Cooper - OUT

[Muzzy_no7]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

There's 96 teams in Europe's top 5 leagues, we're...

 

94th for xG

87th for xGA

94th for xGD

95th for shots

85th for shots on target 

 

3rd most shots against 

6th most shots on target against 

4th shortest shot distance conceded (this is incredibly alarming given the volume)

 

Dead last for corners as well and the German clubs have only played 6 games instead of 7.

 

We're 7th for xG over-performance per 90 though so we've been shit AND lucky still .

 

Get this clown out 

 

 

!!!!!!!!!!!

 

STILL people will try and defend him 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

There's 96 teams in Europe's top 5 leagues, we're...

 

94th for xG

87th for xGA

94th for xGD

95th for shots

85th for shots on target 

 

3rd most shots against 

6th most shots on target against 

4th shortest shot distance conceded (this is incredibly alarming given the volume)

 

Dead last for corners as well and the German clubs have only played 6 games instead of 7.

 

We're 7th for xG over-performance per 90 though so we've been shit AND lucky still .

 

Get this clown out 

 

 

 

But we've been in games !!!!!!!! Stat dont tell the hole picture !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AKCJ]

41 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

And yet 24 of those 96 teams have either equal or less points than us. What's going on? How can this possibly be happening?! This other-worldly phenomenon of teams' results not conforming with their xG stats needs to be investigated as a matter of urgency. Maybe we should try to persuade David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson to reunite for a new TV series called The xG Files...

Because there has only been 7 league games. The underlying numbers suggests that if we continue to play as we are we won't continue to get points in games where we've been outplayed.

[Tommy G]

12 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

!!!!!!!!!!!

 

STILL people will try and defend him 

Is he the Manager, Mr Watt?

[Samilktray]

Football is played on the pitch, not on spreadsheets

 

More woke nonsense like keepers passing it out !!!

[GingerrrFox]

If I go for a shit every day and don’t wipe my arse, I may go days without getting shit in my under crackers but statistically more often than not I’m gonna end up with my own faeces sliding around in there ruining my gusset hygiene.

 

It’s a bit like Steve Cooper’s Leicester City, there’s only so many times you can ride your bastard luck. 

Edited 9 October 2024 by GingerrrFox

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Because there has only been 7 league games. The underlying numbers suggests that if we continue to play as we are we won't continue to get points in games where we've been outplayed.

But as he pointed out the other day and as he's alluding to, few teams perform to the "underlying numbers"

[SouthStandUpperTier]

1 minute ago, GingerrrFox said:

If I go for a shit every day and don’t wipe my arse, I may go days without getting shit in my under crackers but statically more often than not I’m gonna end up with my own faeces sliding around in there ruining my gusset hygiene.

 

It’s a bit like Steve Cooper’s Leicester City, there’s only so many times you can ride your bastard luck. 

I knew there was a reason we don't play in white shorts anymore.

[Muzzy_no7]

12 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Is he the Manager, Mr Watt?

Whatever you do, DONT MENTION THE WAR

[foxfanazer]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

There's 96 teams in Europe's top 5 leagues, we're...

 

94th for xG

87th for xGA

94th for xGD

95th for shots

85th for shots on target 

 

3rd most shots against 

6th most shots on target against 

4th shortest shot distance conceded (this is incredibly alarming given the volume)

 

Dead last for corners as well and the German clubs have only played 6 games instead of 7.

 

We're 7th for xG over-performance per 90 though so we've been shit AND lucky still .

 

Get this clown out 

 

 

Yeah but if you average all of that out it means we're 91st so still not in the bottom 3 

[Danizen]

13 minutes ago, GingerrrFox said:

If I go for a shit every day and don’t wipe my arse, I may go days without getting shit in my under crackers but statistically more often than not I’m gonna end up with my own faeces sliding around in there ruining my gusset hygiene.

 

It’s a bit like Steve Cooper’s Leicester City, there’s only so many times you can ride your bastard luck. 

@StriderHiryu

 

You've got a rival for the most insightful analysis on this forum. 

[foxfanazer]

15 minutes ago, GingerrrFox said:

If I go for a shit every day and don’t wipe my arse, I may go days without getting shit in my under crackers but statistically more often than not I’m gonna end up with my own faeces sliding around in there ruining my gusset hygiene.

 

It’s a bit like Steve Cooper’s Leicester City, there’s only so many times you can ride your bastard luck. 

Have you ever thought about getting into Sports journalism?

[ClaphamFox]

27 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Because there has only been 7 league games. The underlying numbers suggests that if we continue to play as we are we won't continue to get points in games where we've been outplayed.

They would only suggest that if the evidence from previous seasons shows that xG/xGA stats are a reliable predictor of outcomes at the end of the season. But the evidence doesn't show that at all - it shows that xG/xGA data are extremely unreliable at predicting final outcomes. 

 

Here are the final xG stats from last season: https://understat.com/league/EPL/2023  Look at the final three columns - do you notice how many teams' actual goals scored and conceded, and final points totals, differ widely from those predicted by the x stats? In fact, only three out of 20 teams achieved final points totals that were close (within three points) to their expected points totals.

 

And if you use the tab at the top to scroll through previous seasons, you'll notice that the same thing happens every year. In 2022/23, our expected points total was 45, which would have kept us comfortably up in mid table. In fact, we got 34 points and went down. In our title-winning season, we got 12 more points that the stats say we should have - is it time for us to admit that we didn't really deserve our PL title because the xG stats say so? When Liverpool won the league in 2020, they got 25 points more that the x stats say they should have. Cheating bastards!! They should be investigated 

 

I'm not saying that xG stats don't have their place, but the amount of faith people place in them is astonishing to behold. Every season there are major discrepancies between xG/xGA stats and actual outcomes, which tells us that there is something very important about the way teams score goals and defend their own goal that the 'expected' stats simply can't capture. Yet people keep citing the stats as if they're hyper-efficient predictors of the future. It's insane.

 

 

 

Edited 9 October 2024 by ClaphamFox

[Finnegan]

19 minutes ago, Babylon said:

But as he pointed out the other day and as he's alluding to, few teams perform to the "underlying numbers"

 

Months before, in fact the season before, we got relegated there were those of us arguing with the likes of Dahnsouff and probably yourself that we were starting to create troublingly few chances and that our xG plummeting and PPG sliding was going to be a problem longer term. 

 

Most of the same people downplaying our concerns then are in this thread now saying everything is fine because we're outside the relegation zone and we've picked up points in spite of the underlying stats. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

They would only suggest that if the evidence from previous seasons shows that xG/xGA stats are a reliable predictor of outcomes at the end of the season. But the evidence doesn't show that at all - it shows that xG/xGA data are extremely unreliable at predicting final outcomes. 

 

Here are the final xG stats from last season: https://understat.com/league/EPL/2023  Look at the final three columns - do you notice how many teams actual goals scored and conceded, and final points totals, differ widely from those predicted by the x stats? In fact, only three out of 20 teams achieved final points totals that were close (within three points) to their expected points totals.

 

And if you use the tab at the top to scroll through previous seasons, you'll notice that the same thing happens every year. In 2022/23, our expected points total was 45, which would have kept us comfortably up in mid table. In fact, we got 34 points and went down. In our title-winning season, we got 12 more points that the stats say we should have - is it time for us to admit that we didn't really deserve our PL title because the xG stats say so? When Liverpool won the league in 2020, they got 25 points more that the x stats say they should have. Cheating bastards!! They should be investigated 

 

I'm not saying that xG stats don't have their place, but the amount of faith people place in them is astonishing to behold. Every season there are major discrepancies between xG/xGA stats and actual outcomes, which tells us that there is something very important about the way teams score goals and defend their own goal that the 'expected' stats simply can't capture. Yet people keep citing the stats as if they're hyper-efficient predictors of the future. It's insane.

 

 

 

People are citing a number of stats, including but by no means limited to our xG and xGA, that demonstrate we are playing badly and suggesting if we continue to play badly over the course of the season we will probably finish in a bad position. Our current league position and points per game are not hyper-efficient predictors of the future either.

[Stadt]

11 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

They would only suggest that if the evidence from previous seasons shows that xG/xGA stats are a reliable predictor of outcomes at the end of the season. But the evidence doesn't show that at all - it shows that xG/xGA data are extremely unreliable at predicting final outcomes. 

 

Here are the final xG stats from last season: https://understat.com/league/EPL/2023  Look at the final three columns - do you notice how many teams' actual goals scored and conceded, and final points totals, differ widely from those predicted by the x stats? In fact, only three out of 20 teams achieved final points totals that were close (within three points) to their expected points totals.

 

And if you use the tab at the top to scroll through previous seasons, you'll notice that the same thing happens every year. In 2022/23, our expected points total was 45, which would have kept us comfortably up in mid table. In fact, we got 34 points and went down. In our title-winning season, we got 12 more points that the stats say we should have - is it time for us to admit that we didn't really deserve our PL title because the xG stats say so? When Liverpool won the league in 2020, they got 25 points more that the x stats say they should have. Cheating bastards!! They should be investigated 

 

I'm not saying that xG stats don't have their place, but the amount of faith people place in them is astonishing to behold. Every season there are major discrepancies between xG/xGA stats and actual outcomes, which tells us that there is something very important about the way teams score goals and defend their own goal that the 'expected' stats simply can't capture. Yet people keep citing the stats as if they're hyper-efficient predictors of the future. It's insane.

 

 

 

They're not hyper efficient but they're the best predictor of future performance. The correlation is pretty clear between goals and xG

 

[HankMarvin]

7 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

They would only suggest that if the evidence from previous seasons shows that xG/xGA stats are a reliable predictor of outcomes at the end of the season. But the evidence doesn't show that at all - it shows that xG/xGA data are extremely unreliable at predicting final outcomes. 

 

Here are the final xG stats from last season: https://understat.com/league/EPL/2023  Look at the final three columns - do you notice how many teams' actual goals scored and conceded, and final points totals, differ widely from those predicted by the x stats? In fact, only three out of 20 teams achieved final points totals that were close (within three points) to their expected points totals.

 

And if you use the tab at the top to scroll through previous seasons, you'll notice that the same thing happens every year. In 2022/23, our expected points total was 45, which would have kept us comfortably up in mid table. In fact, we got 34 points and went down. In our title-winning season, we got 12 more points that the stats say we should have - is it time for us to admit that we didn't really deserve our PL title because the xG stats say so? When Liverpool won the league in 2020, they got 25 points more that the x stats say they should have. Cheating bastards!! They should be investigated 

 

I'm not saying that xG stats don't have their place, but the amount of faith people place in them is astonishing to behold. Every season there are major discrepancies between xG/xGA stats and actual outcomes, which tells us that there is something very important about the way teams score goals and defend their own goal that the 'expected' stats simply can't capture. Yet people keep citing the stats as if they're hyper-efficient predictors of the future. It's insane.

 

 

 

Off the top of my head I can think of 2 examples

 

The season we finished 8th we had Xpts of 14th placed side 

the following season we were relegated.

 

The season before that when Brighton finished 16th they had Xpts of 5th the following season they finished 9th 

 

Im sure there are other indicators, that have played out regarding underperformance and over performance.

[AKCJ]

35 minutes ago, Babylon said:

But as he pointed out the other day and as he's alluding to, few teams perform to the "underlying numbers"

Over the course of 7 games? Yeah, it's relatively common to over or underperform expected goals.

 

But over the course of a season they generally even out.

 

But aside from that, the obvious underperformance we're seeing with our own eyes is enough to get rid of Cooper. The stats are just backing up what we're all seeing.

[HankMarvin]

Also if you add Danny ward in goal and he faced the same amounts of shots as Mads, this would probably trump the shit start under Rodger’s final season

[Uncle Monty]

I'm not a massive fan of Cooper or trying to defend him but:

 

F#ck xg

**** possession stats

While we're at it 

F$ck psr

**** var

 

They are all, in my opinion, ruining football.

Edited 9 October 2024 by Uncle Monty

[Tommy G]

41 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Whatever you do, DONT MENTION THE WAR

I mentioned it once but I think I got away with it

[ClaphamFox]

10 minutes ago, Guest said:

People are citing a number of stats, including but by no means limited to our xG and xGA, that demonstrate we are playing badly and suggesting if we continue to play badly over the course of the season we will probably finish in a bad position. Our current league position and points per game are not hyper-efficient predictors of the future either.

Of course they're not. And if I tried to argue that because we're in 15th after seven games it means we'll very likely finish in 15th, I'd be deservedly ridiculed for it. My point is that a lot of people assume that mean reversion will kick in and that we'll end up with the points that the stats say we should have, but the evidence from previous seasons shows that this is a deeply flawed assumption.

 

5 minutes ago, Stadt said:

They're not hyper efficient but they're the best predictor of future performance. The correlation is pretty clear between goals and xG

 

Even if they are the 'best predictor' of future performance available, they are still very unreliable when it comes to predicting final points totals - hence the large discrepancies every season between teams' final points totals and their xPts. And it makes sense that they're not particularly accurate if you think about it. The only way that x stats could be truly accurate predictors of the future would be if all teams were equally efficient at converting their own chances and defending against the chances they concede. In reality, there are major differences in how efficient different teams are at scoring and defending. It's no coincidence that every season the bottom 4-5 teams significantly underperform their xPts - it's because they're inefficient at one, and more likely both, ends of the pitch. Expected stats can't capture those marginal differences in efficiency.

 

[inckley fox]

6 hours ago, LCFCJohn said:

We have had a few managers in recent years who have gotten off to really good starts (Ranieri, Rodgers and Pearson) and a couple of short terms in Shakey and Smith. 
 

Going back as far as Sven, I can only really think of Puel and now Cooper that have been met with instant vitriol and people demanding them to be sacked as soon as they have come through the door. Ranieri wasn’t initially popular but quickly change people’s minds.

 

Then you have when fans turn on the manager regardless of if they are new (when the first of us started to want Rodgers gone).

 

I would say that new or not, when fans want the manager gone, it doesn’t often turn around for them. It is usually just about the wait….

That's my gut feeling too. Some managers simply come up against an environment in which they'll never be accepted. Puel did well in the meantime, but was buoyed by a great start. This feels more Gary Megson to me.

 

As others have pointed out, there have been managers who overcame a slow start, going back to Wallace. From what I'm told, however, he got the fans and staff on board. Milne and O'Neill didn't, but turned things around after the three month mark. You could also say that Pearson, in his second reign, had a very turbulent first six months (after a good start in his first few games), with many fans wishing Sven had never left.

 

You're right in that Bassett, Megson and Sousa never got over their early bumps in the road. 

 

Of course, it's also worth remembering the times we've been unduly enthusiastic for a new boss. Hamilton, Pleat, Taylor, Levein, Kelly, Allen, Holloway and Sven were all very popular early on. Fans are often wrong.

 

2 hours ago, Stadt said:

There's 96 teams in Europe's top 5 leagues, we're...

 

94th for xG

87th for xGA

94th for xGD

95th for shots

85th for shots on target 

 

3rd most shots against 

6th most shots on target against 

4th shortest shot distance conceded (this is incredibly alarming given the volume)

 

Dead last for corners as well and the German clubs have only played 6 games instead of 7.

 

We're 7th for xG over-performance per 90 though so we've been shit AND lucky still .

 

Get this clown out 

 

 

I suppose you could also say: what about the stats on goals scored, goals conceded and points gained? Which are the most important ones. Perhaps it'll pan out the other way round, and those stats will hold up while the ones you quote fall into line.

 

I confess that I'm far from convinced that this will happen, especially given the nine game run-up to New Year (after the next three fixtures). I also doubt that four points from the next three - which would leave us on a point-per-game after ten matches - would reassure people that we'll cope with the upcoming tougher run of games.

 

But it doesn't seem like such a hopeless situation quite yet. And I still don't think a newly-promoted club should typically be in the business of replacing new managers after 6 points from their first 7.

[Babylon]

24 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Over the course of 7 games? Yeah, it's relatively common to over or underperform expected goals.

 

But over the course of a season they generally even out.

 

But aside from that, the obvious underperformance we're seeing with our own eyes is enough to get rid of Cooper. The stats are just backing up what we're all seeing.

I don't know, he posted something from last season the other day to show nobody really performed to their "expected numbers" over the course of the season. 

[Stadt]

9 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Of course they're not. And if I tried to argue that because we're in 15th after seven games it means we'll very likely finish in 15th, I'd be deservedly ridiculed for it. My point is that a lot of people assume that mean reversion will kick in and that we'll end up with the points that the stats say we should have, but the evidence from previous seasons shows that this is a deeply flawed assumption.

 

Even if they are the 'best predictor' of future performance available, they are still very unreliable when it comes to predicting final points totals - hence the large discrepancies every season between teams' final points totals and their xPts. And it makes sense that they're not particularly accurate if you think about it. The only way that x stats could be truly accurate predictors of the future would be if all teams were equally efficient at converting their own chances and defending against the chances they concede. In reality, there are major differences in how efficient different teams are at scoring and defending. It's no coincidence that every season the bottom 4-5 teams significantly underperform their xPts - it's because they're inefficient at one, and more likely both, ends of the pitch. Expected stats can't capture those marginal differences in efficiency.

 

I'm not a fan of expected points, preferring to use xG, xA and xGD. With expected points you have to make a very arbitrary calculation that say .3 between two teams is a draw and more than that is a win.

 

There's a reason the analytics departments of the world's best and smartest clubs lean on it so heavily. I'd really recommend How to win the premier league, Ian Graham, Liverpool's director of research's book