Welcome Ange: To Dare is to Didgeridoo

[braineclipse]

But we do that to everyone. Which is my point.

Our xG against so far this season is 16.52 according to understat. For an average xG against of 1.38 per game.

Arsenal, Forest, Fulham and Liverpool are the teams with a better xG against than us so far this season. Ranging from 14.91 to 12.36 xG against so far.

Not quite good enough perhaps, though being the highest scorers and having the second best xG for should do a bit to mitigate that.

But we're not averaging an xG of 2+ per game. And an ambitious, but realistic target is probably somewhere around 1 I would guess.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Doesn't the way xG is calculated mean that on average the team is expected to score that many goals from those chances. Discounting sample size issues from looking at a single game, but 10 0.1 xG chances will on average lead to a goal as often as two 0.5 xG chances I thought?

Yes and no

Every shot is individual
So a 0.1 chance shot would go in once every 10 times
It’s why the cumulative number shows quantity but not quality
Quality is the individual measure of the shot
That’s how I understand it and I’m normally good in statistics
The cumulative would work if every shot was the same

 

[braineclipse]

Absolutely mate.
If he asks for one or two specific players, I hope he gets them.
It is clear he wanted Solanke, so great.
Despite the doubt around it, I have it oin good authority he wanted Eze. We didn't get him.
He wanted Gallagher. He didn't get him.
He was reportedly very keen on Neto. We didn't get him.
Personally, I don't care for Neto and Gallagher is take or leave for me too, but I'm not Ange and he wanted them.

I absolutely appreciate that you cannot always have your favoured player for a position, and that in the past he has had his way (Van De Ven over Tapsoba being a good example).
What I am hoping for is that we at least are looking to balance out top tier deliveries versus options off a list deliveries. Again, I am not naiove to the way football works, and even the closest deal gets pulled last second. To that end, I remember Willian who was getting pur physical when his agent basically tried to squeeze more from us and he was told to do one; I think that is the right thing to do at that moment. Equally, when Poch wanted Grealish, and when we had Grealish done, just do the deal rather than tinkle about for a few quid.

As has been stated by others mate, no-one knows every detail and we all rely on scraps of information (I read little on social media about this stuff). Which is why I place these thoughts in conversational conjecture.

I think Ange is close to establishing who he can trust 100% of the time and who he cannot. I think he will surprise people with who he doesn't trust/wants to sell, and I hope that whatever that looks like, we trust him, back him on that, and buy the appropriate replacements. I thibnk even 2 out 4 top tier would be acceptable. This is, of course, if we as a football club want to give him and his plan the tenure and time it deserves. Which I think we should.

Hope all is well mate.

Him wanting Eze, Neto or Gallagher makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps a better summer window would have been one of those in addition to Solanke even if that meant not signing Odobert and Gray? But I'm not sure that would have looked the better window 2-3 years from now.

I have similar hopes to you for the future. We've put ourselves in a very strong position with regards to young players now and improved our overall squad to the point that there should be fewer issues to fix.

I also hope that the Solanke signing was made because of the numerous signings Ange wanted (Solanke, Eze, Neto, Gallagher) he wanted Solanke the most. That decision is already made, so more for what it says about the future.

I too hope he's trusted also on his bigger decisions, including if he wants to sell some bigger name or surprising players. Any particular players you think he could surprise us with wanting or being happy to see sold?

 

[braineclipse]

Yes and no

Every shot is individual
So a 0.1 chance shot would go in once every 10 times
It’s why the cumulative number shows quantity but not quality
Quality is the individual measure of the shot
That’s how I understand it and I’m normally good in statistics
The cumulative would work if every shot was the same

May be something I'm missing here (sure as fudge wouldn't be the first time). Definitely feel free to point out what I'm missing...

If you roll a 10 sided die 10 times on average it will land on 10 once. That's comparable to having 10 0.1 xG chances, you'd "expect" to score one goal on average.

If you flip a coin twice on average it will land on heads once. That's comparable to having 2 0.5 xG chances, you'd "expect" to score one goal on average.

Regardless of the quality of chances a total xG of 1 means that you'd expect one goal on average to result from that. (Again ignoring the sample size issue).

 

[Baleforce]

Our xG against so far this season is 16.52 according to understat. For an average xG against of 1.38 per game.

Arsenal, Forest, Fulham and Liverpool are the teams with a better xG against than us so far this season. Ranging from 14.91 to 12.36 xG against so far.

Not quite good enough perhaps, though being the highest scorers and having the second best xG for should do a bit to mitigate that.

But we're not averaging an xG of 2+ per game. And an ambitious, but realistic target is probably somewhere around 1 I would guess.

Everyone is defending poorly this season, I’d like to see that number consistently below 0.5.

 

[parklane1]

We won, they lost, we were better, much better IMO and clinical (thats a thing)........Happy days. Could not care one jot about XG and how lucky we were to get the cleansheet. Games reimagined or otherwise the weekends result has had me on cloud 9..............bring on more

XG is one of the most overated stats [ and they are many in todays game] around which gets vastly overated by a section of fans. Its a tool which can be used but its not the bible like some fans think it is. imo

 

[billyiddo]

But we do that to everyone. Which is my point.

6th lowest xga in the league with 16.52 from 12 games suggests we don't

 

[Lilbaz]

Doesn't the way xG is calculated mean that on average the team is expected to score that many goals from those chances. Discounting sample size issues from looking at a single game, but 10 0.1 xG chances will on average lead to a goal as often as two 0.5 xG chances I thought?

On average yes. Teams with better players will outperform their xg though. Kane and son got way more goals than their xg.

 

[thfcsteff]

The Lodge is a home from home for these guys. My understanding is that they all have their own suites and have personalised them to get that feeling of their own space. Can't imagine how many days in a year they spend there, but I bet it feels nothing like a hotel room to them. In some ways, the single guys might even prefer it.

I've always thought that a tour of The Lodge and doing a day in the life of a Spurs player's training day would be amazing. They spend a huge chunk of their lives there.

I have been lucky enough to get that mate. It is superb!

 

[Raziel]

Him wanting Eze, Neto or Gallagher makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps a better summer window would have been one of those in addition to Solanke even if that meant not signing Odobert and Gray? But I'm not sure that would have looked the better window 2-3 years from now.

I have similar hopes to you for the future. We've put ourselves in a very strong position with regards to young players now and improved our overall squad to the point that there should be fewer issues to fix.

I also hope that the Solanke signing was made because of the numerous signings Ange wanted (Solanke, Eze, Neto, Gallagher) he wanted Solanke the most. That decision is already made, so more for what it says about the future.

I too hope he's trusted also on his bigger decisions, including if he wants to sell some bigger name or surprising players. Any particular players you think he could surprise us with wanting or being happy to see sold?

The two big Ange signings have been Johnson & Solanke, both were expensive. Vic, VDV, Maddison, Gray he all had some level of input in and was at minimum aligned with.

Ange isn't Conte/Pep/etc. he's spent his entire career having to compromise on choices, he know how this works and won't throw a fit. Gallagher was always a long shot (not because of price but Chelsea optics/PR), Neto is the type of signing we can't afford (injury risk way too high).

Re who we sell, don't think there are huge surprises likely (first team quite small at this point), I'd suspect it's how fast we move on from some of the younger players that don't work out, main name from first team that I could see sold is Richi.

 

[Gazza]

Him wanting Eze, Neto or Gallagher makes a lot of sense to me. Perhaps a better summer window would have been one of those in addition to Solanke even if that meant not signing Odobert and Gray? But I'm not sure that would have looked the better window 2-3 years from now.

I have similar hopes to you for the future. We've put ourselves in a very strong position with regards to young players now and improved our overall squad to the point that there should be fewer issues to fix.

I also hope that the Solanke signing was made because of the numerous signings Ange wanted (Solanke, Eze, Neto, Gallagher) he wanted Solanke the most. That decision is already made, so more for what it says about the future.

I too hope he's trusted also on his bigger decisions, including if he wants to sell some bigger name or surprising players. Any particular players you think he could surprise us with wanting or being happy to see sold?

That’s tells me that our big backing of the manager and amazing funds generated now on the stadium means that we need to curb our ambitions as fans … we have brought one of his reported choices as a player (a striker was always priority) but then use some money on some punts.

This indicates to me that we will never compete even under financial fair play and our transfer strategy is pretty much the same as before peppered with a ready made player or two.

It’s positive but perhaps not as quick as we maybe required to see the best of Postecoglu.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

May be something I'm missing here (sure as fudge wouldn't be the first time). Definitely feel free to point out what I'm missing...

If you roll a 10 sided die 10 times on average it will land on 10 once. That's comparable to having 10 0.1 xG chances, you'd "expect" to score one goal on average.

If you flip a coin twice on average it will land on heads once. That's comparable to having 2 0.5 xG chances, you'd "expect" to score one goal on average.

Regardless of the quality of chances a total xG of 1 means that you'd expect one goal on average to result from that. (Again ignoring the sample size issue).

Your rolling the same dice in the same conditions
Every shot is variable
It’s a different player taking a different shot
Does that make sense?
Xg is for an individual shot. The chance variable is the next one isn’t the same shot so the Xg is different
For the accumulation effect it would need to be the same shot, 10 times for one to go in if it’s an Xg of 0.1

 

[braineclipse]

That’s tells me that our big backing of the manager and amazing funds generated now on the stadium means that we need to curb our ambitions as fans … we have brought one of his reported choices as a player (a striker was always priority) but then use some money on some punts.

This indicates to me that we will never compete even under financial fair play and our transfer strategy is pretty much the same as before peppered with a ready made player or two.

It’s positive but perhaps not as quick as we maybe required to see the best of Postecoglu.

I'm not sure paying relatively big money for teenagers like Gray and Odobert who had real experience in the Championship and Premier League respectively counts as "punts".

There has been some inflation and added football inflation since then, so numbers are a bit iffy to compare directly... But still, Archie Gray would have been our record transfer fee paid pre Davidson Sanchez 7 years ago.

 

[braineclipse]

Your rolling the same dice in the same conditions
Every shot is variable
It’s a different player taking a different shot
Does that make sense?
Xg is for an individual shot. The chance variable is the next one isn’t the same shot so the Xg is different
For the accumulation effect it would need to be the same shot, 10 times for one to go in if it’s an Xg of 0.1

Over a larger sample size that would more or less even out. But yes, xG for a single game isn't trustworthy/accurate.

I agree that there are variables that xG doesn't account for, and flaws in the model. I've called it a glorified/somewhat improved shot stats in the past and stick by that. But it's still indicative of something, even in a single game.

Also imo matches the eye test for this game. City will be disappointed in a lot of things in that game, one of them being their inability to take one or two of the chances they did create.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Over a larger sample size that would more or less even out. But yes, xG for a single game isn't trustworthy/accurate.

I agree that there are variables that xG doesn't account for, and flaws in the model. I've called it a glorified/somewhat improved shot stats in the past and stick by that. But it's still indicative of something, even in a single game.

Also imo matches the eye test for this game. City will be disappointed in a lot of things in that game, one of them being their inability to take one or two of the chances they did create.

They created a lot of volume but not a lot of quality
When Leicester drew with us they had 2 chances that were worth almost 1 xg and scored one
They were outplayed but they got the result their quality of chance accumulation says they should have
But imo a lot of 0.1 chances doesn’t equate to 1 in 10 going in because the quality factor is so low (I know stats would counter that)

 

[Bishop]

I'm not sure paying relatively big money for teenagers like Gray and Odobert who had real experience in the Championship and Premier League respectively counts as "punts".

There has been some inflation and added football inflation since then, so numbers are a bit iffy to compare directly... But still, Archie Gray would have been our record transfer fee paid pre Davidson Sanchez 7 years ago.

Hmm neither Gray nor Odobert have truly high level experience or a sustained track record. They might be educated gambles but I don't think it's disengerous to call them punts. Signing Palmer this coming window or Yamal (unrealistic example but you get the point) would not be pints. Both of the signings we did make we've analysed and expect them to develop to a high standard but neither is there yet so calling them punts isn't unfair nor a negative imo. We absolutely should be making educated gambles.

 

[Raziel]

That’s tells me that our big backing of the manager and amazing funds generated now on the stadium means that we need to curb our ambitions as fans … we have brought one of his reported choices as a player (a striker was always priority) but then use some money on some punts.

This indicates to me that we will never compete even under financial fair play and our transfer strategy is pretty much the same as before peppered with a ready made player or two.

It’s positive but perhaps not as quick as we maybe required to see the best of Postecoglu.

Not sure I agree

- Richi, Porro, Johnson, Solanke, Maddison are expense signings
- Bissouma, Deki, Bentancur were expensive players that we used timing/situation to our advantage
- Gray, Wilson are not cheap gambles/punts/whatever terminology you want to call it
- Our spend post Stadium/Covid is significant

The difference remains, 3 clubs, City, chelsea & United can afford to make multiple bad purchases and it doesn't affect future windows, our hit ratio needs to be better (Ndombele/GLC investments hurt us)

 

[Bedfordspurs]

I'm not sure paying relatively big money for teenagers like Gray and Odobert who had real experience in the Championship and Premier League respectively counts as "punts".

There has been some inflation and added football inflation since then, so numbers are a bit iffy to compare directly... But still, Archie Gray would have been our record transfer fee paid pre Davidson Sanchez 7 years ago.

They are the signings we watch other clubs make and say we should…
If they signed for Brentford or Brighton we would pay more attention IMO
Football fans when it comes to signings are like my 7 year old doing his Christmas last
he wants 37 things but then has realised that to get some of them he needs to make room
TBF unlike football fans he has got rid of some stuff to make room and is quite accepting that Santa isn’t gonna give him everything he wants this year and there is always next year and his birthday

 

[Robspur12]

More importantly, City (x2), United, Villa show Ange's system can work at top level.

I agree with much of your post but I think we have to be careful using this sample as conclusive proof that Ange's system can work regularly at the top level. Villa aside the other 2 are not the high flying teams we've seen in previous seasons. I still feel our inability to become a solid defensive unit will make it difficult to achieve consistency at the moment. Especially in games where we tire or in all or nothing cup games.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Not sure I agree

- Richi, Porro, Johnson, Solanke, Maddison are expense signings
- Bissouma, Deki, Bentancur were expensive players that we used timing/situation to our advantage
- Gray, Wilson are not cheap gambles/punts/whatever terminology you want to call it
- Our spend post Stadium/Covid is significant

The difference remains, 3 clubs, City, chelsea & United can afford to make multiple bad purchases and it doesn't affect future windows, our hit ratio needs to be better (Ndombele/GLC investments hurt us)

Romero and VDV are £45m each