The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

[egg_fried_rice]

https://www.football365.com/news/premier-league-winners-and-losers-120

 

Leicester’s resilience
Since the beginning of last season, conceding the first goal of the match has been a Leicester City theme. In 2018/19, only Fulham, Cardiff City and Huddersfield – the three relegated clubs – conceded first more often than Leicester’s 23 times.

 

It is a problem that Brendan Rodgers has so far proven himself incapable of addressing. Leicester may be third in the Premier League, but only four clubs (Norwich, Watford, Wolves and Southampton) have allowed their opponents to score first more times.

 

The difference lies not in avoiding going behind, but how Leicester have responded to setback. Last season, Leicester took only 14 points from the 23 matches they went behind, 0.61 per game on average; they won three, drew five and lost 15.

 

So far this season, a complete change. Leicester have conceded first in five league games but have won two and drawn one of those matches, taking 1.4 points per game on average. The only team that averages more in such scenarios are Liverpool, who beat Newcastle 3-1 and drew with Manchester United in the only two games that they conceded first.

 

That record goes against the grain, because one of the general patterns of this Premier League season is the incapability of teams to haul themselves back into matches. Between them, Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, West Ham, Everton and Norwich have conceded first in 20 different matches this season. Their combined record in those 20 games: won 0, drawn 0, lost 20.

 

Rodgers will stress to his players that prevention is better than cure, but he also knows that strong response to adversity is a telltale sign of a team with high morale. His greatest strength as a manager is persuading his team that nothing can stand in their way. Leicester’s players are learning the trick.

[ALC Fox]

Much seems to be made of us outperforming our xG at the moment. It seems as though many pundits and journos were hyping us before a ball was kicked and in the first couple of games or so, but now that we're outperforming even their original expectations they're falling over themselves to predict that a slump is on the horizon.

 

The thing is, it's hard to argue against in a way. If we lose Vardy we lose one of the most consistent finishers in the league who regularly has one of the highest shots to goals ratios of the division's strikers. We're also getting the rub of the green regarding VAR in recent games and even our underperforming players are notching key goals or providing crucial assists (Youri, Madders, Barnes and Gray, for example). And, although he's occasionally looked tidy, Perez is yet to find a groove.

 

Can we really say that we're not quite at our best yet still be third in the league? When it really clicks and we start looking the bees knees, is that when our luck turns for the worse?

 

Could it be that our players are that good that even when they're not playing at their very best they can still find a moment or two of quality in a game?

 

I'm confused right now because third is wonderful but the doom mongers in the media are bumming me out.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, egg_fried_rice said:

https://www.football365.com/news/premier-league-winners-and-losers-120

 

Leicester’s resilience
Since the beginning of last season, conceding the first goal of the match has been a Leicester City theme. In 2018/19, only Fulham, Cardiff City and Huddersfield – the three relegated clubs – conceded first more often than Leicester’s 23 times.

 

It is a problem that Brendan Rodgers has so far proven himself incapable of addressing. Leicester may be third in the Premier League, but only four clubs (Norwich, Watford, Wolves and Southampton) have allowed their opponents to score first more times.

 

Puel must still be doing the training, as that was the reason for the slow starts.

[Stadt]

12 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Puel must still be doing the training, as that was the reason for the slow starts.

At least we’re not conceding first in every game now, seemingly.

[ScouseFox]

31 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Puel must still be doing the training, as that was the reason for the slow starts.

been a couple of "slow starts" that may have excuses though, chelsea was lampard's first game, this weekend was obviously a bit of an emotional one. 

 

with puel it was every single game, home or away, good opposition or shit opposition, 20 minutes in and we'd be 1-0 down. 

[mozartfox]

4 hours ago, shade said:

Probably the best video on the internet? is there a follow-up at 1:18 or is it my imagimation?

I think 'Trafs' on air would liven up LCFC-TV no end plus would make BR's Press Conferences more entertaining when answering Stringer's questions.  All for it.  

[Jobyfox]

1 hour ago, ALC Fox said:

Much seems to be made of us outperforming our xG at the moment. It seems as though many pundits and journos were hyping us before a ball was kicked and in the first couple of games or so, but now that we're outperforming even their original expectations they're falling over themselves to predict that a slump is on the horizon.

 

The thing is, it's hard to argue against in a way. If we lose Vardy we lose one of the most consistent finishers in the league who regularly has one of the highest shots to goals ratios of the division's strikers. We're also getting the rub of the green regarding VAR in recent games and even our underperforming players are notching key goals or providing crucial assists (Youri, Madders, Barnes and Gray, for example). And, although he's occasionally looked tidy, Perez is yet to find a groove.

 

Can we really say that we're not quite at our best yet still be third in the league? When it really clicks and we start looking the bees knees, is that when our luck turns for the worse?

 

Could it be that our players are that good that even when they're not playing at their very best they can still find a moment or two of quality in a game?

 

I'm confused right now because third is wonderful but the doom mongers in the media are bumming me out.

Personally I’m much more comfortable with this. I think it’s more in line with my identity as a Leicester fan for 30 odd years.

 

I’m strangely more comfortable with everyone predicting our demise than everyone stating we’re brilliant. As long as the outcome is that we exceed expectations and confound pundits to the extent where they have to scrape around for an explanation. 

[StriderHiryu]

1 hour ago, ALC Fox said:

Much seems to be made of us outperforming our xG at the moment. It seems as though many pundits and journos were hyping us before a ball was kicked and in the first couple of games or so, but now that we're outperforming even their original expectations they're falling over themselves to predict that a slump is on the horizon.

 

The thing is, it's hard to argue against in a way. If we lose Vardy we lose one of the most consistent finishers in the league who regularly has one of the highest shots to goals ratios of the division's strikers. We're also getting the rub of the green regarding VAR in recent games and even our underperforming players are notching key goals or providing crucial assists (Youri, Madders, Barnes and Gray, for example). And, although he's occasionally looked tidy, Perez is yet to find a groove.

 

Can we really say that we're not quite at our best yet still be third in the league? When it really clicks and we start looking the bees knees, is that when our luck turns for the worse?

 

Could it be that our players are that good that even when they're not playing at their very best they can still find a moment or two of quality in a game?

 

I'm confused right now because third is wonderful but the doom mongers in the media are bumming me out.

Ha very good points and a lot of people feel the same way. 

 

For me though the xG stat is useful it doesn’t always tell the story of a game. Personally whilst I don’t think we are anywhere near top gear yet, in almost every match when I see us play I think “this is a good team.” And I haven’t consistently felt that way since 2016. We were far from vintage against Burnley but of the two teams at the game, only one team tried to play football, succeeded and won the game. 

 

I’m sure a slump will come at some point. Even during the title win we drew vs Villa and Bournemouth which felt like a derailment. It will be how we deal with it that counts. So far after a loss we’ve won the next game - a very good sign. 

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, egg_fried_rice said:

https://www.football365.com/news/premier-league-winners-and-losers-120

 

Leicester’s resilience
Since the beginning of last season, conceding the first goal of the match has been a Leicester City theme. In 2018/19, only Fulham, Cardiff City and Huddersfield – the three relegated clubs – conceded first more often than Leicester’s 23 times.

 

It is a problem that Brendan Rodgers has so far proven himself incapable of addressing. Leicester may be third in the Premier League, but only four clubs (Norwich, Watford, Wolves and Southampton) have allowed their opponents to score first more times.

 

The difference lies not in avoiding going behind, but how Leicester have responded to setback. Last season, Leicester took only 14 points from the 23 matches they went behind, 0.61 per game on average; they won three, drew five and lost 15.

 

So far this season, a complete change. Leicester have conceded first in five league games but have won two and drawn one of those matches, taking 1.4 points per game on average. The only team that averages more in such scenarios are Liverpool, who beat Newcastle 3-1 and drew with Manchester United in the only two games that they conceded first.

 

That record goes against the grain, because one of the general patterns of this Premier League season is the incapability of teams to haul themselves back into matches. Between them, Manchester City, Manchester United, Chelsea, West Ham, Everton and Norwich have conceded first in 20 different matches this season. Their combined record in those 20 games: won 0, drawn 0, lost 20.

 

Rodgers will stress to his players that prevention is better than cure, but he also knows that strong response to adversity is a telltale sign of a team with high morale. His greatest strength as a manager is persuading his team that nothing can stand in their way. Leicester’s players are learning the trick.

 

2 hours ago, pmcla26 said:

We made a habit of this in the title winning season, I know you don’t really want to be going behind first but the fact we keep coming back shows the confidence and ability of the squad. 

 

Hopefully we’ll cut it out over the course of the season but as long as we’re getting points, it doesn’t matter how you pick them up. 

Absolutely. We made such a habit of this that Claudio promised to pay them a pizza if we finally got a clean sheet!

 

We eventually won twice (Villa and Everton) and drew 7 times (Spurs, Bournemouth, Stoke, Southampton, West Brom, Man United, Chelsea) winning 13 points. I've put the home games in bold as I remember us struggling for away form quite a bit - I remember thinking for much of these games that we would have lost them in the Great Escape season before. Yeah, Claudio strengthened the defence and used Kante to improve us as a team, but the 'spirit' the lads had that season made us utterly invincible.

 

This team feels similar. They have quality but it really feels like that spirit is back. 

[ALC Fox]

36 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Ha very good points and a lot of people feel the same way. 

 

For me though the xG stat is useful it doesn’t always tell the story of a game. Personally whilst I don’t think we are anywhere near top gear yet, in almost every match when I see us play I think “this is a good team.” And I haven’t consistently felt that way since 2016. We were far from vintage against Burnley but of the two teams at the game, only one team tried to play football, succeeded and won the game. 

 

I’m sure a slump will come at some point. Even during the title win we drew vs Villa and Bournemouth which felt like a derailment. It will be how we deal with it that counts. So far after a loss we’ve won the next game - a very good sign. 

Yeah, I have to agree with that.

 

If you've got the right players, then you don't necessarily need a high xG because you can create something out of nothing, score difficult goals, and convert the one or two golden opportunities that actually do make a difference to xG.

 

We do have a really strong spirit in this side as well, which has so far helped us bounce back from defeats and going behind in games. Long may it continue.

[jmono84]

Yea this XG thing was bothering me that we’ve not created enough. We don’t create many clear chances due to teams, including Man Utd, defending deep against us. The fact Burnley had a better XG than us proves to me it shouldn’t be taken too seriously. We were by far the better team.

[HighPeakFox]

What was our xG in 15/16, out of interest?

[CosbehFox]

4 hours ago, ALC Fox said:

Much seems to be made of us outperforming our xG at the moment. It seems as though many pundits and journos were hyping us before a ball was kicked and in the first couple of games or so, but now that we're outperforming even their original expectations they're falling over themselves to predict that a slump is on the horizon.

 

The thing is, it's hard to argue against in a way. If we lose Vardy we lose one of the most consistent finishers in the league who regularly has one of the highest shots to goals ratios of the division's strikers. We're also getting the rub of the green regarding VAR in recent games and even our underperforming players are notching key goals or providing crucial assists (Youri, Madders, Barnes and Gray, for example). And, although he's occasionally looked tidy, Perez is yet to find a groove.

 

Can we really say that we're not quite at our best yet still be third in the league? When it really clicks and we start looking the bees knees, is that when our luck turns for the worse?

 

Could it be that our players are that good that even when they're not playing at their very best they can still find a moment or two of quality in a game?

 

I'm confused right now because third is wonderful but the doom mongers in the media are bumming me out.

 

Liverpool had the same criticism this time last season and it came good. 

 

I still find it hard to look at the xG statistic without context. What does it really do? Does it prove that teams are just shit at finishing? The chances created is a more of a worry but does it just mean we are being more intelligent? 

 

Burnley's xG was higher than ours on Saturday - I can think of three chances they had. One was disallowed as a goal, the goal which was well worked and the other was thanks to a huge deflection!

Edited 22 October 2019 by Cardiff_Fox

[urban.spaceman]

58 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

What was our xG in 15/16, out of interest?

5000-1 mate. 

[BrummieFOX]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

What was our xG in 15/16, out of interest?

Would love to know that actually. Did they start collecting xG data back then? 

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

What was our xG in 15/16, out of interest?

Our expected goals was the same as how many goals we scored. 

We were expected to concede nine more goals than we did. 

We outperformed our expected points by 12. 

 

Interestingly the last five champions:-

• All gained between 7 to 17 more points than expected - outperformed their expected points
• Only one champion got exactly the amount of goals expected (us)
• The other champions all scored more goals than expected which includes a whopping 23 more in Chelsea 16/17. - outperforming their xG
• Interestingly the goals expected to conceded is far more realistic against for the Champions with only us being expectational in goal far less than expected. 

 

Conclusion? All good teams outperform xG because they have great attackers - the notion of xG is based upon the likelihood of a player scoring from a certain chance or position. Therefore you are outperforming the average attacker. only have to look how Aguero generally outscores his xG to see that.  Expected points is really an indication that you win close, tight games. xG conceded might be a more realistic assessment in a teams performance which interestingly has us about 7th. 

 

 

 

Edited 22 October 2019 by Cardiff_Fox

[Leeds Fox]

This xG malarkey is literally giving toilet standard journalists a very easy article. It’s easily obtained data that isn’t yet proved to be relevant to a teams success (unless I’ve missed something).

 

Obviously teams such as Man City, Liverpool are going to have more goalscoring chances with the players they have and ultimately finish higher. Although there are plenty of factors it doesn’t take into account. A clinical striker. A teams unwillingness to take risks and wait for good opportunities. I’m sure there are more. 

Edited 22 October 2019 by Leeds Fox

[KingsX]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

What was our xG in 15/16, out of interest?

 

Second best in the league, after Arsenal.

 

 

Interestingly, where xG stats say we outperformed our quality was on defense, not attack.  We were 13th (!) best on xGA.

Statheads can plug in the "Wes Morgan Ass Block" and "Granite-Headed German" adjustments into xG, to correct the discrepancy.

[Guest SO1]

What is this XG bullshit. If you want to predict the future go down the street to the Psychic. Report back, I'll be more interested in hearing the results.

[KingsX]

Again: xG is a simple statistical abstraction of the number and quality of chances.  What attacks have tried to maximize, and defenses to minimize, since the first Association Football match.  What fans have discussed since the first ale was raised five minutes after that.

 

It’s not a conspiracy, it’s not even an advanced stat.  It’s just an ever-evolving attempt to put numbers to the most basic and universally understood concept out there.  Granted:

 

-  It’s only the ones that actually go into the net that count.  No shit.

-  In any given match, chances do not necessarily correspond to ones that go into the net.  No shit.

-  Teams with elite finishers (like JV) convert a higher proportion of their chances.  No shit.

 

Those obvious facts do not invalidate what should be the equally obvious fact, in the long run, more and better chances result in more goals.

[turtmcfly]

44 minutes ago, SO1 said:

What is this XG bullshit. If you want to predict the future go down the street to the Psychic. Report back, I'll be more interested in hearing the results.

[shade]

52 minutes ago, SO1 said:

What is this XG bullshit. If you want to predict the future go down the street to the Psychic. Report back, I'll be more interested in hearing the results.

just got back, she said someone on foxes talk is about to talk a load of nonsense... 

[Raw Dykes]

1 hour ago, Leeds Fox said:

This xG malarkey is literally giving toilet standard journalists a very easy article. It’s easily obtained data that isn’t yet proved to be relevant to a teams success (unless I’ve missed something).

 

Obviously teams such as Man City, Liverpool are going to have more goalscoring chances with the players they have and ultimately finish higher. Although there are plenty of factors it doesn’t take into account. A clinical striker. A teams unwillingness to take risks and wait for good opportunities. I’m sure there are more. 

I don't think you quite understand it. xG is just a measure of how many goals a team is expected to score, based on the quality of the chances it creates and whether those types of chances usually result in a goal or not.

 

I can't see why xG would take a clinical striker into account. Having a clinical striker would mean you score more than your xG suggests you should.

 

A team avoiding taking hopeful chances would barely affect their xG, as these sorts of chances barely result in a goal. It would be taken into account, however.

[Leeds Fox]

8 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

I don't think you quite understand it. xG is just a measure of how many goals a team is expected to score, based on the quality of the chances it creates and whether those types of chances usually result in a goal or not.

 

I can't see why xG would take a clinical striker into account. Having a clinical striker would mean you score more than your xG suggests you should.

 

A team avoiding taking hopeful chances would barely affect their xG, as these sorts of chances barely result in a goal. It would be taken into account, however.

 

I do understand how it works. I wasn’t going to go in-depth as I believe it relies heavily on a teams style of play.

 

When I mentioned ‘hopeful chances’, I used the phrase unwillingness to take risks (in reference to losing possession while attacking). I was referring to holding possession until a high quality chance can be created. This would no doubt result in losing possession before a chance can be created. 

 

I do understand what you’re saying, but it really only does use chances as a reference and ignores a teams approach to creating chances.

 

What I’m trying to say is difficult to articulate and I’m sure what I’m trying to say can be countered on a conversational format like this.

 

We’re a team mastering a new style of play. We seem reluctant to waste possession and therefore are probably creating less chances (and the chances may be of a lower quality than we would like, again as were a side in transition).  

[KingsX]

1 hour ago, shade said:

just got back, she said someone on foxes talk is about to talk a load of nonsense... 

 

   you must be a solid guy, she appreciates a sure thing.