The Weight Of Expectation

[Silvio Dante]

Unusually in recent seasons on Saturday we’ll be approaching the game not just as favourites but with a large expectation of both performance and result based on recent games. This hasn’t been the case for most of the team, certainly during NPs reign, and it’s a new kind of “pressure” for them.

I don’t expect the crowd to get on their backs if we do fall behind/play badly but the internal mental pressure of knowing you’re expected to win will be there. Historically we’ve fallen down on occasions like this.

Its an interesting game for me as it speaks to how strong mentally the team are in a different way. My instinct is that they will pass the test, but welcome any thoughts.
 

On a (semi) related point, that belter from Second Tier pod seems to think that when we lose, we’ll go on a losing streak again. Once more, I don’t think that the side are now that weak mentally, but as he appears to hate us for some reason and doesn’t realise LJ has gone who had the streaky nickname, worth countering.

 

[supercidered]

All things considered, I feel that Ryan Dilks is a bit of a bell end.

[ExiledAjax]

9 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Unusually in recent seasons on Saturday we’ll be approaching the game not just as favourites but with a large expectation of both performance and result based on recent games. This hasn’t been the case for most of the team, certainly during NPs reign, and it’s a new kind of “pressure” for them.

Who has this expectation? Is it warranted, and if it is genuinely held then is it useful? 

The "analysis" there in that podcast clip is woeful. "In the games where they've had clean sheets they've looked suspect"...um the three games where we kept clean sheets have also been our three lowest xG against games, and are the three games where we allowed the fewest number of shots, and joint fewest shots on target against  - 2 shots on target in each of those three games. They are our three strongest defensive performances of the season, and each clean sheet has been well deserved.

[ooRya]

I think that the confidence that is running through the team at the moment, will outweigh any pressure from "expectation".

[redsince1994]

20 minutes ago, supercidered said:

All things considered, I feel that Ryan Dilks is a bit of a bell end.

Dilkhead

[Red-Robbo]

We've done better than I expected - and I suspect than most expected. It's very early days to start getting carried away, but there is a system, a group morale, and a sense we really are a 'team' now as opposed to just 20-odd wealthy sportsman going through the motions.  Oh, and we've seen the emergence of a new talent in Conway, and Semenyo's injury has been shorter-lived than some expected and he's returned as good as he was last season.

At the same time, Bristol City are a delicate thing. a couple of key players injured, some bad luck, and, yes, we could easily plunge down the table.

What's good this term is you can see Pearson's plan unfolding and improving us.

We're a different prospect than we were in the past two seasons. 

[phantom]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

 

 

Surely he is referring to our days under Lee Johnson?

1 hour ago, supercidered said:

All things considered, I feel that Ryan Dilks is a bit of a bell end.

I can only assume he muddled up the "L" and "C" in his surname?

[Leveller]

His comments are in fact pretty complimentary and balanced overall in this clip. And we simply don’t know whether our form will continue. Those taking offence are being a mite over sensitive, though I know this Dilks was convinced in pre season that we were relegation candidates, so he’s already changed his time somewhat!

[spudski]

I've always followed the 361 stats, especially the scatter graphs.

They generally give to a ' feel' to where teams are heading or end up.

Of course you get the oddballs every season...but as a whole...they are pretty useful to see the likelihood of where a team is heading.

At the moment it shows us as fairly weak defensively and effective at scoring goals when we create an ' average' amount of chances a game. Over time...if that vein continues, then you often end up conceding more and needing to create more chances to score, as the clinical wears off. It shows us as being a ' mid table team' long term if those trends continue.

What's worth looking at is Preston's figures. They've received 100 shots against them, yet conceded only 1 goal. They are literally off the chart...

https://experimental361.com/2022/09/07/scatter-graphics-championship-7-sep-2022/

[Mike Hunt-Hertz]

1 hour ago, redsince1994 said:

Dilkhead

Rhino Dick

[sticks 1969]

Personally can’t wait for Saturday. Haven’t looked forward to game this much in years . Cue crap game with a loss

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Had a quick look at the Scatter graphs and the xG Championship table. Don't disagree too strongly tbh although what I would say is that a fully fit Kalas and Semenyo can bolster us at both ends.

Unsure how or if measures it but xP ie Expected Penalties might be of interest, Reading e.g. have been awarded 2 in the 1st 8 League games.

We have been awarded 1 in our last 91- this can skew things a bit?

Another way. Reading have created according to that 1.2 or a shade under 1.2 xG per game. 0.25 penalties awarded per game so far this year.

We have created about 1.4. Zero. Big fat zero- I know it isn't as simple as that but I'll delve into his stats from last year vs penalty award stats. Could be interesting.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[spudski]

27 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Had a quick look at the Scatter graphs and the xG Championship table. Don't disagree too strongly tbh although what I would say is that a fully fit Kalas and Semenyo can bolster us at both ends.

Unsure how or if measures it but xP ie Expected Penalties might be of interest, Reading e.g. have been awarded 2 in the 1st 8 League games.

We have been awarded 1 in our last 91- this can skew things a bit?

Another way. Reading have created according to that 1.2 or a shade under 1.2 xG per game. 0.25 penalties awarded per game so far this year.

We have created about 1.4. Zero. Big fat zero- I know it isn't as simple as that but I'll delve into his stats from last year vs penalty award stats. Could be interesting.

From the graphs it shows pretty much what we see with our eyes regarding City.

Fairly clinical in front of goal considering the amount of chances we create. 

Our defence comes into the ' pushovers' zone. Conceding 1 goal per every 9 shots and on average facing 13 shots per game. 

As we know defence isn't solely about defenders...when conceding it's often about sitting back and allowing teams to have the ball and proceed into your own half ineffectively opposed from midfield or further up front, which imo, is what we've done later in games.

The graphs also consider that we are better at attacking than defending...true.

And the teams we would expect to be doing well...Norwich, Sheff Utd, West Brom, Boro, Burnley and slightly lesser Watford...are all showing up well in the graphs. 

So even though some might not be near the top...the trend showing is if they continue in the same vein, more wins than losses will come.

It doesn't always happen...Swansea have notoriously been under achievers considering stats over the years.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

From the graphs it shows pretty much what we see with our eyes regarding City.

Fairly clinical in front of goal considering the amount of chances we create. 

Our defence comes into the ' pushovers' zone. Conceding 1 goal per every 9 shots and on average facing 13 shots per game. 

As we know defence isn't solely about defenders...when conceding it's often about sitting back and allowing teams to have the ball and proceed into your own half ineffectively opposed from midfield or further up front, which imo, is what we've done later in games.

The graphs also consider that we are better at attacking than defending...true.

And the teams we would expect to be doing well...Norwich, Sheff Utd, West Brom, Boro, Burnley and slightly lesser Watford...are all showing up well in the graphs. 

So even though some might not be near the top...the trend showing is if they continue in the same vein, more wins than losses will come.

It doesn't always happen...Swansea have notoriously been under achievers considering stats over the years.

I wouldn't quite go with 'pushovers' defensively but we are kept quite busy certainly. Think our shots conceded number has improved post Wigan away hut happy to look into it...remember too v Luton that we barely conceded a shot until the Sykes red card which can skew numbers a little. At 11 v 11 we were mostly dominant in all aspects in that one.

Agree with a lot of your post though but I do wonder how much of the 2nd half face or pushback is down to 2 genuine CMs. Although back 3s are becoming increasingly common at this level so maybe not but my personal all things being ideal preference from a technical and tactical perspective is still a modern 4-3-3. However no complaints atm.

[ExiledAjax]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

What's worth looking at is Preston's figures. They've received 100 shots against them, yet conceded only 1 goal. They are literally off the chart...

And in our attack they are facing one of the most clinical attacks in the entire 92. Those same graphs, and other numbers, show that we generally need to only take 6 or so shots to score. Personally I take that to mean that should we be able to create chances we are one of the more likely teams to score.

It's not prevention of shots that has kept Preston's goals against figure down, the final (ludicrous) graph from E361 shows that they allow an above average number of shots (about 13 per game). we have been taking about 12 shots per game. 

Taking those numbers together, Preston allowing 13 shots per game, us taking 12 per game, and us needing about 6 or 7 shots to score...well that gives us a predicted goals of about 2. Funnily enough we've been scoring 2 goals per game as well. It's therefore demonstrable, on the famous paper upon which football is not played, that we have the tools and are even 'likely' to unlock this blessed Preston defence.

Edited September 8, 2022 by ExiledAjax

[Mr Popodopolous]

Penalties wise though, using a) Penalties awarded and b) The Experimental 3-6-1 stats definitely going to see our xG created to penalties awarded ratio this and especially last season.

Perhaps I'll look to make a graph or 2 as well.

Edited September 8, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

our shots conceded number has improved post Wigan away

14.33 per game for the Hull, Sunderland and Wigan games.

13 per game for the 5 games that followed.

Small improvement.

[Robbored]

‘ lies, damn lies and statistics’ but in this case they’re a fair reflection of where City need to improve. However does it really take stats to tell everyone at City including us fans that we’re very decent in attack but weaker in defence?

[Engvall’s Splinter]

My expectations haven’t risen dramatically re result. I’m chuffed and pleasantly surprised when we do win currently. I do though expect us to score and most likely concede late. Very much enjoying the ride. 

[spudski]

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

And in our attack they are facing one of the most clinical attacks in the entire 92. Those same graphs, and other numbers, show that we generally need to only take 6 or so shots to score. Personally I take that to mean that should we be able to create chances we are one of the more likely teams to score.

It's not prevention of shots that has kept Preston's goals against figure down, the final (ludicrous) graph from E361 shows that they allows an above average number of shots (about .13 per game). we have been taking about 12 shots per game. 

Taking those numbers together, Preston allowing 13 shots per game, us taking 12 per game, and us needing about 6 or 7 shots to score...well that gives us a predicted goals of about 2. Funnily enough we've been scoring 2 goals per game as well. It's therefore demonstrable, on the famous paper upon which football is not played, that we have the tools and are even 'likely' to unlock this blessed Preston defence.

The scatter graphs are pretty much like VAR and the laws of the game...interpreted differently by everyone.

If it helps...from previous seasons, ourselves included, we were clinical in front of goal early in the season...however teams that are clinical from smaller amounts of chances created, generally tail off. They become less clinical and need to create more chances in a game.

We also allow 13 shots per game against us.

Watford are considered clinical in front of goal like ourselves...yet Preston drew 0-0 with them.

I find the graphs generally don't work if you look for individual match ups.

They are better looked at as an average over time.

 

[Bris Red]

3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Unusually in recent seasons on Saturday we’ll be approaching the game not just as favourites but with a large expectation of both performance and result based on recent games. This hasn’t been the case for most of the team, certainly during NPs reign, and it’s a new kind of “pressure” for them.

I don’t expect the crowd to get on their backs if we do fall behind/play badly but the internal mental pressure of knowing you’re expected to win will be there. Historically we’ve fallen down on occasions like this.

Its an interesting game for me as it speaks to how strong mentally the team are in a different way. My instinct is that they will pass the test, but welcome any thoughts.
 

On a (semi) related point, that belter from Second Tier pod seems to think that when we lose, we’ll go on a losing streak again. Once more, I don’t think that the side are now that weak mentally, but as he appears to hate us for some reason and doesn’t realise LJ has gone who had the streaky nickname, worth countering.

 

Under the previous regime of LJ he is spot on but we are IMO a different beast under Pearson. It’s just lazy and shows a lack of real understanding of the club to just look at historical performances.

[Hxj]

Is there is a more meaningless graph to plot out than 'Expected Goals For' v 'Expected Goals Against' I'd love to know what it is.

Do they actually know that football is decided on 'Actual Goals Scored' v 'Actual Goals Conceded'?

[ExiledAjax]

Just now, spudski said:

The scatter graphs are pretty much like VAR and the laws of the game...interpreted differently by everyone.

If it helps...from previous seasons, ourselves included, we were clinical in front of goal early in the season...however teams that are clinical from smaller amounts of chances created, generally tail off. They become less clinical and need to create more chances in a game.

We also allow 13 shots per game against us.

Watford are considered clinical in front of goal like ourselves...yet Preston drew 0-0 with them.

I find the graphs generally don't work if you look for individual match ups.

They are better looked at as an average over time.

 

Yes of course. I track all of these figures myself using my own tables, and have done since the 2019/20 season after seeing everyone jizz themselves over the 9 game winning run in early 2019 that was pretty much undeserved and mostly down to luck. I well know our clinical tendencies over the past few years. E361 is one of half a dozen stats sites I look at. He's good, especially at the visualisation of data. He's also been doing it for a long time, but his actual numbers, raw data, and xG values are often a little off when compared to the big paid sites such as Opta or wyscout. I would not rely solely on him.

We may allow 13 shots against, but in general our opponents require just under 10 shots to score. So if we allow our average of 13 shots in this game, we should bet on conceding just once. I know that xG etc is best used to look at long term trends. I've preached that line many, many times on here. 

However, in a thread specifically discussing the expectations for a single match, into which you reasonably brought a discussion of xG, I think it's reasonably to apply the averages from 8 games to look at what the exact expectation should reasonably be. For me, looking at the numbers, I'd go for a 2-1 home win if I had to.

[spudski]

1 minute ago, ExiledAjax said:

Yes of course. I track all of these figures myself using my own tables, and have done since the 2019/20 season after seeing everyone jizz themselves over the 9 game winning run in early 2019 that was pretty much undeserved and mostly down to luck. I well know our clinical tendencies over the past few years. E361 is one of half a dozen stats sites I look at. He's good, especially at the visualisation of data. He's also been doing it for a long time, but his actual numbers, raw data, and xG values are often a little off when compared to the big paid sites such as Opta or wyscout. I would not rely solely on him.

We may allow 13 shots against, but in general our opponents require just under 10 shots to score. So if we allow our average of 13 shots in this game, we should bet on conceding just once. I know that xG etc is best used to look at long term trends. I've preached that line many, many times on here. 

However, in a thread specifically discussing the expectations for a single match, into which you reasonably brought a discussion of xG, I think it's reasonably to apply the averages from 8 games to look at what the exact expectation should reasonably be. For me, looking at the numbers, I'd go for a 2-1 home win if I had to.

You are similar to me then. I also look at various outlets that give stats.

All offer different values, but pretty much as a whole come to the same consensus.

I remember back in the day under LJ when it was obvious from our eyes that we were riding our luck...and like you also say...the stats backed it up.

I see similarities right now.

We are playing attractive football and really effective going forward...however...it could look a lot worse if shots had gone in against us.

Slim margins. 

[James54De]

14 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Is there is a more meaningless graph to plot out than 'Expected Goals For' v 'Expected Goals Against' I'd love to know what it is.

Do they actually know that football is decided on 'Actual Goals Scored' v 'Actual Goals Conceded'?

Presume you’ve never done any statistical analysis in your life. Everything in this world is based upon probability, everything. 
Example; Your mortgage repayments derive from banks expectations of your future earnings and your future outgoings, not your actuals. 

[Silvio Dante]

8 minutes ago, James54De said:

Presume you’ve never done any statistical analysis in your life. Everything in this world is based upon probability, everything. 
Example; Your mortgage repayments derive from banks expectations of your future earnings and your future outgoings, not your actuals. 

No they don’t.

Under MCOB 11.6, which regulates responsible lending, the assessment has to be based on the applicants actual earned income. Lenders then also apply standardised COL in addition to committed outgoings. There was a requirement to stress the pay rate of the loan but MCOB was amended to remove this in June.

Although Lenders should ensure that the loan is affordable, to the best of their ability, over the residual term (ie if lending into retirement checking pension income), there is no provision in regulation to use projections of not currently known future income to support a loan, or to forward project outgoings 10-15 years in the future.

In fact, a lender basing lending on projections and not considering current financial position is highly likely to breach MCOB and be fined.

Summary: A decision to lend is totally based on current income and current actual/modelled outgoings in the first part. All the lender has to be satisfied is that this is sustainable.

[James54De]

5 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

No they don’t.

Under MCOB 11.6, which regulates responsible lending, the assessment has to be based on the applicants actual earned income. Lenders then also apply standardised COL in addition to committed outgoings. There was a requirement to stress the pay rate of the loan but MCOB was amended to remove this in June.

Although Lenders should ensure that the loan is affordable, to the best of their ability, over the residual term (ie if lending into retirement checking pension income), there is no provision in regulation to use projections of not currently known future income to support a loan, or to forward project outgoings 10-15 years in the future.

In fact, a lender basing lending on projections and not considering current financial position is highly likely to breach MCOB and be fined.

Summary: A decision to lend is totally based on current income and current actual/modelled outgoings in the first part. All the lender has to be satisfied is that this is sustainable.

An expectation and a projection are very different things. 

[maxjak]

4 hours ago, supercidered said:

All things considered, I feel that Ryan Dilks is a bit of a bell end.

Nope, sorry to correct you, but...........he's a whole Bell-End

[frenchred]

Why does everyone get so assy, childish and protective when some unknown makes a remark against our team?

If you were an outsider looking in I'm sure you would hold the same opinion.

Let them continue to write us off, fine by me, rise above it, grow up and celebrate what we have at the moment!

[Silvio Dante]

6 minutes ago, James54De said:

An expectation and a projection are very different things. 

That’s true. But it doesn’t remove the fact that the phrase “not your actuals” is nonsense. In fact, the whole regulation is based around your actuals and them not changing.

If you wanted to say a decision to lend may have been based on PDs and LEL expectations to back up your probability piece that would be fine (and more akin to credit scoring) but income (affordability) assessment is always based on actuals in the first part.

So, in summary, you’re incorrect.