Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
CosbehFox

The "do they mean us?" thread pt 2

By CosbehFox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

Can you take your debate on xG to here  

 

PLEASE!!!!!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Steven

Steven

Posted
Posted
On 22/10/2019 at 21:05, shade said:

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

How is that a prediction? :dunno:

RumbleFox

RumbleFox

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, daventry_fox said:

All stats are pointless...except the goals scored stat. 

But it's a useful tool. Of course only the result matters in the end but statistics can help to see trends, and possibly help to predict future results. No one is saying we should just scrap 3 points for a win and base the table on xG but it's at least of interest to some people. If it had no bearing at all then the final league table would bear no resemblance to xG or xPoints but that's demonstrably not the case. In every league in the world those teams with the highest xG tend to score the most goals and those with the lowest, the fewest. Of course there are outliers but no stat is perfect. If stats were of no use at all then bookmakers would go bankrupt. There's a reason the house always wins and it's because, on average, their odds ( partially based on stats) are meaningful. I can understand someone not being a huge stat fan but to dismiss them completely is baffling to me. X 

Stadt

Stadt

Posted
Posted

It’s always people without a display picture that get angry about statistics in football.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
urban.spaceman

urban.spaceman

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Stadt said:

It’s always people without a display picture that get angry about statistics in football.

your profile picture makes your comment look even more sassy.

Stadt

Stadt

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

your profile picture makes your comment look even more sassy.

Incidentally, I guarantee it's what xG detractors look like

  • Haha 1
StriderHiryu

StriderHiryu

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Corky said:

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11712/11843509/jamie-vardy8217s-leicester-form-analysed-with-brendan-rodgers

 

Basically, Vardy's brilliant.

Sky are usually crap, but this is actually a superb article! The point about Vardy deliberately not touching the ball often sounds insane, but that is literally the point of his role on the team. He's there to stretch the defence and make space for others, or for himself when the killer ball is played into him. Vardy has also comfortably altered his game so that it's not even that based on pace anymore. It's his movement, his runs and his finishing that are top class, and that's why for me I feel like he still has at least 50 more Premier League goals left in him. He has similarities to Jermain Defoe who on top of pace was actually a good finisher. But Vardy is even better.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by StriderHiryu
jumbo747

jumbo747

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

I think you might be misunderstanding what xG and xGA stats are used for. They are not supposed to have predictive powers or anything like that. They're meant as an indicator of how a team has performed in terms of creating quality chances and preventing the opposition doing the same, respectively.

 

If we have a very low xG, but find ourselves near the top of the table, then we can suspect that we have a clinical team that doesn't need to create very much to score goals. Conversely, a team with high xG who still score few goals is likely to be wasteful in front of goal.

 

Obviously, goals are what matter, so you want to create as many good chances as possible, and someone on the end of them who isn't going to fuch up very often. We have the latter, and by looking at xG, we can see that we could be doing more about the former.

Just a sincere question out of curiosity, have you ever sat (or stood) at a football match and just watched it, just for the sake of it ?

turtmcfly

turtmcfly

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, jumbo747 said:

Just a sincere question out of curiosity, have you ever sat (or stood) at a football match and just watched it, just for the sake of it ?

 

There's a separate thread for this now. You'll love it - there are some very sincere people in there.

Raw Dykes

Raw Dykes

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, jumbo747 said:

Just a sincere question out of curiosity, have you ever sat (or stood) at a football match and just watched it, just for the sake of it ?

No. I hate football.

OntarioFox

OntarioFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

I think you might be misunderstanding what xG and xGA stats are used for. They are not supposed to have predictive powers or anything like that. They're meant as an indicator of how a team has performed in terms of creating quality chances and preventing the opposition doing the same, respectively.

 

If we have a very low xG, but find ourselves near the top of the table, then we can suspect that we have a clinical team that doesn't need to create very much to score goals. Conversely, a team with high xG who still score few goals is likely to be wasteful in front of goal.

 

Obviously, goals are what matter, so you want to create as many good chances as possible, and someone on the end of them who isn't going to fuch up very often. We have the latter, and by looking at xG, we can see that we could be doing more about the former.

I don't think I'm misunderstanding the fact that I kept coming back to - that it's only the extreme examples for whom xG and xGA actually reflect the standard of performance on a regular basis. 

As stats, they're long-term averages, and so unless you're consistently doing exactly the same thing each game (creating a hatful or letting the opposition do the same) they're incapable of identifying a team's expected performance. The best analogy I could give you is flipping a coin, and expecting it to land standing up on edge. :ph34r:

 

The glut of mid-table teams for whom inconsistency is the problem needn't bother looking at either stat, since you can expect your team to be either better or worse than the mean on a week by week basis. Too many teams in this league can follow up a barnstorming performance where they create and score a hatful, or keep it tight at the back, with an absolutely rotten one where they barely have a shot all game or let the opposition in time and time again, then repeat the process ad nauseam until the season ends. We've been guilty of it ourselves ever since the title win.

 

This season, we're probably the exception to the rule in being far higher in the table than our stats here suggest we should be, but even for us the inconsistency in performance and our game-to-game quality of finishing affect our performance and the stats are pretty weird in general if you take each game in isolation - even comparing games with the same outcome (wins, losses, draws). Take our two consecutive matches against Spurs and Newcastle for example:

  • We had 16 shots against Spurs, 7 on target, and scored 2.
  • We had 13 shots against Newcastle, 5 on target - and scored all 5.

Technically speaking, we performed better against Spurs than Newcastle in terms of creation, yet the margin of victory was far smaller due to various other factors, primarily how clinical we were on the day. You could say the opposition's xGA has a bearing, but Tottenham's isn't even that much better than Newcastle's, and we actually challenged Gazzaniga twice more on the day than we did Dubravka. The difference is that Gazzaniga saved 5 of those shots, and Dubravka let all 5 of his in.

 

So yeah, there's a randomly-picked, recent 2 game snapshot, for which the reality and the other stats seem to fly completely in the face of xG's parameters regarding quality chances - the Spurs game being the one more likely to boost our overall stats despite Newcastle being a far more dominant and clinical overall performance.

 

All I know is, for as long as we remain clinical, I'm completely cool with us having a low xG stat. Not everybody has a Jamie Vardy. :scarf:

Edited by OntarioFox
  • Like 4
Wolfox

Wolfox

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, OntarioFox said:

. The difference is that Gazzaniga saved 5 of those shots, and Dubravka let all 5 of his in.

 

A bit harsh…. One was an OG

 

so technically he would have saved one on target shot :ph34r:

Edited by Wolfox
  • Haha 2
gw_leics772

gw_leics772

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Wolfox said:

A bit harsh…. One was an OG

 

so technically he would have saved one on target shot :ph34r:

Way to go in picking apart an excellent long, well thought out post.  🤣

 

Good work fella, you seem similar to me in that i picked apart a post and got a respode that we seemed to agree withe each other.

 

I don't want to agree with people 🤣

  • Haha 1
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...