-
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
***** Tottenham v Leeds OMT *****
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Seriously, why fudging post this? I remember you posting this before, other people explaining why the stat isn’t pointless, and you not responding. Then surprise surprise, you pop up to say the exact same thing again. It’s so fudging tiresome people just restating their opinion over and over again without actually engaging with any arguments to the contrary.
Last edited:
Yiddo
Jack Jull
Pretty sure i replied with my opinion and why the need to be aggressive? chill out, i'm sure their are more serious things to get uptight about in the world.
My point is XG is pointless as its a what if stat, not an actual stat and that's my opinion which i have replied to a number of times. The stat is literally, well if you done this better you could have scored, end of the day the stats are the ones that determine the score. Its all well and good saying we drew 1-1 but the XG says we should have had 4 goals. Just gives people some kind of excuse to justify a result when the game is over same as the pathetic "we had more possession" argument.
Tell me I'm wrong. . . . . .
Jurgen the German
Erik Thorstvedt
Couldn’t have handpicked a better opponent as Bielsa’s suicidal tactics were just what we needed. Kane and Son world class again. Much better from the likes of Doherty and Winks too!
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
so it's more useless than how many passes a team made, or how many throw in's they had?
I think its one of the more useful ones, its the closest thing we have a to a baseball box score, you can tell a lot about the type of game it was from that one single graphic
Apologies for being aggressive, and fair play for not being aggressive in your response! I just get frustrated when I think people are constantly restating their opinion without really being open minded, or even explaining their own opinion, and I find that happens a lot with xG in particular. And I specifically remembered discussing this with you before, after the Liverpool game, and you eventually not responding to people’s posts.
For me xG is just a rough measure of both teams’ quality of chances. And it’s useful and relevant to think about quality of chances when assessing your team’s performance. E.g. we won 4-0 but let’s not get carried away - it was only because we were more clinical than them, and that’s not gonna happen every game.
Don’t think anyone’s using xG to excuse a loss, certainly not in this thread after a win (which is where you posted about it being a pointless stat).
I think it would be fair enough to call the stat flawed, or say that people mis-use it. But not ‘pointless’, because it clearly has a point.
Mr Gogolak
Noé Pamarot
Personally, I'd say (and I realise nobody asked for my opinion!) that, like all stats, they're only useful in the long run and with hindsight. Over the course of a season, for instance, I would ask a stat expert to have a look at my team and tell me what went right and what went wrong, and compare that with my own observations.
Unfortunately, the overabundance of media coverage of the game, coupled with a very poor level of punditery, has led to people looking into the minutiae of each and every game in order to try and find some basic truths.
I'm just a regular guy but looking at our games, I'd say we'd be better off with better wing backs. I have zero stat to support that but that seems like a pretty solid point. On the other hand, I feel (and that's completely debatable) that Kulusevski's missed chance against Burnley was a turning point in the game. But no stat will ever reflect that.
Over the years, American sports managed to get a foothold in Europe and, with that, a lot of managers have shown an interest in details stats and game theory. It's not going to change anytime soon, since Wenger is one of these managers and he's been a strong advocate for more stats ever since he began working for FIFA. To each, his own but while it's cool to enjoy xGs or heat maps or whatever, I'm not sure it makes an opinion more relevant than the opinion of a fan who was at the game, for instance. I'd even go so far as saying that the diversity of opinions and methods of analysing the game makes for a more enjoyable debate. Wouldn't it be boring if all we had to do was look at a few stats to know what happened during a game?
parklane1
Tony Galvin
I think that sir is a great post, having worked in coaching for most of my life i can say that stats are a useful tool for sure but they are not the be all and end all as some seem to think they are. They can be looked at but in a lot of cases they do not always show the bigger picture on what has gone on. As i have said they can be usful at times but they can also be mis-used and often are by fans to show a false picture( or at least to press a point)
Yiddo
Jack Jull
No because they are stats that are useful, with XG you have stats already in place to determine how the game went with shots, shots on target and blocked shots, XG to me seems pointless.
Yiddo
Jack Jull
As i have stated above, do the stats of shots on target, shots off target and shots blocked etc not pretty much tell you a similar thing? And i am not just giving my opinion based on this thread or the Liverpool thread etc i see online all the time people talking about their team losing or drawing and try to justify the result by using the XG as an excuse.
I understand that people want to analysis the game more so than other's but i really don't see the point of it.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
you could have a high shot on target count, but if you don't know where the shots were taken from you have no idea how good the chance was
similarly, you could have a high number of passes, but if they are all between your cb's, it doesn't mean you dominated the game
Personally I think xG is better than other shot stats. E.g. City had 21 shots vs our 6, but xG was 2.3 vs 2, reflecting that our few shots were much better chances.
I agree people shouldn’t be excusing losses based on xG, but I think it’s ok to use xG to suggest that the loss might have been more due to differences in finishing more than overall performance.
Bishop
John Lacy
Stats are useful but only as useful as the context they are given in. I tend find passing accuracy stats to be irrelevant as they say nothing about the type of passes attempted or where they were played from. Whereas progressive passes played, key passes played, final third passes played etc can when coupled with watching the games help tell or confirm a particular story.
XG alone isn't a be all or end all but it does give more colour than just shots on target. A shot off target could potentially have been a better chance and more likely to score than a shot on target. XG fills that in. Context is everything.
Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
XG alone isn't a be all or end all but it does give more colour than just shots on target. A shot off target could potentially have been a better chance and more likely to score than a shot on target. XG fills that in. Context is everything.
Sent from my XQ-BC72 using Fapatalk
Spur of the moment
Frederic Kanoute
When, if ever, are Sky going to quit posting their macaronic pop-up stats during a game? They are so annoying. Who on earth cares how many corners easch team has won? Or which team has dominated possession in the last five minutes, as if we cannot see it for ourselves.
Worse still are the stats that keep reminding us that team A hasn't beaten team B in 25 years, as if the commentator hasn't been drumming it into us ad nauseum all game long.
FFS!
Worse still are the stats that keep reminding us that team A hasn't beaten team B in 25 years, as if the commentator hasn't been drumming it into us ad nauseum all game long.
FFS!
Finney Is Back
Luka Modric
Absolutely not, as I think I pointed out to you in this exact same way previously?....
A team could hit 20 shots in a game from 45 yards out and get 10 of those on target. Having not the seen the game you could look at those numbers and think 'They must've done well and been unlucky to lose/draw'. However the statistical likelihood for chances of that ilk would be no more than about 0.005 each (i.e. in football 1 in a 200 shots from 45 yards result in a goal). XG would show the total likely number of goals from those 20 shots as 0.1. If the team continued having pot shots from 45 yards then 1 game in 10 they might get themselves goal (probably from a big deflection or a massive goalkeeping mistake).
Converse to that the opposition might only have had 3 shots in the whole game and got only 1 of those on target but won the game 1-0. You would see those stats and definitely think that the team with 20 shots and 10 on target were really unlucky to have lost. However the three shots for the opposition could've all been from players being clean through, 1 on 1 with the keeper shooting from a central position somewhere around the penalty spot. Those chances would each probably have an XG of about 0.33 and therefore that team's XG for the game would be about 1.
In the above fictional game. The score was 1-0, the XG score was 0.99 - 0.1 (about right). However the shots/shots on target stats were: Winning team - 3 shots, 2 on target. Losing team 20 shots, 10 on target. Looks like the losing team were very unlucky there right?!?
XG is the only stat in the game of football that takes into account quality of chances. Of course it still has flaws, the main one being that attacks that result in no shot being made are not counted, I think this is the biggest fault with XG as (for example) the chance where Doherty hit it across the area just ahead of Sessegnon diving in at the back post has an XG of 0 when that is actually a very dangerous attack from Spurs. The other flaw is that quality of player is not taken into account. However teams with top quality strikers will probably outscore their XG and teams with top quality keepers may well be expected to out-defend their XGA. In pretty much any game however XG will give a good idea of the relative quality of the chances that the two teams had.
Hotshot-Tottenham
Edgar Davids
I have a theory.
I think they’re desperate to keep eyes on the screen.
They’re fighting the double or even triple screening where fans are on here, Twitter or TikTok whilst watching the game. It’s a fight they’ve already lost.
It’s the same reason they cut the footage like it’s a Michael Bay film. They think we’ll lose interest unless they show several close up cuts in the few seconds it takes to take a throw or goal kick.
But what they’re doing is actually making the footage nearly unwatchable.
Like a good designer uses negative space or a good speaker will use pauses, they need to let the coverage breathe and not fill every second whilst the ball is dead with meaningless close ups that disrupts the flow of the images.