• 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

Emerson Royal

SpurMeUp said:
This was the game where it became really clear we wouldn't prosper long term doing the same thing under Mourinho. We won the game, but there was no way we'd replicate that across a whole season. At the time, many many Spurs fans pointed it out after the game. They were happy we won of course, but the writing was on the wall. You can make such a defensive approach work in a cup game, but it is not sustainable. Great sides are able to use the ball as well as block out teams.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t defensive
It was complete control
We let them cross all game knowing it was never gonnna work
The press even highlights show controlled we were afterwards
 
Bedfordspurs said:
It wasn’t defensive
It was complete control
We let them cross all game knowing it was never gonnna work
The press even highlights show controlled we were afterwards
Click to expand...

We had no out ball, were a little fortunate to score. And our season unravelled not long after. The proof of the pudding was in the eating. You saw what transpired...
 
SpurMeUp said:
We had no out ball, were a little fortunate to score. And our season unravelled not long after. The proof of the pudding was in the eating. You saw what transpired...
Click to expand...
Sorry but that’s rubbish
We scored two great goals and sat back knowing they had NO threat
It was widely acknowledged at the time with Arteta being highlighted as a joker with his crossing technique all game
The games we did lose after came down to individual errors… classic like Aurier giving away the penalty vs Leicester by head butting a players back. Those games where it went wrong were because of players errors. Not because we conceded good goals. The players couldn’t keep up with their job and crumbled… normally late in a game (fitness issues)
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Sorry but that’s rubbish
We scored two great goals and sat back knowing they had NO threat
It was widely acknowledged at the time with Arteta being highlighted as a joker with his crossing technique all game
The games we did lose after came down to individual errors… classic like Aurier giving away the penalty vs Leicester by head butting a players back. Those games where it went wrong were because of players errors. Not because we conceded good goals. The players couldn’t keep up with their job and crumbled… normally late in a game (fitness issues)
Click to expand...

But that is the thing - the results that followed are conclusive. In hindsight, it wasn't rubbish. As we lost top spot and capitulated. By never holding possession you expose yourself to those kinds of errors and fatigue. Errors and fatigue will always occur to some degree, and if you have no answer - no other way of playing when you need to - then you're not going to deliver and win the league.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Not really
You can have a cumulative number of pork quality shots equal a solid xG
20 shots from range with a 0.1 xG would equal 2…. We have seen that. But that team could lose to a side with one shot, one goal from 2 yards and rightly so

live how a passion convo has now gone to xG on a thread about a new RB most of us have never seen

what I will say on the possession front or xG front for that matter is that the team that works the hardest without the ball generally wins IMO.
Click to expand...

If you allow 20 long range shots on goal chances are you're going to concede one or two, which is usually reflected by the accumulated xg number.
 
billyiddo said:
If you allow 20 long range shots on goal chances are you're going to concede one or two, which is usually reflected by the accumulated xg number.
Click to expand...
Didn’t happen like that vs Wolves
I remember when we would regularly resort to it vs bus Parker’s and big break through
Volume doesn’t equate to quality, just quantity
We have already shown that better quality is what’s needed
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Volume doesn’t equate to quality, just quantity

We have already shown that better quality is what’s needed
Click to expand...



Yes, quality of chances - 20 shots with a low xg shows that the quality of chances created were low. The xg number on it's own, like any stat from a sporting fixture, tells you little in isolation
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Didn’t happen like that vs Wolves
I remember when we would regularly resort to it vs bus Parker’s and big break through
Volume doesn’t equate to quality, just quantity
We have already shown that better quality is what’s needed
Click to expand...
Difference between "chances are" and what happened in an individual game should be obvious, no?

We won't keep a lot of clean sheets by having xG against numbers like against Wolves. We'll keep some, but chances are opponents will score.

Our goals scored and xG numbers are fairly close so far this season. But a bit over one goal a game won't win us that many football matches unless we keep a ton of clean sheets.

We won't keep a ton of clean sheets unless our xG against goes down.
 
braineclipse said:
Difference between "chances are" and what happened in an individual game should be obvious, no?

We won't keep a lot of clean sheets by having xG against numbers like against Wolves. We'll keep some, but chances are opponents will score.

Our goals scored and xG numbers are fairly close so far this season. But a bit over one goal a game won't win us that many football matches unless we keep a ton of clean sheets.

We won't keep a ton of clean sheets unless our xG against goes down.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that teams that won the league out score and concede less than their Xgs
 
billyiddo said:
Yes, quality of chances - 20 shots with a low xg shows that the quality of chances created were low. The xg number on it's own, like any stat from a sporting fixture, tells you little in isolation
Click to expand...
Exactly
It’s why o said earlier xG is useful in context with other stats
In our games so far this season taking it on its own it would give you a very wrong impression of the games
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Exactly
It’s why o said earlier xG is useful in context with other stats
In our games so far this season taking it on its own it would give you a very wrong impression of the games
Click to expand...
Agreed. The only 100% relevant stat is the number of goals a team scores. If they score more than the other side, they win the match. Everything else is conjecture.

Other than that, what have you got? Shots outside/inside the area? Possession? Percentage of players wearing gloves?

xG is a decent stat that uses statistical analysis to bridge the gap between "number of shots" and "goals scored". It's a tool for discussion, nothing more. A great team will have good xG numbers, a team with a great striker (or goalkeeper) will exceed their xG. And teams will always have a puncher's chance of winning against the xG. That's the beauty of a game that ends 2-1 or 1-0, rather than 40-35 or even 500-450.

Anyway, when do we get our hands on this Emerson chap? I'm worried that his stat maps look worse than Aurier's...but then, "idiotic decisions per 90" wasn't included.
 
Last edited:
Bedfordspurs said:
Pretty sure that teams that won the league out score and concede less than their Xgs
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. You'd expect teams at the very top to outperform xG for several reasons. One they generally have better strikers and goalies, more shots converted and more unlikely saves. Second outperforming xG because of that quality, or variance/form will end up giving more points making it more likely that they do win.

No because, well, they haven't always. Not for goals against vs xG against at least.

That's not really the point though. The point is to what extent you can reliably expect to outperform xG.

To what extent do you think it's realistic that we outperform xG this season?
 
braineclipse said:
Well, yes and no. You'd expect teams at the very top to outperform xG for several reasons. One they generally have better strikers and goalies, more shots converted and more unlikely saves. Second outperforming xG because of that quality, or variance/form will end up giving more points making it more likely that they do win.

No because, well, they haven't always. Not for goals against vs xG against at least.

That's not really the point though. The point is to what extent you can reliably expect to outperform xG.

To what extent do you think it's realistic that we outperform xG this season?
Click to expand...
Very
If we do the basics well in defence (why hurt us badly last year) and the attack perform to their par level
As I said last season we were conceding (as previous season too) from basic defensive errors, not good play by the opposition most of the time
Our goals for though had to be bloody good goals as we didn’t create good chances. It was a horrible balance
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Very
If we do the basics well in defence (why hurt us badly last year) and the attack perform to their par level
As I said last season we were conceding (as previous season too) from basic defensive errors, not good play by the opposition most of the time
Our goals for though had to be bloody good goals as we didn’t create good chances. It was a horrible balance
Click to expand...
Defensive errors leading to chances against count towards xG against. Weeding those out lowers xG against, doesn't mean outperforming xG.

When you say "very", what kind of numbers are you thinking of? How many more goals scored and how many fewer conceded compared to xG would you say its realistic over a season?
 
braineclipse said:
Defensive errors leading to chances against count towards xG against. Weeding those out lowers xG against, doesn't mean outperforming xG.

When you say "very", what kind of numbers are you thinking of? How many more goals scored and how many fewer conceded compared to xG would you say its realistic over a season?
Click to expand...
I think the swing in our favour could be as high as 20%
Assuming we dont start doing an Aurier and nutting a mans back
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back