Chances created

[beatific blade]

The xG data suggests that we created the better chances and deserved at least a point tonight.



The shot map above doesn’t include the Mousset disallowed goal either.

Done over tonight by a combination of an absolutely spineless ref unwilling to acknowledge his own mistake, and some excellent finishing from one of the best teams in the world.

VAR needs to change for next season. Marginal offsides need giving the benefit of the doubt. John Fleck has been denied an absolute worldy of an assist because of where some spod in a portacabin has subjectively decided to draw a line on a computer screen.

I’d rather they let stuff like that go and give a bit more forensic scrutiny to cheating twats diving to win pens and feigning injury to waste time.

UTB FTO FVAR

 

[BarcaBlade]

Sounds like he did acknowledge his own mistake...after the game.

 

[ForgeBlade]

Sounds like he did acknowledge his own mistake...after the game.

Easy for him to do once he's helped secure the 3 points for his team.

 

[beatific blade]

Sounds like he did acknowledge his own mistake...after the game.

Too fucking late. I bet he was begging Henderson to save the shot. Then when it went in he bottled it instead of holding his hands up.

All football fans think they’ve been hard done by but WOW have we been fucked up the shitpipe more than other sides this season.

 

[John Street West Terrace]

Don’t need spreadsheets to know we deserved a point today

 

[Ricky]

Mousset could have had a hat trick, FFS.

 

[mancunianblade]

The 1st goal was reviewed by VAR, I don't see what there was to review other than the involvement of the referee, not seen a clear image of it but seen a number of tweets stating fleck got a toe on the ball rather the. It hit the ref?

Could tell it was suspect though because they didn't show a reply in the stadium..where as there were numerous of the 2nd goal

 

[beatific blade]

The 1st goal was reviewed by VAR, I don't see what there was to review other than the involvement of the referee, not seen a clear image of it but seen a number of tweets stating fleck got a toe on the ball rather the. It hit the ref?

Could tell it was suspect though because they didn't show a reply in the stadium..where as there were numerous of the 2nd goal

If the ref wasn’t in the way to impede Fleck, then Fleck would simply receive the ball and turn or play a pass.

The ref has completely interfered with the flow of play. It’s 11 v 11 not 11 v 12 ffs

 

[mancunianblade]

If the ref wasn’t in the way to impede Fleck, then Fleck would simply receive the ball and turn or play a pass.

The ref has completely interfered with the flow of play. It’s 11 v 11 not 11 v 12 ffs

I'm fully aware of that but the rule is if the ball hits the referee, it makes no mention of impeding. Did the ball touch him?

 

[Akinbiyi]

I don’t need xG to tell me we deserved a point today. At least.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm fully aware of that but the rule is if the ball hits the referee, it makes no mention of impeding. Did the ball touch him?

What's the difference? If the ball hits the ref in midfield and no fucker is getting an advantage the play stops? If the ref jumps out of the way of the ball taking out a player that was going to recieve it and the opposition then score how can this be correct?

 

[Guesty]

Mousset could have had a hat trick, FFS.

The goals have definitely dried up a bit.

 

[mancunianblade]

What's the difference? If the ball hits the ref in midfield and no fucker is getting an advantage the play stops? If the ref jumps out of the way of the ball taking out a player that was going to recieve it and the opposition then score how can this be correct?

Asking the wrong person. Can't recall what game it was maybe Arsenal a few weeks back, in a nothing position someone plays a ball it hit the ref and deflected to another arsenal player in plenty of space, referee dropped play for a drop ball for Arsenal. This is the PL wording

 

[DazBlade88]

What's the difference? If the ball hits the ref in midfield and no fucker is getting an advantage the play stops? If the ref jumps out of the way of the ball taking out a player that was going to recieve it and the opposition then score how can this be correct?

I think the ref could have stopped the game, and should have. Unfortunately VAR can't do anything because they have to go by the written laws. Common sense is no longer involved.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think the ref could have stopped the game, and should have. Unfortunately VAR can't do anything because they have to go by the written laws. Common sense is no longer involved.

The written laws that are killing the game and driving every fan insane Some are even going to the cinema to avoid going to the game.

 

[PokerBlade]

I said this back at the start of the season but it seems to me like now we've had this rule change referees are simply less bothered about staying out of the way. The ball hitting the ref was a fairly rare occurrence and yet I've seen it happen loads this season. Maybe I'm wrong and haven't noticed it before. Doesn't seem that way. Seems more like a rule change to solve a problem that didn't really exist has made things worse.

The ref doesn't touch the ball so the goal has to stand. We're disadvantaged because our player made an honest attempt for the ball instead of letting it hit the ref. Hurray for new rule changes and VAR.

 

[SwissBlade]

I'm fully aware of that but the rule is if the ball hits the referee, it makes no mention of impeding. Did the ball touch him?

The referee can make a call to stop the game if there has been an interference. Its revenge for Balloon gate in 2008

 

[Ranmoorblade]

I said this back at the start of the season but it seems to me like now we've had this rule change referees are simply less bothered about staying out of the way. The ball hitting the ref was a fairly rare occurrence and yet I've seen it happen loads this season. Maybe I'm wrong and haven't noticed it before. Doesn't seem that way. Seems more like a rule change to solve a problem that didn't really exist has made things worse.

The ref doesn't touch the ball so the goal has to stand. We're disadvantaged because our player made an honest attempt for the ball instead of letting it hit the ref. Hurray for new rule changes and VAR.

The ref should have stood still but he moved to get out of the way and made it worse.

 

[Woodwardfan]

The xG data suggests that we created the better chances and deserved at least a point tonight.

View attachment 67493

The shot map above doesn’t include the Mousset disallowed goal either.

Done over tonight by a combination of an absolutely spineless ref unwilling to acknowledge his own mistake, and some excellent finishing from one of the best teams in the world.

VAR needs to change for next season. Marginal offsides need giving the benefit of the doubt. John Fleck has been denied an absolute worldy of an assist because of where some spod in a portacabin has subjectively decided to draw a line on a computer screen.

I’d rather they let stuff like that go and give a bit more forensic scrutiny to cheating twats diving to win pens and feigning injury to waste time.

UTB FTO FVAR

We played very well but we had 8 shots off target and 0 on target. We don't score if we don't find the target.

The opposition played o.k. and had 71% possession, 4 shots on target and 2 goals.

 

[coaxingstar71]

Mousset should do better with the other two chances he had. Got to be hitting the target with the header and should score the one where Ollie played that fantastic ball through.

 

[beatific blade]

We played very well but we had 8 shots off target and 0 on target. We don't score if we don't find the target.

The opposition played o.k. and had 71% possession, 4 shots on target and 2 goals.

Well obviously you have to hit the target to score - I don’t think anyone needs telling that...

My point is that often what you see with your eyes isn’t actually reflected in the data.

A team can have 15 shots from low probability areas and not score a goal. The opposition can create just 2 very high probability tap ins and win 2-0. Cue cries of “but we battered you we had 15 shots and you only had 2!”

The point in my post is that both the eyes and the data have us on top in this game in terms of chances created to realistically score goals. If that game was replayed 100 times with those chances, we’d win more than we’d lose. Away at Man City as well! Remarkable!

 

[Yewsman]

By the letter of the law the ref did not need to blow. This is a new law just brought in and the application of it in practice would seem to need some amendment based on this incident. Surely no one would argue with that as there is no difference in principle with the ball hitting the ref or the ref getting in the way. In both cases the ref is interfering with play and one team or other may be prejudiced. Let’s hope the football authorities look at this for next season.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Well obviously you have to hit the target to score - I don’t think anyone needs telling that...

My point is that often what you see with your eyes isn’t actually reflected in the data.

A team can have 15 shots from low probability areas and not score a goal. The opposition can create just 2 very high probability tap ins and win 2-0. Cue cries of “but we battered you we had 15 shots and you only had 2!”

The point in my post is that both the eyes and the data have us on top in this game in terms of chances created to realistically score goals. If that game was replayed 100 times with those chances, we’d win more than we’d lose. Away at Man City as well! Remarkable!

Big players score important goals more often than lesser players. De Bruyne's chance was harder than a couple of ours and Aguero was simply never going to miss the target with a bullet of a shot.

 

[beatific blade]

Big players score important goals more often than lesser players. De Bruyne's chance was harder than a couple of ours and Aguero was simply never going to miss the target with a bullet of a shot.

This is simply not true. Clinicalness is a myth. A player might outperform their xG over a short period of time (Vardy for example) but they always regress to the mean.

Even Aguero, Kane etc all underperform xG over the long term trend.

The only player in the world that has consistently outperformed their xG output over the last 5 seasons is Messi. And that’s why he’s the best player in the world.

There is a book by James Tippett called The Expected Goals Philosophy. Have a read - it’s very good.

 

[Woodwardfan]

How about testing a good sample of goal line decisions by the goal line tech (100% accurate) with the offside technology judging whether it crosses the line? a ball crossing the line is just the same as a toe nail crossing the line.

Scientifically measure the decision quality of both systems.

 

[JackSUFC]

Easy for him to do once he's helped secure the 3 points for his team.

Exactly. Comes across as patronising. I’d rather the gutless, spineless, inept prick not say anything at all.

 

[PokerBlade]

This is simply not true. Clinicalness is a myth. A player might outperform their xG over a short period of time (Vardy for example) but they always regress to the mean.

Even Aguero, Kane etc all underperform xG over the long term trend.

The only player in the world that has consistently outperformed their xG output over the last 5 seasons is Messi. And that’s why he’s the best player in the world.

There is a book by James Tippett called The Expected Goals Philosophy. Have a read - it’s very good.

This seems counter-intuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that Aguero would score more than Sammon even if the opportunities were broadly similar. So is the point that Sammon would never get to those opportunities hence the disparity in goals scored i.e. football is more about chance creation than conversion rates?

 

[beatific blade]

This seems counter-intuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that Aguero would score more than Sammon even if the opportunities were broadly similar. So is the point that Sammon would never get to those opportunities hence the disparity in goals scored i.e. football is more about chance creation than conversion rates?

Yes. Players with higher xG get themselves into better positions to score - they also are able to create space for themselves i.e Willian jinking inside to create space for a shot that other players can’t.

Statistically speaking there’s not actually a great deal of variance in “finishing ability” among all the strikers in the top leagues in the world.

Kane for example is a goal machine over the last 5 years but based on the chances he’s had, he’s actually underperformed the expected goals number... he’s just had a lot of chances to scores because he has a better ability to get a shot away or find himself in better positions to shoot more often than the average forward.

So you’re right - it’s all about chance creation and then playing the laws of probability on that. Create more higher quality chances as a team and all strikers will score more goals than they otherwise would (Didzy for example will likely score several if he has the same xG in 2nd half of the season as the 1st - but only if his xG remains high).

“Shoot more, score more”, doesn’t work, as weird as it sounds.

Last season in the Championship Rotherham had one of the highest shot counts in the league - but their xG count was low because they were just shooting on sight.

I firmly believe in the power of utilising xG and what it tells you about performances of teams.

 

[PokerBlade]

Yes. Players with higher xG get themselves into better positions to score - they also are able to create space for themselves i.e Willian jinking inside to create space for a shot that other players can’t.

Statistically speaking there’s not actually a great deal of variance in “finishing ability” among all the strikers in the top leagues in the world.

Kane for example is a goal machine over the last 5 years but based on the chances he’s had, he’s actually underperformed the expected goals number... he’s just had a lot of chances to scores because he has a better ability to get a shot away or find himself in better positions to shoot more often than the average forward.

So you’re right - it’s all about chance creation and then playing the laws of probability on that. Create more higher quality chances as a team and all strikers will score more goals than they otherwise would (Didzy for example will likely score several if he has the same xG in 2nd half of the season as the 1st - but only if his xG remains high).

“Shoot more, score more”, doesn’t work, as weird as it sounds.

Last season in the Championship Rotherham had one of the highest shot counts in the league - but their xG count was low because they were just shooting on sight.

I firmly believe in the power of utilising xG and what it tells you about performances of teams.

Really interesting. It's certainly been one of the things we've focused on in trying to create quality chances rather than quantity, and certainly through Wilder's time you've seen people get frustrated at games because we don't cross early or take shots from range (we're changing that a little bit now but not by much). And I know Sharp had one of the best conversion rates in Europe last season but when you looked into the stats you found that he didn't shoot very often compared to other strikers (most of his goals come from around the six yard box and central).

The stats thing was always a mindset you needed to get into in poker, and that's where you'd see how skewed people's perceptions were. Everyone thinks they're hugely unlucky, and lots of people claim online poker is rigged, but when you track the hands over a decent sample everything falls into place.

 

[wavy-blade]

Lets face it we could have won 2-4 Moose could have had a hat trick , and Billy could have scored , ooh well thought we were great , well proud of the team !