If Rodgers Goes...

[gerrytaggart]

17 hours ago, CrispinLA in Texas said:

Large part due to Iheanacho goals getting us to the final

Yeah.  He scored way more than Rodgers.

[fuchsntf]

1 hour ago, Simoken said:

I cant believe what im reading in this forum, Its like people want to be miserable and already preparing for the worst. get a grip, i  said this in a post the otherday, i feel i have to repeat the message. Show some respect to a man that gave you the FA CUP, Communitity Shield and European football. We were championship fodder not too long ago, We are becoming ever so entitled and petty ever sincee we won the league. The expectations from a majority of our fans is embarrasing, Football is loved for its HIGHS and LOWS so for the love of god and the mental health of my fingers having to type this shit. support BR he derserves it this year and next regardless how bad it gets, hes a fantastic manager thats proved it already. This is slow progress to club improvement, and changing a manager will solve nothing, look at spurs/man utd and ourselves!!!!!

[coolhandfox]

10 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

They literally missed an open goal from two yards out in the second half...

We also had Cags and Youri miss easy chances.

 

As I said in a different thread, it was like watching two drunks fight over the last chip.

 

Both sides lacked quality.

[goose2010]

38 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

They literally missed an open goal from two yards out in the second half...

and we missed 3 guilt edge chances and had one disallowed which some would argue was the wrong decision... 

[Flappit]

23 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

We also had Cags and Youri miss easy chances.

 

As I said in a different thread, it was like watching two drunks fight over the last chip.

 

Both sides lacked quality.

Leeds had an xg of almost double ours. Some people have very blue tinted spectacles on. 

[Flappit]

1 minute ago, goose2010 said:

and we missed 3 guilt edge chances and had one disallowed which some would argue was the wrong decision... 

*gilt

 

Which 3 were they then? And offside is offside. We all saw the picture.

[The_77]

Just now, Flappit said:

Leeds had an xg of almost double ours. Some people have very blue tinted spectacles on. 

That’s because the disallowed Lookman goal wouldn’t be included in our xG count. 

[The_77]

Just now, Flappit said:

*gilt

 

Which 3 were they then? And offside is offside. We all saw the picture.

The one where the ball wasn’t even on Vardy’s head?

[BenTheFox]

Just now, The_77 said:

That’s because the disallowed Lookman goal wouldn’t be included in our xG count. 

As much as I don't like VAR, it was the correct decision. He was offside. 

[The_77]

Just now, BenTheFox said:

As much as I don't like VAR, it was the correct decision. He was offside. 

Fine. xG usually does a decent job of showing how threatening both sides were but that play makes it clear that the xG numbers don’t tell enough of the story from yesterday. 

[Flappit]

https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/result/english-premier-league/leeds-vs-leicester-2021-11-07/932788

 

Look at the xg map and the attempts and try to be objective... 

[BenTheFox]

I'm not going to harp on about expected goals. Watching the game as I did yesterday I wouldn't have had any complains had we lost. 

[ealingfox]

I like xG but the fact you see multiple different xG scores for every team every week across the different outlets sullies it a bit for me (although admittedly the variation is not huge) - clearly either there are multiple measurement systems or its at least partly subjective.

[HighPeakFox]

17 minutes ago, Flappit said:

Leeds had an xg of almost double ours. Some people have very blue tinted spectacles on. 

Yet when we have a healthy xG (as we did on Thursday), it doesn't count for some people either.

[CosbehFox]

8 minutes ago, Flappit said:

Leeds had an xg of almost double ours. Some people have very blue tinted spectacles on. 

Largely due to a single chance mind. That Harrison miss was xG of 0.92. Personally xG has its points but there are certain things it doesn’t take into consideration. 

[Mickyblueeyes]

2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Yet when we have a healthy xG (as we did on Thursday), it doesn't count for some people either.

There is something I didnt understand when listening to Radio Leicester yesterday before the game. Sorry, this post is not aimed at you HPF and more so a general comment for those more in the know when it comes to stats and tactics. 

 

Anyway, Matt Piper seemed to be defending himself - I dont listen to the football forum and usually dont pick up the radio much so I dont know the history. Piper was saying that a football brain would understand that we played really well against Spartak as our "transition" between phase 3 and 2 was excellent. Our use of the ball in phase 1 wasn't. This all didn't make sense to me.

 

Basically, the way it sounded to me was our use of the ball at the back, with no pressure (i.e. phase 3) was good - you'd expect that, a team whose sitting back is not going to press you continuously in your own half - we probably "won" in phase 3 against West Ham too. Phase 2 is then the middle of the park. Tougher than phase 3 in that you'd expect a little bit more pressure than phase 3 but no where near the same level of pressure as phase 1. That leaves phase 1 - where the opposing team (again, one with a low block) would be relentless in covering and pressing the ball. So, to do "well" you essentially need to win this phase and nothing else (in low block game). 

 

What I am trying to understand is that Piper was quite adamant that he was right and generally our use of the ball was good and we did what was required as we had "won" 2 out of 3 phases of the game. To me, because we lost the biggest and most important area - the other two phases were irrelevant. Essentially what I am saying is, something what is reflected on the pitch (movement, chances, energy, enthusiasm etc.) may not be clearly reflected on the "stats". Surely Piper is wrong in his wisdom here if he considers what he saw alongside reference to the stats and these different phases ?

 

For the record, I like Matt Piper but I thought he waffled on this point a bit. 

 

Bringing this back to Brendan and the coaching staff - maybe we emphasis too much of our post game review on these electronic stats - maybe we need a neutral eye in the stands with experience just for a little which to add a bit of guidance to what is a relatively in-experienced coaching team. An overhaul at this stage risks us being back here negotiating the same points but with different names. 

 

 

[fleshdaddy]

Careful, careful - I made a similar thread a few weeks back and got lambasted for even thinking "who next" after Rodgers!

That said, and as I said in that thread, I'd rather Rodgers stay until the end of the season at least. As I've also said before though, I do wonder if he's peaked with us as a club, or us with him as a manager, in terms of our squad and how far he can take us. And that's been far, don't get me wrong - two fifth place finishes and European football, as well as the FA Cup. He's done a good job in taking us forward, but it's clear he's eyeing up a top job after he leaves us, be it Man City or Man Utd, and we need to be looking at who we want to replace him now, so we don't get caught short when he does leave.

[Chrysalis]

Just found the tweet that caused all this panic, they dont look like a credible news outlet to me, an hour ago they have linked someone else to the job.  They just firing a scatter gun and hoping for a hit.

[foxinsocks]

47 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

There is something I didnt understand when listening to Radio Leicester yesterday before the game. Sorry, this post is not aimed at you HPF and more so a general comment for those more in the know when it comes to stats and tactics. 

 

Anyway, Matt Piper seemed to be defending himself - I dont listen to the football forum and usually dont pick up the radio much so I dont know the history. Piper was saying that a football brain would understand that we played really well against Spartak as our "transition" between phase 3 and 2 was excellent. Our use of the ball in phase 1 wasn't. This all didn't make sense to me.

 

Basically, the way it sounded to me was our use of the ball at the back, with no pressure (i.e. phase 3) was good - you'd expect that, a team whose sitting back is not going to press you continuously in your own half - we probably "won" in phase 3 against West Ham too. Phase 2 is then the middle of the park. Tougher than phase 3 in that you'd expect a little bit more pressure than phase 3 but no where near the same level of pressure as phase 1. That leaves phase 1 - where the opposing team (again, one with a low block) would be relentless in covering and pressing the ball. So, to do "well" you essentially need to win this phase and nothing else (in low block game). 

 

What I am trying to understand is that Piper was quite adamant that he was right and generally our use of the ball was good and we did what was required as we had "won" 2 out of 3 phases of the game. To me, because we lost the biggest and most important area - the other two phases were irrelevant. Essentially what I am saying is, something what is reflected on the pitch (movement, chances, energy, enthusiasm etc.) may not be clearly reflected on the "stats". Surely Piper is wrong in his wisdom here if he considers what he saw alongside reference to the stats and these different phases ?

 

For the record, I like Matt Piper but I thought he waffled on this point a bit. 

 

Bringing this back to Brendan and the coaching staff - maybe we emphasis too much of our post game review on these electronic stats - maybe we need a neutral eye in the stands with experience just for a little which to add a bit of guidance to what is a relatively in-experienced coaching team. An overhaul at this stage risks us being back here negotiating the same points but with different names. 

 

 

In the end it is about goals.   We know the defense is not stable and so we concede 1 or 2 per game.   It needs fixing. 

Yet against leeds and moscow we should have scored 3.

Imo xgoals is relevant... and we need to creat opportunities... but... especially if your actual goals are less than xgoals... which suggest poor execution

[Sly]

56 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Largely due to a single chance mind. That Harrison miss was xG of 0.92. Personally xG has its points but there are certain things it doesn’t take into consideration. 

Exactly. 
 

Give that chance to Shearer, Fowler, Batistuta, Messi, Ronaldo, Pele, Muller, Puskus, Owen, Vardy etc and it’s in the net. 
 

Give it to Harrison, Kisnorbo, Soyuncu, or my grandma, it isn’t. 
 

xG doesn’t account for the ability of the person taking the chance unfortunately. 
 

How many teams have lost games, because they can’t finish? xG only tells part of a story. How good would Brighton be if they had one of our forwards.m, instead of Maupay? 

[mozartfox]

4 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

The managers I like most there are both Austrian, Marco Rose who's at Dortmund now and Oliver Glasner who did very well at Wolfsburg before going to Frankfurt this season.

Ric - Marco Rose is German.    

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, Flappit said:

Leeds had an xg of almost double ours.

xg is pointless in my view it doesn't take into account the quality of the player taking the shot, you get the same xg whether it Amartey or CR7 shooting 

 

1 hour ago, Flappit said:

Some people have very blue tinted spectacles on. 

I just saw two average teams, lacking quality. 

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

If you want to see how xg is absolutely bullshit then bear in mind that when we beat Brentford 2-1 we had an xg of less than 1 and maddison scored into an empty net so how on earth as a chance that is anything less than 0.99 I have no idea.

[foxinsocks]

1 minute ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

If you want to see how xg is absolutely bullshit then bear in mind that when we beat Brentford 2-1 we had an xg of less than 1 and maddison scored into an empty net so how on earth as a chance that is anything less than 0.99 I have no idea.

The chance fell to Madison.... 50%?

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

1 minute ago, foxinsocks said:

The chance fell to Madison.... 50%?

It was 0.48, an open goal on his right foot. I mean if it was me I'd hope it was at least above 50%.