TWar

Yeah I always felt there was a decent player in there but he never had a position. Too lightweight for a DM, too slow for a winger, not good enough at dribbling for an AM/10. Ralph turning him into a holding mid/deep-lying playmaker by utilizing his previously unseen incredible fitness was a masterstroke imo.

Yeah he's done alright, decent middle of the road job from an average manager. Some saying he is better than Ralph though off the basis off this and presumably his ability to get Bournemouth relegated after spending good money is a bit weird though.

Disagree completely, before Ralph JWP was played in a completely different position and was linked with a £15m move to Watford which most on here were in favour of. Now he's a holding mid, England International, we've already turned down double that (allegedly) and he is considered one of the best mids outside the top 3.

Some on here don't like thinking about money. Saints should be in top half/europe despite spending 19th most in the league in the last 5 seasons and being 15th for purchase value. Howe should be commended for turning Newcastle around despite only spending the most money in europe and being 8th for purchase value. The issue is money rules this game, any manager who overperforms purchase value is doing pretty well in my book and if we get 11-12th we'll be doing that pretty nicely given we are 15th for purchase value https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/premier-league/einkaufswert/wettbewerb/GB1 Note I say purchase value rather than squad value as the massive value of players like JWP is basically down to Ralph. Obviously transfer fees aren't the only metric but wages tell a similar story.

Maybe if we got rid of both Forster and McCarthy and he was back up. League 1 to the prem is a huge step up, I wouldn't want our first choice keeper to be someone who is only proven at league one level. Remember Gunn looked good a level above what this guy is performing at.

Might be the new owners have already paid it off and that's why the deal was so cheap.

I think he's still pretty useful If you compare him to other players in his position who went last summer: Redmond: 0 Goals 6 Assists 1357 minutes Buendia: 2 Goals 4 Assists 1580 minutes (cost about £40m) Odegaard: 6 Goals 3 Assists 2072 minutes (cost about £30m) Dan James: 4 Goals 4 Assist 2282 minutes (cost about £25m) Obviously I'm not suggesting Redmond is worth that sort of money as he is older and in his final year but at 28 he is still in his prime and is still performing at a similar level in terms of goals+assists per minute to some reasonably well regarded players (in regards to Buendia wildly overregarded) so he is definitely worth something. Imo £8m-10m is selling him very short, average championship players set you back £10m+

I think £12-15m is more reasonable.

1st is irrelevant statistically, 2nd is considered as part of the calculation, 3rd doesn't matter for reasons previously outlined by me and article

Your external factors are strikers are different levels of clinical. If this was true better forwards would out perform xG but they don't. Everything else like tired legs or confidence don't really seem to be backed up statistically.

It's about the argument, not the guy writing it. He has evidence if you read it.

Saints actually are pretty middling at finishing chances this season. I would recommend the same link I just sent to DMan for the "some teams/players are more clinical" argument: https://www.footballcritic.com/features/why-using-expected-goals-kills-the-concept-of-a-clinical-striker/311

This is no longer the case for brighton. Shooting quality is rarely below xG or above xG for long periods as it really doesn't vary that much. Number of chances vary hugely, hence why it is more important. You can see this from the data I posted. I think we are both going round in circles and off topic and I don't have any more to add than what I have already said. Here is a good artical that goes into it more: https://www.footballcritic.com/features/why-using-expected-goals-kills-the-concept-of-a-clinical-striker/311

I think you are underthinking this. And I in no way think I'm some sort of genius everything I'm saying has been discussed to death by many many people for almost a decade. I'm just someone who vaguely keeps up with the current state of play in football analysis by listening to a few podcasts and reading a few blogs. No genius here. Chances do win games, because they lead to goals. No chance No goal. For more evidence, see my last post.

I think there is a world where Brighton could evolve around Ings. Shove Maupay up top with him, play less crosses through Cucerella and Lampety and use Lallana and Bissouma more to play through the middle etc. I just don't see why they would. In my opinion Brightons three best players are Bissouma, Lampety and Cucerella and Bissouma is probably off in the summer. These fullbacks want to beat their man and whip in a cross. In my opinion Brighton would be so much better off picking up a 6ft+ targetman who can head those chances in and win battles for crosses.

I misremembered a leftback as a rightback, wow what a massive mistake. You seem to confidently wade in on the xG argument regularly and you still don't understand it is not something calculated before the game. And you seem completely unable to retain that information as I'm sure you've made that mistake before.

Strikers quality is from getting in positions. Top forwards rarely exceed xG that heavily, if at all. Here is a list of top strikers The number on the far right is how much they under and overperform xG. And here are some more average strikers It really doesn't seem like top strikers massively underperform and poor strikers massively overperform as you say. I'm not missing the point. The point is incorrect. It's based off the assumption that the best striker is the guy who finishes their chances the best, which is catagorically not true. The best striker is the guy who gets the most chances. Saying "xG is bad because the big forwards bring the average up and small ones bring it down" is just wrong, as you can see from this evidence. The big forwards actually underperform just as much as the smaller ones. I had an argument months and months ago, I think with Duckhunter, where I said ability to be in a position to score is just as important than finishing if not moreso. This is the evidence for that.

Unfortunately I can't find it for cup games, my usual sources only does league. It's probably available somewhere though.

It was a dumb comment which exposed you don't know what you are on about. You don't need to be "Rain man on speed" to know the question "do you think he knew the result before it happened when setting up the team?" is the words of a person who doesn't know what they are on about.

Ronaldo is underperforming xG by a decent margin, so yeah, it's very likely he does miss. Adams, who you say in this, is finishing better than him this season. This won't be a surprise to united fans but Saints fans who don't watch him regularly will get the wrong end of the stick, which is why xG is helpful. xG is also good at disproving this "top strikers don't miss" myth. Top strikers get more chances, the disparity between how reliably they put these chances away is a much smaller factor.

The point doesn't make sense. How does the question "do you think Ralph thought about the xG beforehand" work with a functioning understanding of how xG works? No mate, because it hadn't happened yet, do you think he's currently thinking about next weeks lottery numbers? xG is an analysis tool, not a prediction tool. Do I think he and his team looked at xG after the game when analysing it? Absolutely. Do I think he looked at it before and thought "we won't get battered, they only have an xG of 4"? No, because he doesn't have a TARDIS.

Yep exactly! Basically all models use cumulative xG for a move. For instance if someone had a shot from 10 yards out, the keeper saved it, and then someone poked it in from 5 yards out that would have an xG of over 1 if both xG were just added together, which is obviously flawed as one move can't lead to more than 1 goal. Instead multiple shots are aggregated in the model to make the overall move more likely. If the first shot had an xG of 0.7 and bounced back then the second had an xG of 0.8 then the overall xG of the move is calculated as 0.7+(0.3*0.8), or xG1 + ((1-xG1)*xG2) if people are interested.

xG is calculated after the game given the chances the occurred, you don't calculate it before so how could he think "there is no way we are getting thumped, their xG is only 4" when setting up tactics? Sometimes I think mistrust of xG in some comes from basic misunderstanding of what it is and how it works.

I don't know if Ings would work for Brighton. Imo the three reasons why he failed at Villa are: He has played all his best football for us and Burnley in a front 2, I don't know if Brighton will want to change their formation to include a support striker to provide for him He is still quite injury prone, he gets dropped sporadically from the villa squad all together (5 games not in the squad, always followed by a cameo appearance off the bench to get his fitness back) and it completely breaks up his rhythm. He is not a player who wants to receive the ball in the air. All pressure should come from passing through the middle and cutbacks into the box. Fullbacks who want to hit the byline and cross it are less useful to him. Brighton and Villa are 4th and 6th for crosses per 90 in the league. Only City, Liverpool, and West Ham make more crosses than Brighton. IMO Brighton would do better with a strong targetman centerforward who can stay fit. I guess they could get a big guy with Ings and adopt a Crouch and Defoe style dynamic but that is pretty different to how they normally set up.

Both Tarkowski and Mee look too slow in my opinion. Decent in the air and a low block but if we want to play a high line with ball playing CBs that isn't really eithers strength.