Has there been a worse home performance in recent memory?

[Dman]

3 minutes ago, LGTL said:

I flew to Canada when we lost 0-9 to Leicester. I have just landed in the same airport today, and checked the score 😂

The score doesn’t even reflect the performance or how bad it probably should have been. 

We could have no complaints if it was 10 and that isn’t even being pessimistic. 

Horrific performance. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the last we ever see of players like Bednerak in a saints shirt, to be fair. 

Edited 9 April, 2022 by Dman

[Sarisbury Saint]

7 minutes ago, Micky said:

I'm quite lucky really, i have no idea what xg means. 

Neither do I and I don’t want to. My eyes tell me xg is bollocks if it says 6 nil flattered them.

[The Kraken]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

I’ve been to plenty of games where we’ve been defeated by several goals and usually it was a case of the other side having more luck or that everything they hit flew into the net. But today was worse. We were outclassed and outfought by players who were operating at a higher level than ours.

Agreed.

To be clear, I was asking @TWar my original question not to take the mickey at all, I actually enjoy statistical analysis alongside genuine game analysis. I’m a minor stats geek myself, I did an A Level many years ago in Mathematics with Statistics, loved it, and I guess lots of that stuck through my life. Plus I have a couple of friends who have done scouting and analytical analysis for premier league clubs before, and I found the reports were output from that (which they showed me) to be utterly fascinating.

I just find it difficult to assign todays defeat alongside a genuine 0-4 result, so I question the analysis involved in that. Stats are very helpful a lot of the time, I’m just struggling square the circle of that xG number today.

[Whitey Grandad]

8 minutes ago, LGTL said:

I flew to Canada when we lost 0-9 to Leicester. I have just landed in the same airport today, and checked the score 😂

So it’s your fault? Phew, that’s a relief. For a few hours there I was thinking that our team was crap.

[TWar]

7 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Agreed.

To be clear, I was asking @TWar my original question not to take the mickey at all, I actually enjoy statistical analysis alongside genuine game analysis. I’m a minor stats geek myself, I did an A Level many years ago in Mathematics with Statistics, loved it, and I guess lots of that stuck through my life. Plus I have a couple of friends who have done scouting and analytical analysis for premier league clubs before, and I found the reports were output from that (which they showed me) to be utterly fascinating.

I just find it difficult to assign todays defeat alongside a genuine 0-4 result, so I question the analysis involved in that. Stats are very helpful a lot of the time, I’m just struggling square the circle of that xG number today.

If you are interested understat has an xg breakdown per chance.

https://understat.com/match/16687

On the map stars are goals and circles are chances that didn't lead to goals. Click on one to see the xg, shooter, and minute of the game.

Mounts first had a 4% chance of going in and was a very good finish.

Edited 9 April, 2022 by TWar

[The Kraken]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

If you are interested understat has an xg breakdown per chance.

https://understat.com/match/16687

On the map stars are goals and circles are chances that didn't lead to goals. Click on one to see the xg, shooter, and minute of the game.

Thanks 🙏 

[Dr Who?]

0-4 at home to Everton about 86/87. Sharpe scored all of them. 

[Stud mark of doom]

8 hours ago, LGTL said:

I flew to Canada when we lost 0-9 to Leicester. I have just landed in the same airport today, and checked the score 😂

If you could avoid that airport in future it would be much appreciated - thanks. 

[JibMcdo]

9 hours ago, TWar said:

Mounts first had a 4% chance of going in and was a very good finish.

I’m all for data but xg is clearly crap. A quality international footballer unmarked 22 yards out only scores that once in every 25 attempts? That’s bollocks.

[adrian lord]

11 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

You might want to give the Lionesses a follow, or just women's football in general.

 

[Chez]

11 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Arsenal in the week before the FA Cup final at 6-0 was, yeah, not ideal preparation.

it was 6-1. I was at that game. It was remarkably similar to yesterdays debacle, with players never getting close, the likes of Telfer getting run ragged, lots of saves from Jones that fell straight to Pires and a wanker like Mount (Pennant) helping himself to goals. I seem to recall there was no lack of effort on our part, but we just couldn't get near them. On reflection, maybe we just didn't want to get hurt or suspended. It was the ideal storm. Our `reserved' performance in the cup final can be put down to this game. We were scared of getting burned again, so never left ourselves exposed. It was a bad night, but Chelsea display was much worse (plus that was an away game, no cup final to look forward to, a great season etc)

 

[Chez]

11 hours ago, Sergei Gotsmanov said:

Arsenal in the cup with a youth team was pretty dispiriting. I think that one was 5-0. At least the tickets were £15.

 

 

as pitiful a Saints display as you will ever see, but not helped by the line up. Surrendered before we kicked off.

[Chez]

The 1-4 defeat to Palace at home on the first day of the season in 2007 was as shockingly bad as any. My word, did we know it was going to be a long season after that.

There were three horrible away defeats that season too. Smashed 5-0 at Sheff wed, Hull and 5-1 at Preston. Hull got promoted, but the other two finished 15th and 16th for god's sake. I know we survived, just, but I think that is the worst season in living memory (the relegation season the one after was actually better for some reason, as at least we were watching kids do their best, not seasoned pros failing). I went to pretty much ever game too, Horrible. It's scarred me.

[Saint86]

11 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Ok ta.

I think I disagree, given their misses / Forster’s saves. I’d have been very happy to get away with a 4-0 after that. But there we go.

Just taking the statistical analysis, xG is a average statistical view.

You can't really argue with the xG stat for the game since it's based on a significant amount of statistical data - but Chelsea are a top team with great finishers generally - so they should over perform it. Equally forster can still make several great saves from good finishes (that overperform xG) and still let in more than is predicted by the stats.

Chelsea were on it, so was forster. Given the domination they enjoyed they could easily have had more. 

[Chez]

11 hours ago, The Kraken said:

Personally I’m amazed we kept it to six. It was a phenomenal battering.

me too. Just how Werner missed that header in the first half I will never know. Extremely lucky Alonso didn't score in the second too (just wide of the far post) - no pressure on him, on his left, no pressure game wise. They destroyed us. The goals they did score weren't `amazing finishes' either. There was a tad of fortune that Forster's saves fell to the feet of opponents for tap ins, but we were lucky the initial shots didn't go in in the first place. 

Edited 10 April, 2022 by Chez

[austsaint]

11 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I’ve been to plenty of games where we’ve been defeated by several goals and usually it was a case of the other side having more luck or that everything they hit flew into the net. But today was worse. We were outclassed and outfought by players who were operating at a higher level than ours.

Sums it up well.    This felt like the biggest tonking I can remember - more comprehensive than the Leicester/Man U debacles.   At times in the first half (and Chelsea did play well) I allowed an integrity theory to surface in my mind - was it tools down to win money?     Was it players knocking off early, dreaming of their Summer holidays.    Perhaps Salisu has been tapped up; maybe Oriel is returning to Spain; could Ward-Prowse finally be off to a "bigger team"?    How else could you explain the timid, white flag performance.

Taking the last month or so as a yardstick there are several conclusions you can draw.    Elyounoussi should be on his way at season's end - the "new improved" version we saw early in the season was an illusion - he's no more effective than Walcott; and Long, Bednarek, Valery, Smallbone, Redmond and Djenepo  should be going with them.      Why is LIvramento picked at RB whenever available?    He has a naive sense of defending - the call for him to be tried further up the field has never been heeded - KWP and Perraud should have been our starting full backs for some time.

I still see a player in A. Armstrong and Adams, but replacement attacking midfielders and replacements for Djenepo, Walcott, Redmond and Elyounoussi are badly needed to provide service to the strikers.

As good as Chelsea were - it was a total humiliation today - could easily have been nudging double figures - a scary thing to reflect on.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

That was a right proper stuffing. If it hadn’t of been for FF and them taking their foot off the gas, it could well have been 9 or 10. At 3-0 the game was done, why aren’t we capable of doing what most sides do when the games lost and sit in limiting the damage. We clearly needed an extra defensive  body in midfield, but he kept 2 up top for way too long. It wasn’t city or Liverpool, but an out of sorts Chelsea that just got dicked at home by Brentford. So yes, it was one of the worst I’ve seen. No excuses, completely and utterly outclassed. 
 

As for this Xg, what a load of old pony. Does it take into account Thiago Silva played in his slippers smoking a cigar?  

[cloggy saint]

19 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 No excuses, completely and utterly outclassed. 

That's a pretty good excuse.

[Appy]

The 2-1 against Everton shortly after the Leicester game was up there, as bad a performance as any, masked by the score. 
 

Yesterday we were lucky it was six. 

[alehouseboys]

Carragher on SKY after the last time we won a PL game in February...

"The 2-0 scoreline doesn't do Southampton justice. They are in a rich vein of form at this moment in time and they should enjoy it. They'll be thinking they can have a really big end to the season. They are just in the top half now, four points behind Tottenham. Southampton will be looking up and not behind them"

What went so badly wrong? Again.

[S-Clarke]

Christ, tons worse than yesterday.

Southampton 1 - 4 Palace, when we had Makin and Bennet putting on a show.

3-4 Leeds at home, absolute disaster of a second half.

Rochdale 0-2 when we'd just sacked Pardew, we looked screwed at that point.

Obviously Leicester 9 for all the reasons.

Losing at home to Wigan when we first came back up, was expecting a bit of a bounce after the effort against City and that was as flat as you could wish for.

Edited 10 April, 2022 by S-Clarke

[John D]

4 hours ago, JibMcdo said:

I’m all for data but xg is clearly crap. A quality international footballer unmarked 22 yards out only scores that once in every 25 attempts? That’s bollocks.

xg is fine to support analysis but it won't always tell the full story and has to be taken with other factors.  As you say  Mount will score that may more times than xg suggests but stick me in that position and it would be a different outcome!   World class players should always outperform xg so, over time, it is good for identifying players but less so for analysis of individual performances.   

It is like the old "head in the oven, feet in the freezer".  My mean average temperature is fine though.

[Whitey Grandad]

8 minutes ago, John D said:

xg is fine to support analysis but it won't always tell the full story and has to be taken with other factors.  As you say  Mount will score that may more times than xg suggests but stick me in that position and it would be a different outcome!   World class players should always outperform xg so, over time, it is good for identifying players but less so for analysis of individual performances.   

It is like the old "head in the oven, feet in the freezer".  My mean average temperature is fine though.

The simple answer is that xg is a meaningless figure.

[Saints foreva]

Spurs at home last season was awful, they could have easily scored more than 5 and it felt like they had the freedom of the pitch as we persisted with a high line that was easily being breached by a long pass from Harry Kane to Son. 

[TWar]

3 hours ago, John D said:

xg is fine to support analysis but it won't always tell the full story and has to be taken with other factors.  As you say  Mount will score that may more times than xg suggests but stick me in that position and it would be a different outcome!   World class players should always outperform xg so, over time, it is good for identifying players but less so for analysis of individual performances.   

It is like the old "head in the oven, feet in the freezer".  My mean average temperature is fine though.

Statistically speaking world class players don't outperform xG very often at all. It shows that number of chances is much more important than conversion rate. It's why its better to be missing sitters than being anonymous. One can turn around a lot easier than the other.

For example Salah, Jota, Kane, Mane, and Ronaldo are all underperforming with Son being the only top scorer who is overperforming. The biggest overperformer per minute is Smith-Rowe, who isn't exactly topping the charts. This view that xG doesn't well describe top players as they are much better finishers is pretty inaccurate.

Edited 10 April, 2022 by TWar

[Tank]

22 hours ago, Dman said:

In short, no. 

Easily the worst performance I’ve ever seen (arguably by anyone). Forster the only player to come away with any Credit (he was fantastic). 
 

Another day, with another striker playing, and another keeper in goal, that is 10+. Just imagine if Lukaku was fit. 

Absolutely shambolic. 

a real shocker, I'm glad nobody is blaming Forster.

[TWar]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The simple answer is that xg is a meaningless figure.

I think the simple answer is "it could easily be 10" is an emotional response to a thrashing but thrashings happen all the time and it rarely goes above six for a reason. Big results are normally freak results. xG is unbiased by such things and hence accurately shows the likelyhood of certain results.

Edited 10 April, 2022 by TWar

[angelman]

Personally think that was one of the most spineless displays I have ever seen. I posted that on twatter, and the response was "have you just started supporting Saints this season?"!! Sure there have been plenty of abject performances, but yesterday had something different about it. Anyway, I did something I've never done before, and left very early - after the 5th goal. I managed to get home for the National.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

I think the simple answer is "it could easily be 10" is an emotional response to a thrashing but thrashings happen all the time and it rarely goes above six for a reason. Big results are normally freak results. xG is unbiased by such things and hence accurately shows the likelyhood of certain results.

But it only shows that after the game is over. Doesn’t it?

[TWar]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But it only shows that after the game is over. Doesn’t it?

Yeah, it shows given the events of the game was the result reasonably fair. Its good for prediction in that it improves analysis, you can see if a teams is underperforming or overperforming and hence which direction they are likely to trend, which is why gamblers like it, but it isn't predictive on its own.

[Dman]

2 hours ago, TWar said:

I think the simple answer is "it could easily be 10" is an emotional response to a thrashing but thrashings happen all the time and it rarely goes above six for a reason. Big results are normally freak results. xG is unbiased by such things and hence accurately shows the likelyhood of certain results.

Did you watch the game? Genuine question. 
 

If you did and you don’t think it could have been more, then please can you tell me what you were drinking before, as I need some. 
 

I assume you were in the toilet when Werner missed a free header from 10 yards and Forster made a fantastic point blank save from Werner (one of which I don’t think either of the keepers who played in the 9-0 would have saved) - so that’s 8, there at least. 
 

Then there are the saves Forster made, some very very good + Werner hitting the post and a few just going wide. So yes, on another day it could have been 10. 

Edited 10 April, 2022 by Dman

[TWar]

25 minutes ago, Dman said:

Did you watch the game? Genuine question. 
 

If you did and you don’t think it could have been more, then please can you tell me what you were drinking before, as I need some. 
 

I assume you were in the toilet when Werner missed a free header from 10 yards and Forster made a fantastic point blank save from Werner (one of which I don’t think either of the keepers who played in the 9-0 would have saved) - so that’s 8, there at least. 
 

Then there are the saves Forster made, some very very good + Werner hitting the post and a few just going wide. So yes, on another day it could have been 10. 

Yes, I did watch the game. Obviously it could have been more, it could have been less. Statistically speaking they scored more than they should have. It still should have been like 4 or 5 goals to our 1 but saying we were lucky it wasn't 10 was nonsense. 

Werner missed a header that was over 0.5 xg, yeah, but then Mount put in a shot from 24 yards with defenders between him and the goal which he hit first time which had an xG of 0.05 so those even out.

The reason you think it should have been higher is you count every goal as a goal and every near miss as a goal whereas sometimes missed sitters are balanced out with tricky goals.

[Dman]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

Yes, I did watch the game. Obviously it could have been more, it could have been less. Statistically speaking they scored more than they should have. It still should have been like 4 or 5 goals to our 1 but saying we were lucky it wasn't 10 was nonsense. 

Werner missed a header that was over 0.5 xg, yeah, but then Mount put in a shot from 24 yards with defenders between him and the goal which he hit first time which had an xG of 0.05 so those even out.

The reason you think it should have been higher is you count every goal as a goal and every near miss as a goal whereas sometimes missed sitters are balanced out with tricky goals.

What a stupid argument and What the hell are you going on about balances out.

Someone scoring a screamer has absolutely no impact on someone missing a sitter in the same game. They’re 2 separate incidents which have no correlation to each other. 

It couldn’t have been less, because they literally put the ball in the net 6 times. 

They scored 6 which is a fact and missed 2, possibly more, really good opportunities that it’s not unreasonable to expect a £50m striker to score. 

[TWar]

6 minutes ago, Dman said:

What a stupid argument and What the hell are you going on about balances out.

Someone scoring a screamer has absolutely no impact on someone missing a sitter in the same game. They’re 2 separate incidents which have no correlation to each other. 

It couldn’t have been less, because they literally put the ball in the net 6 times. 

They scored 6 which is a fact and missed 2, possibly more, really good opportunities that it’s not unreasonable to expect a £50m striker to score. 

You can't say we are lucky a sitter didn't go in and then not admit we are unlucky a screamer went in. Swings and roundabouts. That's the nature of luck. I'm not suggesting they are correlated, I'm saying when calculating whether it should have been a bigger loss that the good luck and bad luck balances out and really if anything the result was slightly harsh on us. Still a loss but not 6-0.

On the whole they scored one goal more than the chances they produced. Them missing a couple of easier chances was balanced by them putting in a couple of harder chances.

Edited 10 April, 2022 by TWar

[Bob76]

24 minutes ago, TWar said:

You can't say we are lucky a sitter didn't go in and then not admit we are unlucky a screamer went in. Swings and roundabouts. That's the nature of luck. I'm not suggesting they are correlated, I'm saying when calculating whether it should have been a bigger loss that the good luck and bad luck balances out and really if anything the result was slightly harsh on us. Still a loss but not 6-0.

On the whole they scored one goal more than the chances they produced. Them missing a couple of easier chances was balanced by them putting in a couple of harder chances.

Really think you need to get out more. I was at the game (season ticket holder) and that was as bad as it gets, we were hammered and very lucky it was not more, whatever the xg says.

[Whitey Grandad]

41 minutes ago, TWar said:

You can't say we are lucky a sitter didn't go in and then not admit we are unlucky a screamer went in. Swings and roundabouts. That's the nature of luck. I'm not suggesting they are correlated, I'm saying when calculating whether it should have been a bigger loss that the good luck and bad luck balances out and really if anything the result was slightly harsh on us. Still a loss but not 6-0.

On the whole they scored one goal more than the chances they produced. Them missing a couple of easier chances was balanced by them putting in a couple of harder chances.

How can that be? Chelsea had 24 shots 14 of which were on target and in these also hit the bar and the post. 

[TWar]

1 hour ago, Bob76 said:

Really think you need to get out more. I was at the game (season ticket holder) and that was as bad as it gets, we were hammered and very lucky it was not more, whatever the xg says.

Welcome to your opinion, statistically you are incorrect though. Very much weren't lucky.

[TWar]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

How can that be? Chelsea had 24 shots 14 of which were on target and in these also hit the bar and the post. 

A lot of the shots weren't very likely to go in. Here is a breakdown of each of their xG

https://understat.com/match/16687

[egg]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

A lot of the shots weren't very likely to go in. Here is a breakdown of each of their xG

https://understat.com/match/16687

Mate, you're making yourself look a bit silly here. We got battered. Anyone who saw the game will tell you it could have been double figures. I'm not sure what you're hoping to prove banging on about stats and xG, or whatever. Just watch the bloody game and you'll see a team out thought and out fought lucky not to get smashed 10 nil. 

[TWar]

Just now, egg said:

Mate, you're making yourself look a bit silly here. We got battered. Anyone who saw the game will tell you it could have been double figures. I'm not sure what you're hoping to prove banging on about stats and xG, or whatever. Just watch the bloody game and you'll see a team out thought and out fought lucky not to get smashed 10 nil. 

Ofcourse it could have been double figures, but statistically it was most likely to be 4-5 goals. That is objectively true. I'm sorry if you think that makes me look silly but it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

[nta786]

Just now, TWar said:

Ofcourse it could have been double figures, but statistically it was most likely to be 4-5 goals. That is objectively true. I'm sorry if you think that makes me look silly but it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

xG uses a load of assumptions, it doesn’t necessarily make it a fact. Even the bloke who created the model says it will fail to predict a high scoring game, hence why you think Chelsea only should have scored 4.

https://www.sportperformanceanalysis.com/article/what-are-expected-goals-xg

[egg]

8 minutes ago, TWar said:

Ofcourse it could have been double figures, but statistically it was most likely to be 4-5 goals. That is objectively true. I'm sorry if you think that makes me look silly but it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

"it's a fact that it was most likely to be 4-5 goals" Wtf is that nonsense? The only fact us that it was actually 6 goals. Anything else isn't a fact but an opinion. 

[TWar]

7 minutes ago, nta786 said:

xG uses a load of assumptions, it doesn’t necessarily make it a fact. Even the bloke who created the model says it will fail to predict a high scoring game, hence why you think Chelsea only should have scored 4.

https://www.sportperformanceanalysis.com/article/what-are-expected-goals-xg

Modern xG uses a post-shot algorithm than predicts significantly more accurately, the understat has been shown to be within 2 standard deviations across a controlled sample set. This first iteration has been improved upon significantly.

The failing to predict a high scoring game isn't a flaw with the system, its because high scoring games are inherently unlikely, they are freak occurances over a certain point. It's why people saying we were lucky to not see double figures are talking nonsense. The prem has never seen a double figures game so those saying its lucky it didn't happen are saying we are lucky we didn't have the worst defensive display in premier league history. Which is obviously objectively pretty silly.

[TWar]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

"it's a fact that it was most likely to be 4-5 goals" Wtf is that nonsense? The only fact us that it was actually 6 goals. Anything else isn't a fact but an opinion. 

Stats are facts, how you interpret them is opinion. There are a great number more than "how many goals were there" available. We have access to a set of tens of thousands of shots in each of the situations Chelsea shot from so we can pretty accurately say how likely each of them are to go in. But if you think what you reckon is more valuable, and let me remind you you reckon we were lucky not to have the worst defence in prem history, then crack on.

[Badger]

I can't understand the methodology, or purpose of this xG concept, despite nta786's best efforts above. Seems a bit of 'psycho-babble' for geeks, nerds, and probably those playing computer games.

Whether it could have been 10 is open to debate, I think it possibly could have been on that performance. Not sure how anyone can say it should only have been four when they peppered our goal for the first 60 minutes before looking like they had simply "declared" at that point.

If Twar wants statistics I suggest he focuses on the following:

Saints scored none, Chelsea scored six.

They get three points for their endeavours, we (deservedly) get fuck all.

Anything else is superfluous. 

[Bob76]

4 minutes ago, TWar said:

Stats are facts, how you interpret them is opinion. There are a great number more than "how many goals were there" available. We have access to a set of tens of thousands of shots in each of the situations Chelsea shot from so we can pretty accurately say how likely each of them are to go in. But if you think what you reckon is more valuable, and let me remind you you reckon we were lucky not to have the worst defence in prem history, then crack on.

Have we not had the worst defence in premier League history already twice under this manager?

[TWar]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I can't understand the methodology, or purpose of this xG concept, despite nta786's best efforts above. Seems a bit of 'psycho-babble' for geeks, nerds, and probably those playing computer games.

Whether it could have been 10 is open to debate, I think it possibly could have been on that performance. Not sure how anyone can say it should only have been four when they peppered our goal for the first 60 minutes before looking like they had simply "declared" at that point.

If Twar wants statistics I suggest he focuses on the following:

Saints scored none, Chelsea scored six.

They get three points for their endeavours, we (deservedly) get fuck all.

Anything else is superfluous. 

It could have been 10, it just was very unlikely to be and in actuality the most likely situation was less than they scored. I'm not arguing 10 was impossible, just that saying we are lucky it wasn't is bollocks.

And yeah, obviously it doesn't change the result, but we aren't aiming to change the result we are analysing the game for fun. And the most accurate statistical analysis is that if the chances had been finished to an average level it would be 4-1 or 5-1 and "worst home result in recent memory" is a big overreaction.

[TWar]

1 minute ago, Bob76 said:

Have we not had the worst defence in premier League history already twice under this manager?

No. We had two fluke games. And this would have been a fluke too if it ended up any higher.

[Dman]

8 minutes ago, TWar said:

Stats are facts, how you interpret them is opinion. There are a great number more than "how many goals were there" available. We have access to a set of tens of thousands of shots in each of the situations Chelsea shot from so we can pretty accurately say how likely each of them are to go in. But if you think what you reckon is more valuable, and let me remind you you reckon we were lucky not to have the worst defence in prem history, then crack on.

We already hold that record.. it’s happened twice. 

[Dman]

40 minutes ago, TWar said:

A lot of the shots weren't very likely to go in. Here is a breakdown of each of their xG

https://understat.com/match/16687

Genuine questions, given that XG is calculated based on an average of a group of shots from each position, does it factor in quality of the striker? 
 

If not, it’s completely fucking pointless.