Hamza Choudhury

[westernpark]

I’m glad that Enzo thinks he’s been great off the pitch.

[Claudio Fannieri]

I think because of previous misdemeanours,  some find it difficult to distinguish that you can think he is a bit of a helmet at times but also praise when he plays well, make no mistake yesterday he was superb, when he is on it he is also a very good defensive midfielder, personally on Tuesday I would keep him in the team, but play the Winks role as he gives us more protection and is definitely quicker in transitions, bring Riccy back into the inverted role and push Winks further forward alongside KDH. 
 

I think there is a real player in Hamza but especially in this style you need to be playing week in week out, it’s difficult to come in for a game or two. If given a run I think we could see a very different player, he also needs to knuckle down off the pitch and start to show a level of maturity. 

Edited 21 April by Claudio Fannieri

[Saxondale]

Thought he was unbelievable yesterday. Easily man of the match. An absolute wall.

[surrifox]

We’re top and playing at home so why did it feel like for most of the match we were like a scrappy lower league side playing one of the giants in the FA cup  . Our set up can’t be reliant on individual heroics compensating for a total mess of a defence shape 

Edited 21 April by surrifox

[SafewayFox]

24 minutes ago, surrifox said:

We’re top and playing at home so why did it feel like for most of the match we were like a scrappy lower league side playing one of the giants in the FA cup  . Our set up can’t be reliant on individual heroics compensating for a total mess of a defence shape 

It was chaotic and in Enzo’s words a “basketball match” but it’s the business end of the season so it’s all about points over results.

 

My concerns over Enzo’s stubbornness and lack of utilising the squad still remain but have to give him credit for including Coady and Vardy over Daka (but would have preferred Cannon being the Vardy sub).

 

Getting promoted is our objective for now though.

[Wolfox]

48 minutes ago, surrifox said:

We’re top and playing at home so why did it feel like for most of the match we were like a scrappy lower league side playing one of the giants in the FA cup  . Our set up can’t be reliant on individual heroics compensating for a total mess of a defence shape 

 Because we have had a horrendously shaky period…

[HighPeakFox]

None of it matters if we get over the line - one would hope things are very different next season.

 

 

[Mickyblueeyes]

Last season, we were crying out for one of those many technical players to show a little bit of heart like Hamza did yesterday. Tielemans, Castagne, Ndidi, Amartey, Evans,  even Barnes and Maddison etc. all far better players to Hamza but none willing to fight for it. 
 

Hamza went on the pitch yesterday and gave us what he had. Absolutely everything. Was he technically perfect - not at all. But I’ll tell you what, I’m going to enjoy watching those highlights after spending an entire season watching a group belittle the club/badge and treating it as a doormat. 
 

You can’t be continually successful just with heart but you bloody need some. 
 

Well done Hamza. One of our own. 

[sly1]

Best I've seen  him play 

[blaaklint]

5 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

This is true. I often think this with other examples when they are side i.e if a striker misses two sitters in the same move or two quality saves in the same move by a goalkeeper. I suppose it is the same for other stats I.e 2 shots on target but if the first goes in the second won’t happen. But yes, in terms of context, call it equivalent to a brace at the other end.

 

A case of people not appreciating that games can be won at the other end of the pitch still though!

No, most xG models take this into account. If you have a 0.8 chance then a 0.5 rebound, the total xG given (at least by Opta) would be 0.8 * 0 5 = 0.4

[LCFCJohn]

26 minutes ago, blaaklint said:

No, most xG models take this into account. If you have a 0.8 chance then a 0.5 rebound, the total xG given (at least by Opta) would be 0.8 * 0 5 = 0.4

When I referred to other stats, I was referring more to basic, shots on target. Say you have 10 shots on target but 4 are in the same move, 3 might not have happened if the first went in. 
 

I can’t say I pay much attention to xG but interesting to know anyway 👍

[liamashley]

23 hours ago, blaaklint said:

No, most xG models take this into account. If you have a 0.8 chance then a 0.5 rebound, the total xG given (at least by Opta) would be 0.8 * 0 5 = 0.4

Surely that isn't correct? That would mean the more chances you have in one move, the lower the xG would become with each chance...when really the likelihood of a goal should increase the more chances you have? 
Three tap ins at 0.4 would be 0.06  (which is the equivalent to a shot from 50yards with the keeper on his line) 
One tap in would be 0.4 
 

[ClaphamFox]

Rob Tanner wrote an article about him in the Athletic yesterday. There's an interesting comment below from a Leeds fan who lives in Nottingham and claims to have met Choudhury a few years ago...

 

C

Conor M.

· Yesterday

@Logan K. as a Leeds fan studying in Nottingham, me and my friends ran into Hamza by chance at Powerleague in Nottingham in the summer of 2021. We were a man down and he stepped in, just for the love of the game, one of the nicest, most genuine blokes I’ve ever met. Whilst all you said might be true, I felt compelled to say that at least when I met him he was a fantastic bloke 👍

[blaaklint]

20 minutes ago, liamashley said:

Surely that isn't correct? That would mean the more chances you have in one move, the lower the xG would become with each chance...when really the likelihood of a goal should increase the more chances you have? 
Three tap ins at 0.4 would be 0.06  (which is the equivalent to a shot from 50yards with the keeper on his line) 
One tap in would be 0.4 
 

You're right, I put this the wrong way around. In situations like this, they actually calculate the probability that you didn't score. In the example I put, that would be (1 - 0.8) * (1 - 0.5) = 0.1 probability of not scoring. xG would then be given as 0.9

 

Your three tap-ins example would be 1 - 0.6^3 = 0.78 xG

[Will1981]

Instant Impact

 

 

[LcFc_Smiv]

1 minute ago, Will1981 said:

Instant Impact

 

 

I said to my dad and brother that he, in a way, changed the game when he came on. He gets possession back higher up the field and puts us on the front foot, it could have been coincidence but it felt like our mentality changed with his introduction, another strong showing.

[Stinkenzo]

Give him another contract extension