That’s actually not true because we’ve conceded more goals than our xG.
There have been games where we’ve conceded high xG chances but low xG goals and vice versa in attack. Thats just football.
Everything you’ve said just isn’t based on any data metrics, it’s just your subjective opinion. On xG and goals conceded, our defence is the 4th and 5th best in the league.
There’s nothing to worry about in terms of scoring goals and chance creation, the attack is by far the best in the league on xG and actual goals scored.
Is why the data or as you say, ‘internet stats’ people heavily back us to carry on to get promoted.
You are reading things into the data that aren’t there. xGA won’t tell you if we are giving up a few chances we shouldn’t unless you pair it with something like momentum.
You are reading things into the data that aren’t there. xGA won’t tell you if we are giving up a few chances we shouldn’t unless you pair it with something like momentum.
What does that mean exactly? The point you make isn’t clear.
If you want to make a point that there are things that data doesn’t capture, I agree with you. The difference is that the ‘eye test’ is completely subjective so if no data to backs it up, it’s almost definitely not a correct reading of the game. To use one example, against QPR it felt like we scored every shot we had and the shots on target confirmed that gut feeling and the xG was a lot lower than the goals we scored because most of them were low % chances.
In terms of xGA, it is a measure of the quality of shots you face and according to this metric, we’ve conceded more goals than we should have (20 xGA v 22 GA). Which is actually a far more helpful metric that what you suggested.
In any case, it was true that during our clean sheet spell that our defence was flattering to deceive because we conceded big chances v Millwall, Blackburn and Leicester. However, it’s fair to say that this has flipped on its head since Wrexham and we’ve conceded more than we should have.
Balancing it out, we could probably expect to concede less goals in the coming games.
What does that mean exactly? The point you make isn’t clear.
If you want to make a point that there are things that data doesn’t capture, I agree with you. The difference is that the ‘eye test’ is completely subjective so if no data to backs it up, it’s almost definitely not a correct reading of the game. To use one example, against QPR it felt like we scored every shot we had and the shots on target confirmed that gut feeling and the xG was a lot lower than the goals we scored because most of them were low % chances.
In terms of xGA, it is a measure of the quality of shots you face and according to this metric, we’ve conceded more goals than we should have (20 xGA v 22 GA). Which is actually a far more helpful metric that what you suggested.
In any case, it was true that during our clean sheet spell that our defence was flattering to deceive because we conceded big chances v Millwall, Blackburn and Leicester. However, it’s fair to say that this has flipped on its head since Wrexham and we’ve conceded more than we should have.
Balancing it out, we could probably expect to concede less goals in the coming games.
Im saying if you want to disprove me in data xGA alone wont do it because my point of we dont concede may chances because of a super defence but because we’re mostly on the attack and winning the ball in midfield. Youre right im going on the eye test cos i CBA working out exactly what data would prove it. Like I say my best guess is some measure of chances given up vs domination during that period? I dont know.
I agree we need to add depth at LB, Borrows will move on at the end of the season, maybe sooner, and ive no idea what's happened to Brau, if hes not ready then maybe a loan move would be on the cards, that would get him off the squad list and free up another place. (Same for Lats)
Tuesday was a shit show, we dominated against 10 men but needed an own goal to get in front, and then conceded from a simple set piece ball into the only threat they had, Lampard must of been fuming, we won't have a better chance to beat Preston.
The goal we conceded though wouldn't of mattered if we'd of been more ruthless in the final third. Which is not something I thought I'd be saying after we passed the 50 goal mark so early.
Im saying if you want to disprove me in data xGA alone wont do it because my point of we dont concede may chances because of a super defence but because we’re mostly on the attack and winning the ball in midfield. Youre right im going on the eye test cos i CBA working out exactly what data would prove it. Like I say my best guess is some measure of chances given up vs domination during that period? I dont know.
This seems rather contradictory to be honest. xGA is a measure of chances you do concede…
I don’t really understand your point and it seems like you’re conflating defence with the defenders individually rather than the defence as a team effort.
The eye test has its place. However, when you have clear biases, that impedes your judgement. This is why ‘Moneyball’ was pioneered. In this case, it’s not unfair to say you’ve got biases against certain players like Kitching, for example.
It’s a repeat of last season where you were digging to find explanations of how Lampard was flattering to deceive…
That’s actually not true because we’ve conceded more goals than our xG.
There have been games where we’ve conceded high xG chances but low xG goals and vice versa in attack. Thats just football.
Everything you’ve said just isn’t based on any data metrics, it’s just your subjective opinion. On xG and goals conceded, our defence is the 4th and 5th best in the league.
There’s nothing to worry about in terms of scoring goals and chance creation, the attack is by far the best in the league on xG and actual goals scored.
Is why the data or as you say, ‘internet stats’ people heavily back us to carry on to get promoted.
But what it say 5games ago?
It's a difficult one as if we say anything we're bedwetters when it's not that, it's just attempting to keep standard's up there, whether that's a necessity I'm not sure.It could affect the team in many ways or the fanbase.
Nobody is demanding anything here, it's just looking for signs I think.
If we bring up an area that causes us concerns, it's not really surprising as we can't believe what's happened,of course we're conditioned to do this for many of us because of the last 20odd years.
But what it say 5games ago?
It's a difficult one as if we say anything we're bedwetters when it's not that, it's just attempting to keep standard's up there, whether that's a necessity I'm not sure.It could affect the team in many ways or the fanbase.
Nobody is demanding anything here, it's just looking for signs I think.
If we bring up an area that causes us concerns, it's not really surprising as we can't believe what's happened,of course we're conditioned to do this for many of us because of the last 20odd years.
I share those concerns but won’t be arguing that our defence is now poor. We’ve had tough fixtures against good teams and for the large part, defended well.
PNE had one chance all game and they took it, their chance was less clear cut than the two Haji had in the first half. If he scores one of those, we probably stay at 3-4-3 and see out the game. In any case, the red card at 0-0 means we revert to 4-2-3-1 and on the attack more aggressively and open to a counter attack.
Likewise, going back to Ipswich, before we go 1-0 down, we managed Ipswich’s threat well and were in control. 2nd half, we get caught out 3 times and concede twice.
This is where xG needs the additional context of ‘game state’ because of its influence on the flow of the game.