OMT: Mighty Spurs vs Big Oil

[elltrev]

Looking at the table above 4 results followed the XG prediction and 6 didn't.

I do think XG is a reasonable reflection overall though. The problem at the moment is that there aren't enough data points. One chance from the middle of the goal (say) 10 yards out can be very different to another from exactly the same place (I.e. is the keeper still on his line or right on top of the player, is the attacker in the clear one on one or are there defenders between him and the keeper, does the player have the ball under control, are they hitting it with their preferred foot, is it hit first time, is a defender putting pressure on, etc, etc). Over the thousands of chances from that position the XG might be (say) 0.6 but a team could have four shots from that position in the game and be given an XG of 2.4 as a result, ehenbin actual fact all four of the chances were 0.1 type chances due to one or more of the sorts of factors I mentioned above and the team was most likely to score zero goals.

To build on what Scaramanga said, see Michael Caley's xG map from this match:

You can see that there are chances from very similar positions that have very different xG - which shows that a number of other things are taken into account. (I'm not saying that means the model is perfect, but personally I think it's pretty decent and produces pretty meaningful stats overall).

 

[Bedfordspurs]

To build on what Scaramanga said, see Michael Caley's xG map from this match:

You can see that there are chances from very similar positions that have very different xG - which shows that a number of other things are taken into account. (I'm not saying that means the model is perfect, but personally I think it's pretty decent and produces pretty meaningful stats overall).

Interesting that the shot form 1 heard out has less probability than the two in front of goal

 

[elltrev]

It's like giving my grandma a Ferrari to drive. If she smashes it into a tree, it's not the Ferrari's fault. It's my grandma's.

You give refs better tools to do their jobs. If they fvck up, it's not the tools' fault. It's the refs'.

I totally understand and agree with what you're saying - technically it's not the technology that's the issue, it's the human beings. But I think the more salient question is: how well is the VAR system performing overall (taking into account the tech and the humans that use it)? Or: what is the impact of introducing VAR into the game?

To continue your analogy - if we ask: what was the impact of giving a Ferrari to your grandma to drive? The impact is that she smashes it into a tree. It doesn't really matter that it's her fault, not the car's - the end outcome is terrible, and that's what matters!

 

[SteveAWOL]

 

[scaramanga]

Interesting that the shot form 1 heard out has less probability than the two in front of goal

Probably a header.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Probably a header.

I think it could only be Aguero's chance at the near post?

 

[scaramanga]

I think it could only be Aguero's chance at the near post?

I don't remember it, will have to look at the highlights again

 

[Kandi1977]

Interesting that the shot form 1 heard out has less probability than the two in front of goal

He had to wrap his foot around it to even connect with the ball. Alderweireld was covering the far corner from point blank range, Lloris had most of the rest of the goal covered. He only had a sliver of the goal, right next to the near post where he could score, making it a relatively low value xG, despite how close to the goal it was. Gundogan was 7 meters out with no GK, no defenders close, and only an outfield player on the line to beat. A much much bigger chance.

 

[Baleforce]

Interesting that the shot form 1 heard out has less probability than the two in front of goal

If you mean the one I think it’s because keepers are generally good at stopping near post attempts.

 

[Baleforce]

I totally understand and agree with what you're saying - technically it's not the technology that's the issue, it's the human beings. But I think the more salient question is: how well is the VAR system performing overall (taking into account the tech and the humans that use it)? Or: what is the impact of introducing VAR into the game?

To continue your analogy - if we ask: what was the impact of giving a Ferrari to your grandma to drive? The impact is that she smashes it into a tree. It doesn't really matter that it's her fault, not the car's - the end outcome is terrible, and that's what matters!

But the experience with the Ferrari will help her next time, when she takes it out next week she’ll be less likely to crash, eventually she’ll get to her dogging appointments more quickly and everyone involved wins.

 

[Raziel]

The media narrative on this game is frustrating to say the least.

I've heard multiple pundits now say "Spurs were embarrassed" by City in the first half, and City created chances at will. What fudging game were these asshats watching?

- Did City have lots of possession = yes
- Did City put us under pressure = yes

But, and this is the part nobody is giving credit to

- Did we have a plan = yes
- How many times did our defense/team actually lose our shape?
- Was City even able to take one shot from range?
- How effective was KDB or Aquero? (these guys will always get 1 or 2 chances in a game, but I don't think either had a great game)

Facts is

- This was the same plan used against Pool
- It almost worked there, Lo Celso's chance was better than anything City came up with against us and our xG against Pool was actually higher than vs. City
- It fudging worked, it's completely naive and ignorant to sit there and go "oh, spurs were just lucky"

 

[Bedfordspurs]

The media narrative on this game is frustrating to say the least.

I've heard multiple pundits now say "Spurs were embarrassed" by City in the first half, and City created chances at will. What fudging game were these asshats watching?

- Did City have lots of possession = yes
- Did City put us under pressure = yes

But, and this is the part nobody is giving credit to

- Did we have a plan = yes
- How many times did our defense/team actually lose our shape?
- Was City even able to take one shot from range?
- How effective was KDB or Aquero? (these guys will always get 1 or 2 chances in a game, but I don't think either had a great game)

Facts is

- This was the same plan used against Pool
- It almost worked there, Lo Celso's chance was better than anything City came up with against us and our xG against Pool was actually higher than vs. City
- It fudging worked, it's completely naive and ignorant to sit there and go "oh, spurs were just lucky"

City rely on KDB too much
Mahrez went hiding and helped us massively with an Eriksen corner
The two CMs are not creative and not great defensively for the reputations
And they sorely sorely miss Bernardo Silva who has to play every game for them IMO

 

[glasgowspur]

The media narrative on this game is frustrating to say the least.

I've heard multiple pundits now say "Spurs were embarrassed" by City in the first half, and City created chances at will. What fudging game were these asshats watching?

- Did City have lots of possession = yes
- Did City put us under pressure = yes

But, and this is the part nobody is giving credit to

- Did we have a plan = yes
- How many times did our defense/team actually lose our shape?
- Was City even able to take one shot from range?
- How effective was KDB or Aquero? (these guys will always get 1 or 2 chances in a game, but I don't think either had a great game)

Facts is

- This was the same plan used against Pool
- It almost worked there, Lo Celso's chance was better than anything City came up with against us and our xG against Pool was actually higher than vs. City
- It fudging worked, it's completely naive and ignorant to sit there and go "oh, spurs were just lucky"

Although I think the press are over egging it, City did have 18 shots on goal, if we've set out to defend that's a bit more than I'm comfortable with tbh.

 

[FatBloke]

No matter how well Leicester are doing, I think it's fair to say that Liverpool and Emirates Marketing Project are by some distance the best teams in the Premier League. This season:

Emirates Marketing Project A 2-2
Can't really remember this one but 30 shots (10 on target) from them vs 3 (2) from us suggests a battering.

Liverpool A 2-1
Set up to defend, Kane scores, Eriksen fails miserably to defend our right flank, Poch is far too late to change anything, Liverpool score twice, we still had our chances to get something.

Liverpool H 0-1
Well, this one was pretty damn annoying. When we actually attacked Liverpool we caused them so many problems. Largely kept them quiet, went down by a single goal again.

Emirates Marketing Project H 2-0
We rode our luck again, but there was a lot of good defending on show.

That's as good a record as we could hope, and we really could (should?) have taken something from both Liverpool games -- we certainly caused them more trouble than almost anyone else this season.

Our problem hasn't been against the top teams, but rather the games against teams we should be beating every time. Mental fatigue, injuries, general malaise, whatever, but that should be easier to fix. I'm still hopeful of finishing top 4, and making it a little further in the CL. RB Liepzig's form seems to be dropping off a bit, while we're very much on the up.

 

[JerusalemMan]

Although I think the press are over egging it, City did have 18 shots on goal, if we've set out to defend that's a bit more than I'm comfortable with tbh.

Hmm.
If Hugo had to make 18 saves then absolutely.
But our defenders pressurised them and so the 18 shots did not equate to 18 amazing chances.

 

[glasgowspur]

Hmm.
If Hugo had to make 18 saves then absolutely.
But our defenders pressurised them and so the 18 shots did not equate to 18 amazing chances.

I disagree, 18 chances and from predominantly in the box as I recall is not good defending.
City are exceptional and our defending is getting slowly better, but on the day I don't see that as particularly good.

 

[braineclipse]

I disagree, 18 chances and from predominantly in the box as I recall is not good defending.
City are exceptional and our defending is getting slowly better, but on the day I don't see that as particularly good.

It wasn't great at least, but I thought it was a pretty good defensive effort against a great team if you ignore the individual mistakes.

We can of course discuss if individual mistakes should be ignored when discussing defensive performances. What I mean is that the plan, positioning, execution was quite good, but then there were individual moments that on another day would have been punished.

Compared to the away game against City I think this was much better as they cut us open at will in that game.

 

[JerusalemMan]

I disagree, 18 chances and from predominantly in the box as I recall is not good defending.
City are exceptional and our defending is getting slowly better, but on the day I don't see that as particularly good.

Doesn't that depend where the defending is located?
If the aim was to prevent those opportunities even occuring then it is definitely not good.
But if there was a focus on getting in the way, an acceptance that there would be chances but a resolve to make them very hard, that's a little less clear cut.

 

[glasgowspur]

It wasn't great at least, but I thought it was a pretty good defensive effort against a great team if you ignore the individual mistakes.

We can of course discuss if individual mistakes should be ignored when discussing defensive performances. What I mean is that the plan, positioning, execution was quite good, but then there were individual moments that on another day would have been punished.

Compared to the away game against City I think this was much better as they cut us open at will in that game.

I don't think it was individual mistakes as such, for me it's unfamiliarity with new methods and team mates. Once these have bedded in I expect us to be much tighter.

 

[glasgowspur]

Doesn't that depend where the defending is located?
If the aim was to prevent those opportunities even occuring then it is definitely not good.
But if there was a focus on getting in the way, an acceptance that there would be chances but a resolve to make them very hard, that's a little less clear cut.

I'm not going to judge too much on Sunday, city can cut most teams open and us being in transition this isn't the time to judge.
Just as Raziel said he thinks the criticism in the press is harsh (which I agree with), I also think some of the praise is unjustified.
I doubt the pljan was to allow city that many chance, buy Jose is rightly not going to come out and say that.
He will milk this victory for all its worth, thank fudge, its what makes him the manager he is.