Not Luck After All

[CaptainMorgans]

Still quite a hard chance I'd say. It was a half chance in my estimation, hard to get the ball on target with pace from that position.

It looked to me like Henderson had it covered if it had hit the target. If he’d gone anywhere else with it, he’d have hit the wall of defenders in front.

 

[BladeFisher]

Infogol Early XG - Leeds 0.43 - Blades 0.72

Wrong again Mr Bielsa - you said analysis of the score would show that one team won but analysis of the data would say different.

Expected Magic as well as Real Magic!

Edit: XG was 1.18-0.98 at the end ! Still close.

Apologies but for those of us who aren't footie analysis geeks WTF is XG? Extra Good, Extra Gross, X rated goals?

 

[Chali 2na]

Not just you. All of us. That’s why I like XG. We all have a perception of how easy a chance is and we have a tendency to overestimate it. Our brain tells us ‘should have finished that’ whilst ignoring how many times we’ve seen similar chances missed.

I remember reading a basic analysis years ago that only one in three one on ones with the keeper resulted in a goal. I found that staggering- I was brought up watching Keith Edwards, I think I saw him miss one. If he got one on one, he scored. I just assumed that was normal. So I started paying more attention when watching other games and realised that apart from players like Edwards and Lineker, strikers did miss one on ones. Quite often. But still pundits would always say ‘he should’ve finished that’.

Yeah, I quite like the xG stat too: think it's a far better measure of who had the most effective game plan than possession/shots on target etc.

Good point about the one on ones too - I played most of my junior/amateur football career in midfield, and moved up front in my last few years - gave me a whole new appreciation of finishing and one on ones.
The keeper seemed like an Olympic sprinter and the goal felt like a hockey net.

 

[nopigfansintown]

I think XG is an interesting and relevant statistic, but for this game I really struggle to match the XG figures being quoted with the match I just watched.

By my reckoning Leeds had 5 clear cut chances against 2 for us, and they had more half-chances too. I would have expected Leeds to score a lot more goals from their chances than I’d expect us to score from ours.

We had more than two. Off the top of my head: two from corners; Basham's two chances (including the goal); Norwood's chance; Billy getting brought down by the keeper. There was also the Basham half chance: if he gets his control right he's through on goal. If I were Leeds, I'd be concerned how a sub par SUFC could have so many chances with so little of the ball.

 

[nopigfansintown]

It looked to me like Henderson had it covered if it had hit the target. If he’d gone anywhere else with it, he’d have hit the wall of defenders in front.

Exactly. It looks like he had to go near post, and Hendo was already well positioned making the chance exceedingly difficult. The defenders were blocking any higher percentage shot across goal.

 

[Topplayersleave]

Doesn't Sharp's count as a clear cut chance ? If he had not been rugby tackled by their keeper(still can't believe he had the nerve to protest) it was an open goal.
It was far more clear cut than McGoldricks header and Basham's chance for me anyway.

Absolutely, it was a certain goal except for foul play
Regards the match, we were comfortable to let Leeds have the ball, we didn't try to stop them knocking it around in midfield and up the channels, but as soon as it got anywhere near a threat on our goal the door was slammed shut.
As it's been said above, Leeds had two chances where you'd have expected them to score, the others were speculative efforts and bad decision making, like where Bamford blazed over from an acute angle instead of playing it across the goalmouth, they had plenty of the ball and plenty of half chances but they constantly made the wrong decisions when those half chances presented themselves.

We had three chances where you'd have expected a goal, Basham on half time, Billy if he wasn't fouled, and of course the goal we did score

 

[oldblade]

The Tyler Roberts chance that hit the post was actually really low quality - Infogol reckons only 4% of shots of that type from that location result in a goal (so 0.04xG).

Jansson’s one also limited by the way the ball came to him (didn’t have time to control) and the amount of defenders around him. Might also have been on his weaker foot.

Agreed Leeds had more bits of dangerous play that they’ll feel they should have turned into proper chances, but as you say we were in on goal twice and had a close range header from Mcgoldrick.

Edit - 3 times in on goal if you include the red card.

I think that because he hit the post the impression is that it was a clear cut chance. But, although it was a well worked move and a scoring opportunity it wasn't really a gimme and he did quite well to hit the post. I think Leeds had better opportunities to score.

 

[oldblade]

Yeah I thought that too! Turns out scoring goals is really hard

Looking at it again though, it's a first-time shot (makes it harder as doesn't have the ball under control), the angle isn't ideal (quite wide rather than central) and you've got defenders quite close to him. I think if he'd scored we'd be saying it was a fantastic finish.

View attachment 50973

It also looks like 2 defenders and the goalkeeper are actually directly in the path that any goal bound shot was likely to take, meaning he had to get his shot to bend around them - which in fairness he nearly did.

 

[gordoncharles]

That's astonishing, 4% seems incredibly low!

Although I am highly sceptical of this XG bollocks I can believe it as that shot never looked like it was going in.

I wonder how many decimal places they calculate the chance of a goal to? I ask because I'd like to know if Norwood's first half "shot" even registered?

 

[SWB]

It looked to me like Henderson had it covered if it had hit the target. If he’d gone anywhere else with it, he’d have hit the wall of defenders in front.

Agree ^^^ Keeper would've got to it