Liam's dilemma

[Silvio Dante]

52 minutes ago, cotswoldred2 said:

So now you are really struggling to keep up any coherent argument....having to resort to silly jibes. i.e Matt etc, take some time off go for a walk, take a day off from here, you might have a better bigger view of the World your little chatty box jibes and hating might feel a little less important in you 'life'.

I am not a rich man but thanks for the offer, I am though rich in what surrounds me here, it soothes the soul you really should step away for a bit, the forum will still be here when you get back, Mr P Dave and all see to that.

 

 

Matt.

Your first point was that I denied the truth. Despite repeatedly being asked what that is, you still can’t give a coherent answer.
 

You also suggested you “suspect” that people want us to lose, and despite being asked by @The Original OTIB amongst others, you refuse to back that up.

You called me a “windbag instigator” (which tbf I’ll take, I’ve been called worse) and were the man who brought up “chatty box” jibes which again seems a bit contrary to your post above where you suggest I raised it.

I think (and any reasonable person reading would confirm) I’ve been coherent and consistent. Yourself, Matt, however, have stewed on my last post for a day and still can’t provide anything of substance.

I can appreciate you’ve been watching since the days of Atyeo. Several of those years may have been better served developing a coherent and consistent debating skill, as opposed to the “YOU JUST WANT US TO LOSE” argument which is as tiresome as your now attempts to also sneer at people like @Mr Popodopolous and @Davefevs who add more to the forum than you ever have.

Ill be at Plymouth tomorrow. I hope to see you there shouting at clouds.

Edited March 31 by Silvio Dante

[Kodjias Wrist]

1 minute ago, Silvio Dante said:

Ill be at Plymouth tomorrow. I hope to see you there shouting at clouds.

[Silvio Dante]

Just now, Kodjias Wrist said:

Exactly what I meant, thank you

[Maltshoveller]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Individual games and small sample size sure but over time it can paint pictures, trends. Good and bad..can fail or overcorrect too.

That is what the league table does

I would hope any manager does not need to look at xg to see if his team 

are giving away chances or not scoring goals from chances etc

should be able to see that with his own eyes

[Silvio Dante]

2 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

That is what the league table does

I would hope any manager does not need to look at xg to see if his team 

are giving away chances or not scoring goals from chances etc

should be able to see that with his own eyes

Tbf I’m an xG cynic on the basis of individual chances. I don’t think you can boil it down to x chances from y position go in because it doesn’t account for ability of player, defenders, speed of chance, height of ball etc. 

For me it’s useful as a validation of the points in bold above on a macro basis. The collective xG is handy as to whether  a team is under/over performing and whereas the table shows what has happened, xG more shows what would be likely to happen nine times out of ten (collectively) and points to where things were going.

Prime example (and to in part agree with you) - we expect Vardy to score at least one of his four. You saw that with eyes, xG confirms it and as a collective sample begins to remove subjectivity.

It’s not a magic bullet, and on a chance by chance basis it’s a bit crap. But as a collective “pressure” metric it’s pretty useful.

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

That is what the league table does

I would hope any manager does not need to look at xg to see if his team 

are giving away chances or not scoring goals from chances etc

should be able to see that with his own eyes

I agree on one level but am quite sure clubs now utilise it as one of the analytical tools, trends both for them and perhaps planning as a whole.

League table can do but teams can overperform or underperform for a period. Preston are an example, otoh if you look at Leicester when they were blitzing most their xG was worse at times..the two have perhaps met in the middle.

Certainly some raw shot data was and non Penalty XG (12 awarded this year).

[Superjack]

34 minutes ago, Silvio Dante said:

Tbf I’m an xG cynic on the basis of individual chances. I don’t think you can boil it down to x chances from y position go in because it doesn’t account for ability of player, defenders, speed of chance, height of ball etc. 

For me it’s useful as a validation of the points in bold above on a macro basis. The collective xG is handy as to whether  a team is under/over performing and whereas the table shows what has happened, xG more shows what would be likely to happen nine times out of ten (collectively) and points to where things were going.

Prime example (and to in part agree with you) - we expect Vardy to score at least one of his four. You saw that with eyes, xG confirms it and as a collective sample begins to remove subjectivity.

It’s not a magic bullet, and on a chance by chance basis it’s a bit crap. But as a collective “pressure” metric it’s pretty useful.

XG??

We never this bullshit in the Eighties.

If it's Carl Shutt, it goes in. If it's Scott McGarvey it doesn't. 

Simple.

[Sleepy1968]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Individual games and small sample size sure but over time it can paint pictures, trends. Good and bad..can fail or overcorrect too.

Yeah. xG itself is just a minor part of the analysis of football. Just a headline for us plebs.

Data analysis of football is a multi billion dollar industry (probably :), and if you're leading edge, it can help you (for instance)  identify and recruit fantastic players for cheap that aren't on others radar.

When everyone else is using the same data sets it's more difficult to stand out, but it's one of the reasons Brighton have been so successful in their recruitment (I think they rely on Tony Bloom's company for their data, rather than off the shelf solutions).

I expect fevs has more of an insight.

If you know what you're doing it's a great tool, but if you're a great tool it won't help as much.

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Tbf I’m an xG cynic on the basis of individual chances. I don’t think you can boil it down to x chances from y position go in because it doesn’t account for ability of player, defenders, speed of chance, height of ball etc. 

For me it’s useful as a validation of the points in bold above on a macro basis. The collective xG is handy as to whether  a team is under/over performing and whereas the table shows what has happened, xG more shows what would be likely to happen nine times out of ten (collectively) and points to where things were going.

Prime example (and to in part agree with you) - we expect Vardy to score at least one of his four. You saw that with eyes, xG confirms it and as a collective sample begins to remove subjectivity.

It’s not a magic bullet, and on a chance by chance basis it’s a bit crap. But as a collective “pressure” metric it’s pretty useful.

Xg used in conjunction with many other data points can indeed be very useful.  There’s a good reason pro clubs are using it, employ very clever people to model it etc.

its there to compliment the eyes, and fill in the gaps too.

I do not like the way it is misused, used in isolation.