TWar

Or we are discussing goals from 2019 and they have missed numerous other chances since which have been as easy if not easier but we don't remember those as they didn't result in goals. This is the very definition of confirmation bias.

xG isn't crap, it just isn't burdened by confirmation bias. If most shots which fans said "you'd expect to score" went in you'd never have a 0-0 and most games would end with 5+ goals. The fact that most players are within 1 goal of their xG and you rarely get someone most than 3 out (normally 2 or 3 players a season) shows it actually does a pretty good job.

I assume if you were better you wouldn't be so shy to tell us. I'm not saying everyone on here, just those who think they are better because of real life ability. Ottowa saint has said he plays in "organised leagues" which, honestly, is pub standard. Pub teams play in organised leagues, I've played in organised leagues, I'd say most of my football fan mates have too. It's not super impressive. And you won't say anything. Pretty telling tbh.

You never said anything, you implied you were a good player and when I asked what level you avoided answering it. And continue to do so. What level are you that makes you think you are better equiped to judge than others?

It's because it wasn't a big mistake. It was about a 25% chance of scoring at most. Those chances I was showing you the xG, which is the chance of them going in, whether they actually did or not is irrelevant.

It objectively wasn't 0.75 on the xG, that's crazy, a pure 1v1 without anyone there, dead central, with time to control it is like 0.65. You played in "organised leagues", I mean great, I have too, I don't think this makes me more equiped to comment on pro football because those "organised leagues" contained plummers and electricians and not people who get paid millions to spend their life perfecting football under arguably the best manager in the world, in this case. If you don't like the "Once made a sandwich" replace with regularly made sandwiches, it aint giving you any cred on your "how to run a michelin star kitchen" ledger, but having a good theoretical knowledge would certainly be better than nothing.

It's not about "losing", you dredge up any old post that you think makes me look incorrect, like me overrating Armstrong which I did, admittedly. But you don't like it when I point out your multiple more aggregious old posts like that we would finish bottom and that Ralph, Che, JWP were all shite and Jankewitz, San Marino, and Pompey were class. Also some shite about Bednarek being better pre-Ralph when he didn't start a single game. I could go on but that's just off the top of my head. I don't say this to prove you don't know much, although it doesn't look great, I do it to point out that when you discuss football as often as we do on this forum you are going to make bad takes, I did overrate Armstrong and it was a bad take. That doesn't invalidate future analysis because if it did, after all the shite you've said, you would be about as credible as someone who had just watched their first game.

In this analogy though you don't "work in a kitchen environment", you once made a cheese sandwich. "Working in a kitchen environment" would be playing in a professional, competitive side under a trained manager amongst other full time professional players. Playing a bit of Sunday league is just wildly wildly unrepresentative. I think we can go back and forth on that point with different analogies that bagging a hatrick against a pub team makes you more qualified to assess pro players but I simply don't think it does. We'll have to agree to disagree at that point.

He isn't even our top scorer. Che is, any comment on your view that he is championship quality? We had a "bad takes" amnesty thread the other day, I think you missed it because you were banned for 2 weeks for being overly aggressive and unpleasant, maybe you could give it a visit as you have more bad takes than anyone I've seen on here. Not even mentioning your views on JWP, Jankewitz, San Marino, Pompey... It's weird you'd call someone out for being "Never willing to admit he’s wrong" when you still have those howlers to your name.

0.23. Less than a 1/4 chance. And yeah I'm showing the goals, I don't remember the misses, that is literally my point.

You know a penalty only has a 85% chance of going in? You think that is the same difficulty as a pen? Speaking of admitting you are wrong, any comment on your take that we'd finish dead bottom and Ralph would be gone by September? I seem to remember you laughed at someone for predicting 10-14th, do you stand by that?

You don't think youtube videos would tell you more crispy and less soggy would mean broil it with a bit of glaze? Seems like an easy thing to communicate. Similarly it is reasonably easy to work out if a striker should be scoring or not to a decent level using knowledge and/or stats. I don't think I'd ever think "well, when I did that same thing down the park it was pretty easy so Armstrong should do better" because I realise it's comparing treehouses to palaces, it's just not relevant. "I've watched a bunch of games and/or am aware of the stats and most premier league level, multi millionaire strikers who spend their lives learning their craft put that away" is definitively better than "When I make that shot against builders and painters who play as a goalkeeper for fun it's pretty easy so I don't know why our forward can't put it away"

All relative init. To you hes quality, to the likes of Saints and City he would look hilarously out of his depth.

1. The City keeper was positioned fine, he was covering his near post. Leno (not Ramsdale) was not, he was beaten at the near post 2. The ball was past the defender before they had got in position to block so it didn't effect the shot 3. Ings is running onto his own touch, Armstrong is hitting it first time, the latter is definitely harder If you don't like that though, here is Redmond against bournemouth. Again, very similar position, xG 0.18. I don't see how you could say that the Armstrong chance is three times as likely as this one in order to make it even a 50/50 to score. It's confirmation bias, people remember the goals and forget the misses.

I disagree, what is easy against a amateur goalkeeper and a premier league keeper is a completely different ballpark to the point that these are not remotely comparable. xG is much more valuable as it compares players of the same level. Applying your knowledge of what is easy down the park is about as valuable as applying your knowledge of making beans on toast when running a michelin star kitchen for an evening.

No. It probably had about a 25% chance of going in at most. Here is Danny Ings taking on a similar shot against Arsenal in 2019/20 similar angle and distance out, other side. This chance is easier for a right footer but is the most comparable one I can find without spending loads of time. This had an xG of 0.27. Therefore 3/4 times this would be expected to miss. Fans think these always go in because of confirmation bias. You remember the ones that do and forget those that don't.

He's probably working out whether it is easier to lie and say he was a high flying pro and have people call it as obvious bollocks or tell the truth and have people realise the entire reason for his opinion being valid is that he once had a trial at some 4th tier side before they passed him over 30 odd years ago.

They are quite clearly easier more centrally.

At that angle there is no way the shot has an xG of over 0.5. Can't find data as it's the cup, but I guarentee it isn't a "should be scoring" chance.

I don't claim level of play is correllated to football knowledge (below full time professional footballer), you do. If you are going to do the "listen to me guys, I'd be much better in a kick about than you so I REALLY understand the sport" card, which is pretty silly regardless, you might as well atleast give a reason why you believe this.

Predictably evasive.

What level did you play at?

I think JS has had a couple of good spells to be fair to him, he also looked pretty good under Puel. Still bang average though.

Yeah, compared to professional footballers on millions a year, a very low level. Obviously. Did I burst your bubble that you and Adam Armstrong were peers?

One wherein you are not comparable to a premier league striker, or even a championship level one.