Nathan Jones

[skintsaint]

6 hours ago, verlaine1979 said:

Doesn't it actually suggest that we concede a lot more goals than we should?

I'm reading it as the defence is middle of the table and our attack is bottom third. As we all know.

[egg]

7 hours ago, verlaine1979 said:

Doesn't it actually suggest that we concede a lot more goals than we should?

The chart isn't very clear, but looks like our expected goals for is about 1 per game and our expected goals against is about 1.35. That would equate to 15 for and about 20 against, when the reality is we've scored 13 but let in 27.

It suggests to me that the xG is unreliable guesswork. People/teams don't "overperform" or "underperform" against their xG, it's just that some statto guessed wrong, and that on the pitch, football doesn't go the way that it does on a spreadsheet. 

[Weston Super Saint]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

It suggests to me that the xG is unreliable guesswork. People/teams don't "overperform" or "underperform" against their xG, it's just that some statto guessed wrong, and that on the pitch, football doesn't go the way that it does on a spreadsheet. 

I don't believe xG even bothers to take into account opposition either.  E.G. the xG of a shot from 18 yards taken by Nathan Tella against the best 'keeper in the world can be identical to the same shot taken by Messi against a one armed 'keeper who spent half time getting battered in the pub.  

I suspect even the people who peddle xG models know it's bullshit which is why they take penalties out when analysing a team's performance.

[egg]

30 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I don't believe xG even bothers to take into account opposition either.  E.G. the xG of a shot from 18 yards taken by Nathan Tella against the best 'keeper in the world can be identical to the same shot taken by Messi against a one armed 'keeper who spent half time getting battered in the pub.  

I suspect even the people who peddle xG models know it's bullshit which is why they take penalties out when analysing a team's performance.

Yep - the simple explanation is that xG is bollox. 

[Wade Garrett]

Don’t get me started on the fucking pointless xG.

Geeky shit for nerds.

[Whitey Grandad]

12 hours ago, Dusic said:

Why? It shows what most of us think, we can defend in a manner that is similar to a lot of teams but in attack are poor at creating clear chances.

I think we all knew that without the need of a graph.

[stevy777_x]

2 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

Don’t get me started on the fucking pointless xG.

Geeky shit for nerds.

Well we base our analysis on stats like these now. That s the whole point of the big data driven approach of SR.

Deal with it.

[egg]

34 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

Well we base our analysis on stats like these now. That s the whole point of the big data driven approach of SR.

Deal with it.

Who's "all"?

Most of us who watch football don't need graphs or spreadsheets to see that Adam Armstrong will never be Mo Salah. 

[Dusic]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I think we all knew that without the need of a graph.

Well yes. But as far as I'm aware rhe graph wasn't created specifically for Saints fans.

It shows that XG, whatever people say, does give a fairly accurate reflection, over a number of games, of the attacking ouput of football teams in the PL.

Its not perfect of course, but on balance is probably better than stuff like "Shots" or "Shots on target".

Clearly any stats should be used alongside your own eyes and judgements of a game or season, but people saying its "bollox" presumably don't look at any football stats apart from the score?

 

[Weston Super Saint]

46 minutes ago, Dusic said:

Well yes. But as far as I'm aware rhe graph wasn't created specifically for Saints fans.

It shows that XG, whatever people say, does give a fairly accurate reflection, over a number of games, of the attacking ouput of football teams in the PL.

Its not perfect of course, but on balance is probably better than stuff like "Shots" or "Shots on target".

Clearly any stats should be used alongside your own eyes and judgements of a game or season, but people saying its "bollox" presumably don't look at any football stats apart from the score?

 

Absolute horseshit.

How can a metric that states Bazuna would have exactly the same xG as Messi shooting against a one armed pissed 'keeper (assuming all other parameters are the same) be taken seriously?

[Wade Garrett]

2 hours ago, stevy777_x said:

Well we base our analysis on stats like these now. That s the whole point of the big data driven approach of SR.

Deal with it.

This isn’t fucking PlayStation football.  Stats can be manipulated to say anything.  xG is just some anorak’s wanking material.  Totally fucking pointless.

I don’t need a spreadsheet to know that we need a striker and that we need to move the ball about quicker.  Amazing really, as I don’t play Football Manager or that stupid FIFA football game shite.

[Wsaint]

Man people get real angry over weird shit 😂 have a drink and calm down its Christmas.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Dusic said:

Well yes. But as far as I'm aware rhe graph wasn't created specifically for Saints fans.

It shows that XG, whatever people say, does give a fairly accurate reflection, over a number of games, of the attacking ouput of football teams in the PL.

Its not perfect of course, but on balance is probably better than stuff like "Shots" or "Shots on target".

Clearly any stats should be used alongside your own eyes and judgements of a game or season, but people saying its "bollox" presumably don't look at any football stats apart from the score?

 

Isn’t that all that matters?

[stevy777_x]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

This isn’t fucking PlayStation football.  Stats can be manipulated to say anything.  xG is just some anorak’s wanking material.  Totally fucking pointless.

I don’t need a spreadsheet to know that we need a striker and that we need to move the ball about quicker.  Amazing really, as I don’t play Football Manager or that stupid FIFA football game shite.

Don t complain at me mate.

its modern times, there s nothing you or me can do about it.

[stevy777_x]

5 hours ago, egg said:

Who's "all"?

Most of us who watch football don't need graphs or spreadsheets to see that Adam Armstrong will never be Mo Salah. 

Tbh I called out Adam Armstrong even before he signed saying he was too lightweight and not technical enough to succeed in the PL

Edited 24 December, 2022 by stevy777_x

[Wade Garrett]

1 hour ago, stevy777_x said:

Tbh I called out Adam Armstrong even before we signed saying he was too lightweight and not technical enough to succeed in the PL

Bet his XG stats are off the charts for not shooting.

[Lord Duckhunter]

3 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

This isn’t fucking PlayStation football.  Stats can be manipulated to say anything.  xG is just some anorak’s wanking material.  Totally fucking pointless.

I don’t need a spreadsheet to know that we need a striker and that we need to move the ball about quicker.  Amazing really, as I don’t play Football Manager or that stupid FIFA football game shite.

Yep, this modern shite is a right load of old pony. Hipsters really do think they’ve reinvented the wheel. 
 

Peter Taylor identified players that weren’t particularly rated, players where nobody really saw their potential and gave them to Cloughie to man manage and fit into a playing style. In the case of Kenny Burns they even turned him from a centre forward to a centre half. John Robertson was a ciggie smoking over weight reserve at Forest, Roy McFarland a Tranmere player, Dave Mackay a has been on one leg. In those days it was called Management, using their bins. There wasn’t a spreadsheet anywhere near the place. 

Edited 24 December, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[Andrew Watson]

Try telling the hierachy spreadsheets are nonsense as alot of fans realize. We are sleep walking to relegation, with the club being run to fail by non football people at the helm.

 

[Ted Bates Statue]

7 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yep, this modern shite is a right load of old pony. Hipsters really do think they’ve reinvented the wheel. 
 

Peter Taylor identified players that weren’t particularly rated, players where nobody really saw their potential and gave them to Cloughie to man manage and fit into a playing style. In the case of Kenny Burns they even turned him from a centre forward to a centre half. John Robertson was a ciggie smoking over weight reserve at Forest, Roy McFarland a Tranmere player, Dave Mackay a has been on one leg. In those days it was called Management, using their bins. There wasn’t a spreadsheet anywhere near the place. 

 

Nice try but Paul Whitehouse did it better nearly thirty years ago.

 

[Wade Garrett]

15 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Yep, this modern shite is a right load of old pony. Hipsters really do think they’ve reinvented the wheel. 
 

Peter Taylor identified players that weren’t particularly rated, players where nobody really saw their potential and gave them to Cloughie to man manage and fit into a playing style. In the case of Kenny Burns they even turned him from a centre forward to a centre half. John Robertson was a ciggie smoking over weight reserve at Forest, Roy McFarland a Tranmere player, Dave Mackay a has been on one leg. In those days it was called Management, using their bins. There wasn’t a spreadsheet anywhere near the place. 

Too right.  Loved I Believe In Miracles, think it was on Netflix.

[aintforever]

22 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I think we all knew that without the need of a graph.

Surely if that is true and the stats backup what we are seeing then it shows the role stats can play. 

There is no substitute for watching a team or a player but our scouts can’t watch every player in every game in the world.

[egg]

4 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Surely if that is true and the stats backup what we are seeing then it shows the role stats can play. 

There is no substitute for watching a team or a player but our scouts can’t watch every player in every game in the world.

What stats would be relevant when not watching a player? xG is made up by someone or some algorithm. Goals depend on service and/or the level of the opposition. Assists depends on the ability of someone else to finish. Lots of other stuff around passing etc depends on the way manager sets you up, the quality of your team mates and opposition. Stats don't show how a player moves between the lines, how he offers up for the ball, the quality of his runs, his ability to spot a run, his timing, etc etc. 

Duckie is correct.  Stats are completely unnecessary for spotting a player, and will undoubtedly mean that some good players don't get the recognition they deserve. 

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, egg said:

What stats would be relevant when not watching a player? xG is made up by someone or some algorithm. Goals depend on service and/or the level of the opposition. Assists depends on the ability of someone else to finish. Lots of other stuff around passing etc depends on the way manager sets you up, the quality of your team mates and opposition. Stats don't show how a player moves between the lines, how he offers up for the ball, the quality of his runs, his ability to spot a run, his timing, etc etc. 

Duckie is correct.  Stats are completely unnecessary for spotting a player, and will undoubtedly mean that some good players don't get the recognition they deserve. 

No one would ever sign a player in stats alone but in theory they could highlight a player who would otherwise go under the radar. 

For example if there is a good striker playing in a shit team, he may not be a top scorer but stats could show he puts away most chances he gets. He wouldn’t be signed based on his stats, he would be signed based on what the scout saw. If the stats show something up which gives our scouts the edge meaning we get there first it has to be a useful tool. 

[Wade Garrett]

16 minutes ago, aintforever said:

No one would ever sign a player in stats alone but in theory they could highlight a player who would otherwise go under the radar. 

For example if there is a good striker playing in a shit team, he may not be a top scorer but stats could show he puts away most chances he gets. He wouldn’t be signed based on his stats, he would be signed based on what the scout saw. If the stats show something up which gives our scouts the edge meaning we get there first it has to be a useful tool. 

Good point to be fair.

[egg]

32 minutes ago, aintforever said:

No one would ever sign a player in stats alone but in theory they could highlight a player who would otherwise go under the radar. 

For example if there is a good striker playing in a shit team, he may not be a top scorer but stats could show he puts away most chances he gets. He wouldn’t be signed based on his stats, he would be signed based on what the scout saw. If the stats show something up which gives our scouts the edge meaning we get there first it has to be a useful tool. 

Can't argue with that mate 👍

[Ex Lion Tamer]

On 24/12/2022 at 06:42, Weston Super Saint said:

Absolute horseshit.

How can a metric that states Bazuna would have exactly the same xG as Messi shooting against a one armed pissed 'keeper (assuming all other parameters are the same) be taken seriously?

That's exactly the point of the stat. It's showing you how good the team is at creating chances and taking out other factors like whether the strikers had an off day, whether they were up against a goalie having a worldie etc

[Mr X]

So hypothetical scenario say Jones fails to win in ten games what then? There can't be another change so I guess a case of we made our bed and have to lie in it! Can't help thinking the club already knew things were going to be extremely difficult so we got in championship experience instead of premier League? It's early days and the man needs at least ten games and we simply have to get reinforcements in in January as AA at least isn't up to the task and Che Adams works better as an supporting striker 

[East Kent Saint]

There is the issue of a player in a team that plays to his strengths getting transferred on the basis of his performance in that team . In his new team and system they play it appears he couldn’t hit a barn door with a banjo !

[gallaghert366@yahoo.com]

7 hours ago, aintforever said:

No one would ever sign a player in stats alone but in theory they could highlight a player who would otherwise go under the radar. 

For example if there is a good striker playing in a shit team, he may not be a top scorer but stats could show he puts away most chances he gets. He wouldn’t be signed based on his stats, he would be signed based on what the scout saw. If the stats show something up which gives our scouts the edge meaning we get there first it has to be a useful tool. 

Does Mara fit into that analysis.