Norwich have Kim Hellberg on their radar

[bytholwyn]

Who interprets the data? I could go on all day

The xG is calculated by computer, there is no subjectivity. For instance penalties automatically get given an xG of 0.79 (if my memory serves). That's because historical data shows that 79 per cent of all penalties are converted. xG is purely statistical, there is no human assessment in arriving at the calculation. How you use that xG data is another matter entirely.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

One of the possibly bad consequences of an understanding of xG in the game is the decline in pot shots from distance. Because statistically the chance of scoring goals from distance is very small. So, there's been a drop off in efforts from outside the box. Trouble is, from a spectacle point of view long range efforts are very much desirable, such as Brannagan's effort in Monday, and not just because of the opponent...

I was about to say something along these lines - it's why Jack Grealish is half the player for City as he was for Villa. He's not allowed to dribble and get shots away off the cuff. He's had it coached out of him because "the stats say so".

It's why Martinball was so bland as well. Take no risk, keep recycling the ball, don't shoot from there, don't cross from that position because there's only a 1% chance it'll land at someone's feet, etc.

Killing the game.

 

[A4Jack]

It's clearly not useless and whilst it can sometimes be taken with a pinch of salt, it should never be completely disregarded.

Largely you'll see a team that performs well in XG at both ends will be up there at the end of the season. And when our defence was tight at the start of the season we were outperforming our XG for goals conceded which many people pointed out would lead to an avalanche of goals coming. Which they did.

 

[Darran]

I remember driving upto somewhere like Bury or Rochdale in dreadful weather on a Saturday morning and we lost 1-0. Driving home in torrential rain absolutely soaking and Kenny Jackett comes on Radio Wales.

Reporter: “What’s you opinion on todays 1-0 loss Ken?”

Jackett: “Well we did hit the post and bar four times.”

I nearly did a U-turn on the M6 go looking for the cunt.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

Yeah, OK mate, you might develop a brain one day, but I doubt it

If you're doubting my brain, I'm quite alright with that pal.

 

[Smurph]

Same as me. What’s the old saying, football is a simple game, complicated by…

Now I don’t mind some stats, like crosses made, tackles made, goals obviously. But this expected nonsense can get fucked. And I’ve never met anyone who starts talking about xG, only ever see it mentioned online. It’s definitely one for the nerds.

Absolutely.

Just look at Martin and Williams who over complicated things compared to Sheehan who does the simple things really well.

Another one of those over hyped managers is Graham Potter who I think will get found out at West Ham, next season.

 

[Skippyjack]

The xG is calculated by computer, there is no subjectivity. For instance penalties automatically get given an xG of 0.79 (if my memory serves). That's because historical data shows that 79 per cent of all penalties are converted. xG is purely statistical, there is no human assessment in arriving at the calculation. How you use that xG data is another matter enentirely.

Who types it into the computer, I could go on

 

[Skippyjack]

If you're doubting my brain, I'm quite alright with that pal.

Yeah, whatever mate, there's levels, then there's you.. pity

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

Just look at Martin and Williams who over complicated things

You're absolutely correct.

They would have had the same figures and stats in front of them as Pep Guardiola.

The mistake they both made was in pretending you can apply that same data to vastly inferior players.

Give Haaland a chance in the penalty area it's probably a 90% chance he'll score. Give Zan Vipotnik the same chance it's probably 30%-40%. They made no allowance for this sort of thing.

 

[Smurph]

You're absolutely correct.

They would have had the same figures and stats in front of them as Pep Guardiola.

The mistake they both made was in pretending you can apply that same data to vastly inferior players.

Give Haaland a chance in the penalty area it's probably a 90% chance he'll score. Give Zan Vipotnik the same chance it's probably 30%-40%. They made no allowance for this sort of thing.

It's incredible how these managers think they can replicate the tactics of teams with the best players in the world.

Use what you have at your disposal FFS.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

Yeah, whatever mate, there's levels, then there's you.. pity

Listen, the only pity is that you couldn't answer a simple question about whether a chance in the box is a better chance than shooting from your own half.

I reckon 99.9% of this site could answer that one pretty easily. You, and you only, are the 0.1%.

But you seemingly don't understand stats, so I doubt you even know what I'm on about there.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

It's incredible how these managers think they can replicate the tactics of teams with the best players in the world.

Use what you have at your disposal FFS.

And that's what I love about Sheehan mate.

He's just simplified everything. He's getting the best out of a limited bunch.

Basically he's acknowledged he has a team full of Skippyjacks, and he's cut his cloth accordingly

 

[Swans Jack]

Is it just me, or is this deafening silence from the club feels like Sheehan is not getting the job? It could be that Sheehan has a job lined up, else where or the club sees the Swede as the next big thing, that many are saying he is one to watch and see this as an opportunity that cannot be missed. I'm in the camp of just tell us now, one way or another.

 

[A4Jack]

Is it just me, or is this deafening silence from the club feels like Sheehan is not getting the job? It could be that Sheehan has a job lined up, else where or the club sees the Swede as the next big thing, that many are saying he is one to watch and see this as an opportunity that cannot be missed. I'm in the camp of just tell us now, one way or another.

The fact he's been pulled out of today's conference is a worry

 

[Skippyjack]

The xG is calculated by computer, there is no subjectivity. For instance penalties automatically get given an xG of 0.79 (if my memory serves). That's because historical data shows that 79 per cent of all penalties are converted. xG is purely statistical, there is no human assessment in arriving at the calculation. How you use that xG data is another matter entirely.

Unless you put Josh Tymon on penalties, because he's missed 100% of his penalties, apparently anyway, what does the data say here.. we've got a conundrum here.. data against data here, who wins