Norwich have Kim Hellberg on their radar

[bytholwyn]

The big difference between Williams and Sheehan is that the former was determined to force square pegs into round holes (i.e. playing a system that was heavily reliant on getting the ball out wide when we didn't have reliable crossers of the ball). The latter is absolutely playing to the players' strengths, individually and collectively. Williams with County adopted systems that were a good fit, with Jodi Jones getting a ridiculous number of assists with that wand of a left foot. Perhaps Williams will reflect on his time with us and realise he was barking up the wrong tree.

 

[exiledclaseboy]

Lest we forget, we have Dimi in charge of stats. Excellent.

 

[bytholwyn]

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.

I would interpret things in a much more positive way. I think the club wants in depth conversations with Sheehan to see if the alignment that Sheehan has referred to can be worked out, hence him being pulled from the press conference. If he was to be told that he wasn't going to get the job then that would be a very short conversation.

 

[Swans Jack]

I would interpret things in a much more positive way. I think the club wants in depth conversations with Sheehan to see if the alignment that Sheehan has referred to can be worked out, hence him being pulled from the press conference. If he was to be told that he wasn't going to get the job then that would be a very short conversation.

Good point. Do you know if he did go ahead with the conference or is it delayed to be posted on their social channels. I saw Vigs was up but was suprised Sheehans wasn't up. If its the case he didn't do one today, then it does make you think is there discussions today and announcement soon with him.

 

[Bluenile]

Because we created probably 7 good chances. Vipotnik squandered two very presentable chances, one 6 yards out in the middle of the goal. Eom also missed a sitter.

If there is a bit of a concern with Sheehan it's that the opposition have a higher total expected goals from open play than we have. I was pleased with our open play against QPR, so that's a step in the right direction, but it's still an open question as to what Sheehan's attacking philosophy is. Defensively he's answered all questions.

How can an XG of nearly 3, when we scored 3 be wrong? You say we could have scored 7, which is true, but XG is based prior to the match, and who would expect us to score 7 prior to the game? To be honest, personally, I'm sick of XG as a concept. We need to forget it. Are you really going to spend a season worrying whether we meet our XG in every game. The hard facts are we won 5 games on the bounce, while only letting in one goal. Now that's a statistic I can appreciate.

 

[bytholwyn]

How can an XG of nearly 3, when we scored 3 be wrong? You say we could have scored 7, which is true, but XG is based prior to the match, and who would expect us to score 7 prior to the game? To be honest, personally, I'm sick of XG as a concept. We need to forget it. Are you really going to spend a season worrying whether we meet our XG in every game. The hard facts are we won 5 games on the bounce, while only letting in one goal. Now that's a statistic I can appreciate.

You've misunderstood how xG works. Each shot in the actual game is given an estimated value based on distance from goal, angle of the shot etc. The reason I thought the total xG for the game would have been higher is that we missed at least 3 glorious opportunities. But that was offset somewhat by Key's long range efforts having very low xG.

The value of xG is primarily a long term one. If there's a big difference between xG and actual goals scored it can be useful information, especially with regards to recruitment. A player who massively exceeds their xG may be very clinical and represent value for money. A player who scores less than their xG is likely to be over-valued. xG provides useful context, in amongst a sea of data.

 

[cmajack]

You've misunderstood how xG works. Each shot in the actual game is given an estimated value based on distance from goal, angle of the shot etc. The reason I thought the total xG for the game would have been higher is that we missed at least 3 glorious opportunities. But that was offset somewhat by Key's long range efforts having very low xG.

The value of xG is primarily a long term one. If there's a big difference between xG and actual goals scored it can be useful information, especially with regards to recruitment. A player who massively exceeds their xG may be very clinical and represent value for money. A player who scores less than their xG is likely to be over-valued. xG provides useful context, in amongst a sea of data.

Does he play for Cardiff? Perry Xg.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

(Note to self: careful mentioning xG in future)

 

[monmouth]

Does he play for Cardiff? Perry Xg.

Splendid

 

[Swanjaxs]

I doubt Norwich have their eye on Hellberg. It just looks like some random guy on a football message board making stories up for hits/exclusives; it happens all the time.

 

[Smurph]

I doubt Norwich have their eye on Hellberg. It just looks like some random guy on a football message board making stories up for hits/exclusives; it happens all the time.

I'm glad it doesn't happen on here

 

[Bluenile]

You've misunderstood how xG works. Each shot in the actual game is given an estimated value based on distance from goal, angle of the shot etc. The reason I thought the total xG for the game would have been higher is that we missed at least 3 glorious opportunities. But that was offset somewhat by Key's long range efforts having very low xG.

The value of xG is primarily a long term one. If there's a big difference between xG and actual goals scored it can be useful information, especially with regards to recruitment. A player who massively exceeds their xG may be very clinical and represent value for money. A player who scores less than their xG is likely to be over-valued. xG provides useful context, in amongst a sea of data.

Well one of us is misunderstanding. Now I always thought that XG was an abbreviation of eXpected Goals? Therefore an XG figure would have to be given before the said match took place. Obviously, after the game the goals scored and missed would count towards the NEXT GAME, but surely saying you thought the XG should have been higher because we missed another 4 chances in the match makes no sense at all?

 

[ARQS]

Well one of us is misunderstanding. Now I always thought that XG was an abbreviation of eXpected Goals? Therefore an XG figure would have to be given before the said match took place. Obviously, after the game the goals scored and missed would count towards the NEXT GAME, but surely saying you thought the XG should have been higher because we missed another 4 chances in the match makes no sense at all?

It is an abbreviation of expected goals. It shows how many goals a team would ordinarily be expected to score from the chances they created in that game/positions they got into, etc.

Therefore, if we had beaten Plymouth 1-0 without getting near their goal but Key had smashed in that worldy, our xG would have been close to 0, despite us scoring 1.

On the other hand, had we missed 3 open goals and drawn 0-0, the xG would have been closer to 3, despite us not scoring any.

The point about xG for and against is that, in theory, it tells a bit more of a story than the scoreline in terms of performance. In a game where one team has chance after chance after chance and doesn't give the opposition a sniff, they'd have a high xG for and a low xG against. The team they play against would have the opposite. For what it is worth, you'd then be able to use the stats to conclude that Team A was unlucky not to win and Team B was lucky to get a point. If that was reflected over a period of time, you'd probably reach the conclusion that Team A were performing relatively well but were just a decent striker or two away from being really good whereas Team B is crap and will be in serious trouble when their luck runs out.

 

[Dr. Winston]

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.

Interestingly the general chance conversion rate for the top strikers (Haaland, Salah etc) seems to be around the 20% mark. There are however big differentials between shot conversions, what constitutes a "big" chance, and various other statistical factors that induce sleep in some and a stiffy in others.

Haaland's "big chance" conversion rate last season was around 35%, increasing to just under 50% this year. And he plays in a side that will give him plenty of big chances to keep sharp, which is another thing that allowances are rarely given for.

This is my biggest problem with all of this data analysis. It's too black and white. Football is not baseball, or even cricket, where essentially the same action (pitching, bowling) takes place over and over and over again and averages do make more sense. It is, or at least used to be, far more improvisational than that.

 

[Andrew - North Hill]

This is my biggest problem with all of this data analysis. It's too black and white. Football is not baseball, or even cricket, where essentially the same action (pitching, bowling) takes place over and over and over again and averages do make more sense. It is, or at least used to be, far more improvisational than that.

I totally agree with this.

It's a sport with way too many variables that you often cannot control or make sense of. For the most part they've (Yanks mainly) tried to lift and shift data models used in those sports and applied them to football.

I wouldn't mind betting that's why we've had so many stinking signings in the last 10 years. They're probably there scratching their head wondering why Player X didn't work out, but if you understood the sport properly instead of looking at a spreadsheet it would have been bloody obvious.