West Ham 3-1 Post Match Thread

[Muzzy_no7]

14 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

excluding goals, stats are irrelevant

?

 

Stats tend to catch up with you. We massively overperformed in terms of the points we had on the table under Pooper. 
 

The board acted on performances and stats (even though it was 2-4 weeks late). 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

34 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

XG of  2.78-2.88

Everything I've seen has us in the 1.35-1.67 range.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 December 2024 by SouthStandUpperTier

[ozleicester]

3 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

?

 

Stats tend to catch up with you. We massively overperformed in terms of the points we had on the table under Pooper. 
 

The board acted on performances and stats (even though it was 2-4 weeks late). 

how do they catch up... does it change with the change of manager and the slate is wiped?... if so they havent caught up?.. im honestly confused

[Muzzy_no7]

4 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Everything I've seen has us in the 1.35-1.67 range.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except understat.com, best one out there. 

[filbertway]

5 hours ago, Raj said:

We beat a very poor wham side.

Great to see some attacking play rather than the sh2t we have all season.

Imagine if we had signed Bowen, him n vardy would be sensational.

 

They're not a poor side though, it's just not true at all.

 

Another day they could genuinely have had 4, 5 or 6 themselves, especially if they had scored earlier and forced us to be even more open at the back.

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

how do they catch up... does it change with the change of manager and the slate is wiped?... if so they havent caught up?.. im honestly confused

your underlying stats are an indicator of your performance. very few sides can keep consistently over performing and so they tend to catch up on you. they would change under a new manager because they're typically reflective of the managers ideas and systems

[Kent]

1 minute ago, filbertway said:

They're not a poor side though, it's just not true at all.

 

Another day they could genuinely have had 4, 5 or 6 themselves, especially if they had scored earlier and forced us to be even more open at the back.

Yeah I think we were lucky that A. the early goal was just onside and then B. they could have had 2+ in the first half and it would have been a very different game most likely. I don't think they'll be dragged in to a relegation battle personally.

 

But what a perfect game to get some luck in, chuffed with it.

[The Doctor]

it's a huge part of the concept of a new manager bounce, typically managers leave after sustained under performance vs stats and unless the team is genuinely woeful, that tends to right itself 

[Chelmofox]

2 minutes ago, Kent said:

Yeah I think we were lucky that A. the early goal was just onside and then B. they could have had 2+ in the first half and it would have been a very different game most likely. I don't think they'll be dragged in to a relegation battle personally.

 

But what a perfect game to get some luck in, chuffed with it.

Sorry to be pedantic, but we aren't lucky that Vardy was onside. And Vards could have added another not longer after, and Ndidi forced an excellent save from Fabiański. We had our own chances.

[UniFox21]

If we're going off stats, sky has us with 6 clear cut chances, compared to West Ham's 4. Opta with slightly different numbers 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 December 2024 by UniFox21

[ozleicester]

12 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

your underlying stats are an indicator of your performance. very few sides can keep consistently over performing and so they tend to catch up on you. they would change under a new manager because they're typically reflective of the managers ideas and systems

in which case they dont catch up?

 

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

it's a huge part of the concept of a new manager bounce, typically managers leave after sustained under performance vs stats and unless the team is genuinely woeful, that tends to right itself 

new manager bounce is a fallacy

[kenny]

4 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

If we're going off stats, sky has us with 6 clear cut chances, compared to West Ham's 4. 

That's us reflective of what we saw in that West Ham were keen on shots from low quality chances and many were blazed over.

 

Whilst 31 shots looks bad, most of them were rubbish from bad positions.

 

Vardy could have had a hat-trick.

[FosseSpark]

23 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Except understat.com, best one out there. 

The xG stat is MENTAL. We had 3 full 1 on 1's (Vardy, Daka, McAteer), Ndidi had a free point blank header saved from 4 yards from that El K cross AND we scored 3 goals - but yeah an xG of 1.37 sounds right....

 

[DerbyshireFox]

A lot being made of the 31 shots, but I’d only say 4/5 of them were clear cut. Hermansen was busier first half. Maybe a little fortunate with the disallowed goal and Coady stopped one on the line, but we had as many clear cut chances as them overall, we were just ruthless with them 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

1 minute ago, DerbyshireFox said:

A lot being made of the 31 shots, but I’d only say 4/5 of them were clear cut. Hermansen was busier first half. Maybe a little fortunate with the disallowed goal and Coady stopped one on the line, but we had as many clear cut chances as them overall, we were just ruthless with them 

They got in a lot of promising areas but looked like they couldn’t score in a brothel 

[Number 6]

28 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Except understat.com, best one out there. 

I really like their UI but their figures seem out of kilter for this one.

[Muzzy_no7]

6 minutes ago, FosseSpark said:

The xG stat is MENTAL. We had 3 full 1 on 1's (Vardy, Daka, McAteer), Ndidi had a free point blank header saved from 4 yards from that El K cross AND we scored 3 goals - but yeah an xG of 1.37 sounds right....

 

Our xG was 2.78

[Muzzy_no7]

[MANFACE]

Chris Sutton will be plssed off.

[LCFCJohn]

7 minutes ago, DerbyshireFox said:

A lot being made of the 31 shots, but I’d only say 4/5 of them were clear cut. Hermansen was busier first half. Maybe a little fortunate with the disallowed goal and Coady stopped one on the line, but we had as many clear cut chances as them overall, we were just ruthless with them 

Kind of agree and disagree. West Ham were extremely wasteful not just the shots but when they got into a promising positions, everything broke down. If you look at it and think how that would turn out against most sides, you’d say we concede a bagful most times.

 

There weee definitely huge positives in terms of how good we were getting forward quickly and counter attacking (thought I’m sure many of here will be horrified by that) and there was a lot of effort and pressing. 
 

But we need to sort ourselves defensively. I wanted Cooper to go and feel positively about the appointment of RVN but if we had that exact same game under Cooper, he’d be getting slaughtered. Obviously first game for RVN so you can’t be critical and there were notable improvements in other areas of the performance. I’m sure he will be working on it already!

Edited 4 December 2024 by LCFCJohn

[Out Foxed]

14 hours ago, Bourbon Fox said:

 

Paul Simonon does a night at on Thursdays at a pub called The Royal Exchange in Paddington. Him and his mate/s dj all sort of different music and you get some old school west london characters and the odd celeb (daniel craig, kate moss, harry enfield) if any of you are into that sort of thing. Very nice geezer and some of his art is in the pub. 

[Raj]

32 minutes ago, filbertway said:

They're not a poor side though, it's just not true at all.

 

Another day they could genuinely have had 4, 5 or 6 themselves, especially if they had scored earlier and forced us to be even more open at the back.

 

No your right, they are a brilliant side, well in form....my bad....

 

 

 

[filbertway]

9 minutes ago, Raj said:

 

No your right, they are a brilliant side, well in form....my bad....

 

 

 

 

Results aside, their squad is more than capable of challenging top 8 and picking up 50-55 points. I'm not sure if it's injuries or poor management that's had them stuttering so far, but that squad has already shown what it's capable of in recent seasons.

 

Even with the results, you're showing me losses to Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs as evidence that they're poor? 

 

The Everton result is the weak one there, but poor results happen.

 

Poor is just the wrong word in my opinion. Boringly though...football is subjective, so it doesn't matter how much we argue, there's no correct answer

 

[The Doctor]

35 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

in which case they dont catch up?

 

new manager bounce is a fallacy

if the new manager changes the systems and implements better ideas, yes.

 

Because it's regression to the mean where it supposedly occurs because you can split manager departures into two groups: sacked after a run of under performance which rights itself (new manager bounce), sacked because the team generally aren't good enough (no manager bounce)

[Kent]

If I remember rightly I think even Ruud was saying (edit: or at least implying it, I don't remember and don't want to overstate it) last night that we were somewhat lucky. Sometimes it's hard to decouple scorelines from performances but I don't think it's controversial to say we could have easily drawn/lost that game on another night. And again none of that is to say that I'm not as happy as anyone else that in reality we won and that there were some okay/good individual performances (Mads etc).

 

The main thing is we won his first game in charge and should hopefully be a big relief and give a bit of confidence/momentum.

Edited 4 December 2024 by Kent