Jump to content
IGNORED

xG Daniel Bentley


And Its Smith

Recommended Posts

Maybe Jo Jo has been recalled so he can sit on the bench as the home grown player and allow Semenyo to be loaned out, especially as we have been led to believe we are after 2 strikers, Semenyo becomes surplus.

i would think that Maenpaa would remain the no 2 keeper in reality due to his experience and previous performances so would step in to start games in place of Bentley if required. 
 

I think also it has been decided that as Max is getting games at a higher level than Jo Jo its best to keep him where he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I have been saying on other threads, our need for a striker pales into insignificance compared to our need for a defensive overhaul.  We are conceding far too many and that is no reflection on the keeper, but the midfield and defence in front of him.  

A big part of the reason we are conceding so many shots is we aren’t putting enough attacking pressure on the opposition and dominating play. 
 

I feel our inability to keep the ball at the other end of the pitch is more of a problem than the defensive players, who are inevitably going to be overwhelmed when the opposition get so much of the ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lies. damn lies. and statistics. The more I see of xG the more I see the Emperors New Clothes. I know some of you think it's a useful tool, but I couldn't be bothered to wade through the mountain of bullshit to find a nugget of information that makes the slightest bit of difference. I'll carry on using the evidence of my own eyes thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Angmering Red said:

Maybe Jo Jo has been recalled so he can sit on the bench as the home grown player and allow Semenyo to be loaned out, especially as we have been led to believe we are after 2 strikers, Semenyo becomes surplus.

i would think that Maenpaa would remain the no 2 keeper in reality due to his experience and previous performances so would step in to start games in place of Bentley if required. 
 

I think also it has been decided that as Max is getting games at a higher level than Jo Jo its best to keep him where he is.

That's almost certainly the reasoning behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been banging on about our chances conceded for months.

It's a big problem and the worry is that keepers cannot, generally do not, keep up the same save %...yes we were 'allowing' chances that were harder to score from earlier in the season but it's not a good trend!

As for Bentley, think he's done fine. More than fine tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
7 hours ago, RedDave said:

I hate xG but know that a lot of people use it as their oracle so sharing this which indicates that Bentley hasn’t had a great season so far.  Would be interested to hear from those that love xG and also think Bentley has been excellent as to how they see this.

60CB6193-5D65-42E1-BEBD-3E0E443D12A5.png

Hi @RedDave

Could you explain what each of the headings are and what the numbers in the columns actually mean?

I've not seen this xg stuff before

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven’t studied xG in any massive depth, but from what I know this feels like an attempt to reverse engineer it and apply it to individual goalkeepers when that’s not really it’s intention.

As I understand it, xG is calculated mainly on the location & type of shot. So if someone scores a 40 yarder, xG will suggest they “overperformed” - which is probably true. But apply that to a goalkeeper and it will look like they’ve let in a shot that they should have saved 98% of the time.

Off the top of my head, Blackburn’s first goal against us, and Brentford (A), are both goals that wouldn’t lead to many of us saying “Bentley should’ve saved that”. But xG is probably going to suggest he should’ve.

As with all stats, it’s a part of the whole, but pretty useless on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main flaw with xG is that it takes no account of the individual skill of the player. So a shot from 8 yards might have an xG of 0.80 (i.e. an 80% chance of a goal) regardless of whether its struck by Sergio Aguero or Baz Savage.

Proponents of the system have tried to argue that the best players don't actually have a significantly higher chance of scoring from a given position but obviously if that was true, then why do teams spend millions of pounds on strikers?  It's complete nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Davefevs said:

In simple terms, ignoring stats, I’ve been more than happy with Bentley.

In the main he’s saved the shots I expect him to. He’s saved a number I thought would be goals, so that is a big plus.

Does he fill me with as much confidence as Niki Maenpaa when crosses, corners and set pieces are put into / around the 6 yard box? No.

You won’t get a perfect keeper at this level.

More than happy to have both challenging each other.

Will be interesting to see the selection. dynamic when JoJo is included. 

We know what the selection dynamic will be, Bentley will start with Jojo on the bench. If there is an injury to Bentley then Maenpaa will be in.

There is only one reason Jojo is included in the sqaud unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, O'Garlandinho said:

We know what the selection dynamic will be, Bentley will start with Jojo on the bench. If there is an injury to Bentley then Maenpaa will be in.

There is only one reason Jojo is included in the sqaud unfortunately.

I suspect you are 100% right.

If Bents gets injured during a game, JoJo will obviously get some minutes, but essentially he’s there to allow 6 outfield subs without needing one of those 6 to be club developed.

He will of course gain experience of being part of the match day squad and relevant build-up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring XG, as I don't find it any use whatsoever. I think Bentley has made more mistakes than Maenpaa did last season. Was always going to be tough to follow Maenpaa.

I'm still not really sure if he is any better than Maenpaa. For a goalie Bentley is young so he may improve. I probably feel more relaxed with Maenpaa in goal with crosses into our box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Angmering Red said:

Maybe Jo Jo has been recalled so he can sit on the bench as the home grown player and allow Semenyo to be loaned out, especially as we have been led to believe we are after 2 strikers, Semenyo becomes surplus.

i would think that Maenpaa would remain the no 2 keeper in reality due to his experience and previous performances so would step in to start games in place of Bentley if required. 
 

I think also it has been decided that as Max is getting games at a higher level than Jo Jo its best to keep him where he is.

That's exactly why he's been recalled. It was quoted in one of the recent articles about JoJo coming back.

As for the op about XG...it's no coincidence. You've only got to watch for ourselves. Other stats used in the Championship show Bentley has pretty much faced the most shots, and that we allow shooting chances against us.

We also don't create many chances. Rock bottom of those stats and has been for a long time.

It was also quoted in a recent article about Nketiah coming here, that it went against us because we don't create chances and would go against his development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, HiddenGem7 said:

The main flaw with xG is that it takes no account of the individual skill of the player. So a shot from 8 yards might have an xG of 0.80 (i.e. an 80% chance of a goal) regardless of whether its struck by Sergio Aguero or Baz Savage.

Proponents of the system have tried to argue that the best players don't actually have a significantly higher chance of scoring from a given position but obviously if that was true, then why do teams spend millions of pounds on strikers?  It's complete nonsense.

Although I think you are correct that no xG system yet accounts for individual skill the most sophisticated xG stats out there do actually adjust the number to take account of the average finishing levels within a division. A 0.8 in the Premier League would therefore be slightly downgraded in the Championship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Although I think you are correct that no xG system yet accounts for individual skill the most sophisticated xG stats out there do actually adjust the number to take account of the average finishing levels within a division. A 0.8 in the Premier League would therefore be slightly downgraded in the Championship.

i've seen that too, which is equally stupid as it would imply there would be less and less goals per games as you go down the leagues. There isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HiddenGem7 said:

i've seen that too, which is equally stupid as it would imply there would be less and less goals per games as you go down the leagues. There isn't.

Fewer and fewer goals. This doesn't happen because the standard of defending/goalkeeping drops at a similar rate to the standard of shooting and finishing. Hence a premier league level striker would be expected to score more from the same quality of chances in a lower division than the average striker in that division. If you still applied premier league xG figures to his chances then the xG would bear this out.

I don't think anyone out there is saying that xG is the perfect statistic. I certainly wouldn't say that. For many analytics divisions it has been surpassed by "passes per defensive action", Packing, and a few other metrics. However, if as a casual fan you are attempting to predict the future based on long term past trends it does serve a purpose and has proven reasonably accurate in doing so. It is certainly more useful than looking at the raw number of shots or goals scored/conceded. It is also the most useful metric I know of if you are trying to get an idea of how "lucky" a team has been.

Anyway, on Bentley. I've looked in some detail at his stats earlier in the season and concluded that he was being slightly over-hyped by our fans. There's little doubt that he's one of the best goalies this club has had in recent years, however that is more to do with the relatively low quality of the other keepers than with Bentley being an outstanding goalie at our level. He's also been very, very busy and so his actions have greater influence on the games. Essentially he looks better than he is because he has more chances to look better than he is. He's good. He's a very solid keeper at our level. But is he the best at our level? No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought about this a bit more, and - assuming they’re just reversing the xG for all the shots they’ve faced - surely it’s completely irrelevant for keepers?

xG is judging the likelihood of scoring before the player takes a shot - i.e. how likely it is that they will produce a shot capable of beating the keeper.

If we’re judging how likely it is for the keeper to concede, though, the outcome of the xG calculation is already known, and thus xS (expected save) would need to be calculated separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RedDave said:

If I could specifically remember the username of people that loved xG I’d be highly embarrassed. However there was a debate on here recently where a lot people backed it and loved it. 

As I keep saying if you understand how it’s calculated, it has some uses.  Is it the be-all and end-all?  Nope.  The only thing that is the be-all and end-all is PWDLGAPTS (except cup where it’s GvA)

Here’s a couple of screenshots from the Wyscout data I subscribe to.  I bleated on during and after the Shrewsbury game about how much better (relative I know) we were between minutes 21-45 (when we moved our players into their correct positions) than the other 66 minutes!  It’s not far off 3/4 of the game with players not in their best positions

52D03F25-498C-4941-85DA-0C074F3FAB2C.thumb.png.8dacd882c1e5c29fc18ee072f818e9b3.png

if you take that 24 minute spell, we created 5 chances, yet only 7 in the other 66 minutes.  That’s quite telling without looking at it in too much depth.  Those chances created 0.49xG...almost 50% of our goal threat in a quarter of the game.

That’s one side of it.

Lets look at Shews:

E3983102-A772-4296-9C19-A3B03D8C129C.thumb.png.d7efc2bb554e205d2299b56f3bd0a09c.png

In our spell of dominance (relative) between 21-45 mins, we only conceded 1 chance, versus 12 in the other 66 mins.  Then look deeper, it was a  hopeless chances 0.01!!!  So we were better attacking and better defensively during 1/4 of the game.  Significantly!

I guess all I’m trying to show is how I use xG....more to tell me the flow of the game.  NOT to prove who should have won, or who’s a better player.

But Saturday was certainly interesting...and makes me question what are our coaching team seeing (pitchside)???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I guess all I’m trying to show is how I use xG....more to tell me the flow of the game.  NOT to prove who should have won, or who’s a better player.

 

Agree, and I try to use it to analyse the flow of a season, and to provide an alternative to viewing our season through the enigmatic "form" table which can be very easily slanted by a little bit of concentrated luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...