largely didn't make sense to me.

I'll be much more upbeat if we start on the front foot vs Fulham and attack well and with some creativity. But i wasn't impressed with how Frank looked like a rabbit in the headlights yesterday once PSG started to turn the screw from 2-2

I was less impressed with the incredible levels of stupidity displayed by a couple of our players, to be honest.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Is it?

Cricket was the first stat heavy sport I believe.

I think Test "stats" give a reasonable judgement on players and performance but still don't reflect condition of pitch or weather. First class average are a useless tool to gauge the suitability of a player to play test cricket.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

It's a somewhat glorified shot statistic.

But it also tells us more than a shot statistic.

A stat doesn't have to be 100% accurate to be useful.

Exactly as demonstrated by politicians, pundits and management consultants.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I have to admit, i wasn't impressed yesterday once it went to 3-2....

i felt the players were starting to tire and we needed fresh legs to try and wrestle possession back and go back on the attack to get an equaliser.

Instead he seemed to freeze and sit on his hands while things unfolded and his subs i think actually made us worse and largely didn't make sense to me.

I'll be much more upbeat if we start on the front foot vs Fulham and attack well and with some creativity. But i wasn't impressed with how Frank looked like a rabbit in the headlights yesterday once PSG started to turn the screw from 2-2

Fulham is the test
PSG was a free hit and we made it a contest

 

[braineclipse]

Not to be pedantic but I’m gonna be pedantic.

If you have:
- 25 shots
- Total xG ≈ 2.0
- No individual chance over, say, 0.15 xG

Then what you really had was:
- Lots of low-probability efforts
- Probably many blocked shots, tight-angle attempts, or pot-shots from distance
- Pressure but not threat


So while the cumulative xG says “you created enough to score twice”, the experience of the match will tell us differently.
“We never really looked likely to score — we just took a lot of low-quality shots.” xG per shot, shot locations, big chances created, etc, is more informative not just the raw xG total.

What I find interesting is that in the period when we had Kane and Son I don't think we appreciated how far above the statistical norm their finishing was. Kane & Son were absolutely xG overperformers. xG models tell you what an average player would score. Kane and Son were not average players. We often had games where the xG said “1.1 expected goals,” but Kane would stick one in the top corner or Son would curl in something from 0.06 xG.

I think we're in agreement? Create enough of those low quality chances to get an xG of 2 and on average you'll score two goals in that game none the less. And I'd rather have that than an xG under 1 or close to 0. For the experience of the game, particularly if we don't end up scoring, it's perhaps not great. But not so bad for the games where we do score twice?

An xG of 0.15 means a 15% chance of scoring given average finishing, no? 15% isn't that bad really for a chance. But of course if it's somehow a cumulation of really really low probability efforts that's not useful. But that's more of an edge case. It's not like teams are trying to pad their xG numbers by taking low probability shots.

Yes xG is also a way of quantifying how good players are at finishing/shooting, given a large enough sample size. And if you have as a whole as a team either really good or poor finishers that will make xG stats a bit misleading.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I think we're in agreement? Create enough of those low quality chances to get an xG of 2 and on average you'll score two goals in that game none the less. And I'd rather have that than an xG under 1 or close to 0. For the experience of the game, particularly if we don't end up scoring, it's perhaps not great. But not so bad for the games where we do score twice?

An xG of 0.15 means a 15% chance of scoring given average finishing, no? 15% isn't that bad really for a chance. But of course if it's somehow a cumulation of really really low probability efforts that's not useful. But that's more of an edge case. It's not like teams are trying to pad their xG numbers by taking low probability shots.

Yes xG is also a way of quantifying how good players are at finishing/shooting, given a large enough sample size. And if you have as a whole as a team either really good or poor finishers that will make xG stats a bit misleading.

Its measure is using all the times that has gone it from that place, from shots taken.
So it could have been a top drawer finisher who’s scores one and misses one in identical situations making it a 0.5 probability (if that makes sense)
The key that elite players score those chances more often and less elite ones don’t, create the average