Fans Forum

[baggytrousers]

42 minutes ago, Badger said:

It's 'The Emperors New Clothes' type of bollocks. 

As I've said before, a fairy tale by Hans Christian Ankersen.

 

Was this the Hans Christian Anderson story where the Scandanavian Emperor had previously taken a side nobody had ever heard off with no budget and knocked a Ronald Koeman side including Mane, Tadic, Pelle, JRod, JWP,Romeu, Fonte out of Europe and then taken a lower league west London side with no budget from nowhere to the point where they are capable of thrashing a certain more established side 3-0 every year and are now the seventh best team in the land ?

Did you not read the prequels ?

[saintant]

I'm convinced we don't have any what I would term football savvy people running the club. If you look at the four guys answering questions at the forum none of them strike me as being too switched on concerning the ins and outs of the game. They don't inspire me that they know what they are doing. Maybe that will change for the better when Jason Wilcox arrives but these four just seem like a bunch of nerds to me.

[saintant]

5 minutes ago, baggytrousers said:

Was this the Hans Christian Anderson story where the Scandanavian Emperor had previously taken a side nobody had ever heard off with no budget and knocked a Ronald Koeman side including Mane, Tadic, Pelle, JRod, JWP,Romeu, Fonte out of Europe and then taken a lower league west London side with no budget from nowhere to the point where they are capable of thrashing a certain more established side 3-0 every year and are now the seventh best team in the land ?

Did you not read the prequels ?

Well I'm not sure of his influence at Midtyjlland but I think Phil Giles was and still is the brains at Brentford.

[stevegrant]

54 minutes ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Possibly Rasmus has been looking at the forum, and didn't want to say xG in case it started a riot. 🙂

If he had, at least there'd be a metric that most people have got some sort of grip on in the real world. And there's been no discernible improvement.

Under Ralph, we were 18th on 12 points from 14 games, having scored 12 and conceded 24. The xG stats suggested that we should have scored 14.72 goals and conceded 20.41 goals, which would have given us 15.39 points and - if every game were played based on xG - would have had us 12th in the table and probably not overly concerned with how things were going.

Since Jones has come in, we are 20th overall and also 20th in that timescale too. 3 points from 7 games, 5 scored, 14 conceded. Should have scored 6.87 and conceded 11.18, which should have earned us 6.39 points.

So the number of goals scored overall (because let's be fair, set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones) is kind-of the same, goals conceded is exactly the same - two per game - and then looking at what we should have scored and conceded based on the quality of chances created/given up, we were slightly better under Ralph at both ends in terms of chance creation, but only marginally. Where there is a HUGE difference, though - and I know I said that set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones, but in reality if a team is heavily reliant on set pieces then against an organised and high quality defence you have to do something pretty special to break through - is the difference between set piece and open play goals. Under Jones we've scored just one goal from open play, which was JWP's equaliser at Everton, in 7 games. Meanwhile, under Ralph only two of those 12 goals were from set pieces (Adams equaliser at Leicester, Lavia equaliser against Chelsea) and 10 in open play.

Can you read much into it? I think where the goals are coming from would suggest that we are much more predictable and formulaic under Jones, hence the huge reliance on set piece goals. And predictable in the Premier League is no good unless you have players who are the best in the league, which - other than JWP's free kicks - we don't have. You're relying on the opposition making a mistake if the opposition know exactly what you're going to try to do because of the level of players and coaching and organisation of the teams in this division.

[Kingsland Codger]

On 09/02/2023 at 01:34, Saint86 said:

I remember it as a cold winter midweek(?) evening with the fans being somewhat unsure what to make of it all. The chants were for Adkins and grumbling at Cortese for how he had treated him. I don't remember any flack at all being directed at Poch. I went with my old man, sat in chapel, openminded on poch and gutted for Adkins. We both came away thinking things were going to be alright under Poch. I still think Adkins was on course to keep us up that year and it was a harsh sacking (somewhat cut short his managerial career if we're honest), but Poch was a different class of manager so 🤷‍♂️.

And that cold midweek night we also has Jason Puncheon’s bowel movements to provide some light relief from the tension.

[stevegrant]

13 minutes ago, saintant said:

Well I'm not sure of his influence at Midtyjlland but I think Phil Giles was and still is the brains at Brentford.

Can't remember if it was this thread or another one, but while there was certainly a big farewell for Rasmus at Brentford 14 months or so ago, he was co-Director of Football there and they haven't bothered replacing him. I think we would probably all agree that they're doing alright there without him.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

4 minutes ago, stevegrant said:

If he had, at least there'd be a metric that most people have got some sort of grip on in the real world. And there's been no discernible improvement.

Under Ralph, we were 18th on 12 points from 14 games, having scored 12 and conceded 24. The xG stats suggested that we should have scored 14.72 goals and conceded 20.41 goals, which would have given us 15.39 points and - if every game were played based on xG - would have had us 12th in the table and probably not overly concerned with how things were going.

Since Jones has come in, we are 20th overall and also 20th in that timescale too. 3 points from 7 games, 5 scored, 14 conceded. Should have scored 6.87 and conceded 11.18, which should have earned us 6.39 points.

So the number of goals scored overall (because let's be fair, set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones) is kind-of the same, goals conceded is exactly the same - two per game - and then looking at what we should have scored and conceded based on the quality of chances created/given up, we were slightly better under Ralph at both ends in terms of chance creation, but only marginally. Where there is a HUGE difference, though - and I know I said that set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones, but in reality if a team is heavily reliant on set pieces then against an organised and high quality defence you have to do something pretty special to break through - is the difference between set piece and open play goals. Under Jones we've scored just one goal from open play, which was JWP's equaliser at Everton, in 7 games. Meanwhile, under Ralph only two of those 12 goals were from set pieces (Adams equaliser at Leicester, Lavia equaliser against Chelsea) and 10 in open play.

Can you read much into it? I think where the goals are coming from would suggest that we are much more predictable and formulaic under Jones, hence the huge reliance on set piece goals. And predictable in the Premier League is no good unless you have players who are the best in the league, which - other than JWP's free kicks - we don't have. You're relying on the opposition making a mistake if the opposition know exactly what you're going to try to do because of the level of players and coaching and organisation of the teams in this division.

I feel my mere mention of xG triggered something there. 🙂

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, stevegrant said:

If he had, at least there'd be a metric that most people have got some sort of grip on in the real world. And there's been no discernible improvement.

Under Ralph, we were 18th on 12 points from 14 games, having scored 12 and conceded 24. The xG stats suggested that we should have scored 14.72 goals and conceded 20.41 goals, which would have given us 15.39 points and - if every game were played based on xG - would have had us 12th in the table and probably not overly concerned with how things were going.

Since Jones has come in, we are 20th overall and also 20th in that timescale too. 3 points from 7 games, 5 scored, 14 conceded. Should have scored 6.87 and conceded 11.18, which should have earned us 6.39 points.

So the number of goals scored overall (because let's be fair, set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones) is kind-of the same, goals conceded is exactly the same - two per game - and then looking at what we should have scored and conceded based on the quality of chances created/given up, we were slightly better under Ralph at both ends in terms of chance creation, but only marginally. Where there is a HUGE difference, though - and I know I said that set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones, but in reality if a team is heavily reliant on set pieces then against an organised and high quality defence you have to do something pretty special to break through - is the difference between set piece and open play goals. Under Jones we've scored just one goal from open play, which was JWP's equaliser at Everton, in 7 games. Meanwhile, under Ralph only two of those 12 goals were from set pieces (Adams equaliser at Leicester, Lavia equaliser against Chelsea) and 10 in open play.

Can you read much into it? I think where the goals are coming from would suggest that we are much more predictable and formulaic under Jones, hence the huge reliance on set piece goals. And predictable in the Premier League is no good unless you have players who are the best in the league, which - other than JWP's free kicks - we don't have. You're relying on the opposition making a mistake if the opposition know exactly what you're going to try to do because of the level of players and coaching and organisation of the teams in this division.

The big difference between the Premier League and the lower divisions is that in general fewer mistakes are made and fewer chances are missed.

In a way its too predictable, and that’s why I don’t like it.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The big difference between the Premier League and the lower divisions is that in general fewer mistakes are made and fewer chances are missed.

Southampton: That lower division experience in the top league. 🙂

[Weston Super Saint]

8 hours ago, stevegrant said:

If he had, at least there'd be a metric that most people have got some sort of grip on in the real world. And there's been no discernible improvement.

Under Ralph, we were 18th on 12 points from 14 games, having scored 12 and conceded 24. The xG stats suggested that we should have scored 14.72 goals and conceded 20.41 goals, which would have given us 15.39 points and - if every game were played based on xG - would have had us 12th in the table and probably not overly concerned with how things were going.

Since Jones has come in, we are 20th overall and also 20th in that timescale too. 3 points from 7 games, 5 scored, 14 conceded. Should have scored 6.87 and conceded 11.18, which should have earned us 6.39 points.

In summary, statistically, Jones is correct as he is most certainly, hands down, the best in Europe at being the shittest Premier League manager.

What's that saying about lies, damn lies and statistics?

[Saint86]

9 hours ago, stevegrant said:

If he had, at least there'd be a metric that most people have got some sort of grip on in the real world. And there's been no discernible improvement.

Under Ralph, we were 18th on 12 points from 14 games, having scored 12 and conceded 24. The xG stats suggested that we should have scored 14.72 goals and conceded 20.41 goals, which would have given us 15.39 points and - if every game were played based on xG - would have had us 12th in the table and probably not overly concerned with how things were going.

Since Jones has come in, we are 20th overall and also 20th in that timescale too. 3 points from 7 games, 5 scored, 14 conceded. Should have scored 6.87 and conceded 11.18, which should have earned us 6.39 points.

So the number of goals scored overall (because let's be fair, set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones) is kind-of the same, goals conceded is exactly the same - two per game - and then looking at what we should have scored and conceded based on the quality of chances created/given up, we were slightly better under Ralph at both ends in terms of chance creation, but only marginally. Where there is a HUGE difference, though - and I know I said that set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones, but in reality if a team is heavily reliant on set pieces then against an organised and high quality defence you have to do something pretty special to break through - is the difference between set piece and open play goals. Under Jones we've scored just one goal from open play, which was JWP's equaliser at Everton, in 7 games. Meanwhile, under Ralph only two of those 12 goals were from set pieces (Adams equaliser at Leicester, Lavia equaliser against Chelsea) and 10 in open play.

Can you read much into it? I think where the goals are coming from would suggest that we are much more predictable and formulaic under Jones, hence the huge reliance on set piece goals. And predictable in the Premier League is no good unless you have players who are the best in the league, which - other than JWP's free kicks - we don't have. You're relying on the opposition making a mistake if the opposition know exactly what you're going to try to do because of the level of players and coaching and organisation of the teams in this division.

This is a beautiful post 😍

[Whitey Grandad]

8 hours ago, Holmes_and_Watson said:

Southampton: That lower division experience in the top league. 🙂

Exactly. There’s a reason that we’re heading where we’re heading.

[baggytrousers]

9 hours ago, stevegrant said:

If he had, at least there'd be a metric that most people have got some sort of grip on in the real world. And there's been no discernible improvement.

Under Ralph, we were 18th on 12 points from 14 games, having scored 12 and conceded 24. The xG stats suggested that we should have scored 14.72 goals and conceded 20.41 goals, which would have given us 15.39 points and - if every game were played based on xG - would have had us 12th in the table and probably not overly concerned with how things were going.

Since Jones has come in, we are 20th overall and also 20th in that timescale too. 3 points from 7 games, 5 scored, 14 conceded. Should have scored 6.87 and conceded 11.18, which should have earned us 6.39 points.

So the number of goals scored overall (because let's be fair, set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones) is kind-of the same, goals conceded is exactly the same - two per game - and then looking at what we should have scored and conceded based on the quality of chances created/given up, we were slightly better under Ralph at both ends in terms of chance creation, but only marginally. Where there is a HUGE difference, though - and I know I said that set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones, but in reality if a team is heavily reliant on set pieces then against an organised and high quality defence you have to do something pretty special to break through - is the difference between set piece and open play goals. Under Jones we've scored just one goal from open play, which was JWP's equaliser at Everton, in 7 games. Meanwhile, under Ralph only two of those 12 goals were from set pieces (Adams equaliser at Leicester, Lavia equaliser against Chelsea) and 10 in open play.

Can you read much into it? I think where the goals are coming from would suggest that we are much more predictable and formulaic under Jones, hence the huge reliance on set piece goals. And predictable in the Premier League is no good unless you have players who are the best in the league, which - other than JWP's free kicks - we don't have. You're relying on the opposition making a mistake if the opposition know exactly what you're going to try to do because of the level of players and coaching and organisation of the teams in this division.

Interesting post but my big question would be why did you leave out the cup games in your analysis ?  

Surely the most interesting game of Jones’ reign was the Man City game where both goals were scored from open play and we kept a clean sheet against probably the most potent attack in the league.

 I’m not attempting to fly the flag for Jones here. I’m as concerned as everyone else and one good week certainly does not make up for the rest.  I just think the situation is a bit more nuanced than this analysis and most posts on here are painting.

[CB Fry]

5 minutes ago, baggytrousers said:

Interesting post but my big question would be why did you leave out the cup games in your analysis ?  

Surely the most interesting game of Jones’ reign was the Man City game where both goals were scored from open play and we kept a clean sheet against probably the most potent attack in the league.

 I’m not attempting to fly the flag for Jones here. I’m as concerned as everyone else and one good week certainly does not make up for the rest.  I just think the situation is a bit more nuanced than this analysis and most posts on here are painting.

Jones wasn’t recruited to win the League Cup, he was recruited to keep us in the league.

If anything it makes it worse - that was a dawn but it turned out to be a false dawn because we couldn't take anything like that level of performance into Villa or Brentford.

It's correct to be ignored because it is now an irrelevance. 

[OldNick]

14 hours ago, CB Fry said:

Through an entire season it would easily keep you up.

It won't now but that's because the Welsh wonder has lost 6 out of 7 league matches.

Yep, there would be good reason why we'd be last game on Motd then, lol. Id love to see us on here if we did do. Puel went a few games in the second half of the season and he was hounded as well

[Turkish]

11 minutes ago, baggytrousers said:

Interesting post but my big question would be why did you leave out the cup games in your analysis ?  

Surely the most interesting game of Jones’ reign was the Man City game where both goals were scored from open play and we kept a clean sheet against probably the most potent attack in the league.

 I’m not attempting to fly the flag for Jones here. I’m as concerned as everyone else and one good week certainly does not make up for the rest.  I just think the situation is a bit more nuanced than this analysis and most posts on here are painting.

It is interesting because i wondering if this was a game where he did things his way or he was compromised? 

[stevegrant]

9 minutes ago, baggytrousers said:

Interesting post but my big question would be why did you leave out the cup games in your analysis ?  

Surely the most interesting game of Jones’ reign was the Man City game where both goals were scored from open play and we kept a clean sheet against probably the most potent attack in the league.

 I’m not attempting to fly the flag for Jones here. I’m as concerned as everyone else and one good week certainly does not make up for the rest.  I just think the situation is a bit more nuanced than this analysis and most posts on here are painting.

I don't ignore it as such, it's just that the data is easier to obtain for league games, and it's a more consistent situation. Cup games, especially Carabao Cup games, are notorious for teams playing weakened teams.

Absolutely no doubt that City fielded a much weaker XI than they could have done (de Bruyne and Haaland on the bench the obvious observations but there were a number of others, including the keeper whose erratic positioning was the sole reason Djenepo was able to score his goal in the manner that he did), and as a result there's just a bit more context to that result and performance. We played well, certainly, but then I could counter it with the absolute shambles that was the second leg at St James' Park, and so much else that's gone on either side of it strongly suggests the City game was an exception rather than any sort of trend.

[benali-shorts]

10 hours ago, saintant said:

Well I'm not sure of his influence at Midtyjlland but I think Phil Giles was and still is the brains at Brentford.

Yes, Phil Giles was/is definitely considered the football talent spotter at Brentford. Rasmus was seemingly the strategist to align Midtyjlland with Brentford, and as Steve points out, it's notable that they haven't deemed it necessary to replace him (arguably, the processes may have been implemented and therefore not require an ongoing strategist - but interesting nonetheless). In fairness, Rasmus is performing a DofF role out of necessity of Shields leaving, and they're probably spending more on players than they would be normally be comfortable doing without a Director of Football being in place, again out of necessity given our perilous league position so I remind myself that it's harsh to pin the transfer success or otherwise on Rasmus. But let's hope there's substance to him, jury's out at this stage.  

[saintant]

1 minute ago, benali-shorts said:

Yes, Phil Giles was/is definitely considered the football talent spotter at Brentford. Rasmus was seemingly the strategist to align Midtyjlland with Brentford, and as Steve points out, it's notable that they haven't deemed it necessary to replace him (arguably, the processes may have been implemented and therefore not require an ongoing strategist - but interesting nonetheless). In fairness, Rasmus is performing a DofF role out of necessity of Shields leaving, and they're probably spending more on players than they would be normally be comfortable doing without a Director of Football being in place, again out of necessity given our perilous league position so I remind myself that it's harsh to pin the transfer success or otherwise on Rasmus. But let's hope there's substance to him, jury's out at this stage.  

Can we pin the failure of Nathan Jones on Rasmus? Because from where I'm sitting that was a huge mistake and does not reflect well on his abilities.

[Turkish]

10 hours ago, stevegrant said:

If he had, at least there'd be a metric that most people have got some sort of grip on in the real world. And there's been no discernible improvement.

Under Ralph, we were 18th on 12 points from 14 games, having scored 12 and conceded 24. The xG stats suggested that we should have scored 14.72 goals and conceded 20.41 goals, which would have given us 15.39 points and - if every game were played based on xG - would have had us 12th in the table and probably not overly concerned with how things were going.

Since Jones has come in, we are 20th overall and also 20th in that timescale too. 3 points from 7 games, 5 scored, 14 conceded. Should have scored 6.87 and conceded 11.18, which should have earned us 6.39 points.

So the number of goals scored overall (because let's be fair, set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones) is kind-of the same, goals conceded is exactly the same - two per game - and then looking at what we should have scored and conceded based on the quality of chances created/given up, we were slightly better under Ralph at both ends in terms of chance creation, but only marginally. Where there is a HUGE difference, though - and I know I said that set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones, but in reality if a team is heavily reliant on set pieces then against an organised and high quality defence you have to do something pretty special to break through - is the difference between set piece and open play goals. Under Jones we've scored just one goal from open play, which was JWP's equaliser at Everton, in 7 games. Meanwhile, under Ralph only two of those 12 goals were from set pieces (Adams equaliser at Leicester, Lavia equaliser against Chelsea) and 10 in open play.

Can you read much into it? I think where the goals are coming from would suggest that we are much more predictable and formulaic under Jones, hence the huge reliance on set piece goals. And predictable in the Premier League is no good unless you have players who are the best in the league, which - other than JWP's free kicks - we don't have. You're relying on the opposition making a mistake if the opposition know exactly what you're going to try to do because of the level of players and coaching and organisation of the teams in this division.

Its a shame they dont award additional points for doing great work on the training ground, we'd be laughing.

[OldNick]

10 hours ago, stevegrant said:

If he had, at least there'd be a metric that most people have got some sort of grip on in the real world. And there's been no discernible improvement.

Under Ralph, we were 18th on 12 points from 14 games, having scored 12 and conceded 24. The xG stats suggested that we should have scored 14.72 goals and conceded 20.41 goals, which would have given us 15.39 points and - if every game were played based on xG - would have had us 12th in the table and probably not overly concerned with how things were going.

Since Jones has come in, we are 20th overall and also 20th in that timescale too. 3 points from 7 games, 5 scored, 14 conceded. Should have scored 6.87 and conceded 11.18, which should have earned us 6.39 points.

So the number of goals scored overall (because let's be fair, set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones) is kind-of the same, goals conceded is exactly the same - two per game - and then looking at what we should have scored and conceded based on the quality of chances created/given up, we were slightly better under Ralph at both ends in terms of chance creation, but only marginally. Where there is a HUGE difference, though - and I know I said that set piece goals count exactly the same as open play ones, but in reality if a team is heavily reliant on set pieces then against an organised and high quality defence you have to do something pretty special to break through - is the difference between set piece and open play goals. Under Jones we've scored just one goal from open play, which was JWP's equaliser at Everton, in 7 games. Meanwhile, under Ralph only two of those 12 goals were from set pieces (Adams equaliser at Leicester, Lavia equaliser against Chelsea) and 10 in open play.

Can you read much into it? I think where the goals are coming from would suggest that we are much more predictable and formulaic under Jones, hence the huge reliance on set piece goals. And predictable in the Premier League is no good unless you have players who are the best in the league, which - other than JWP's free kicks - we don't have. You're relying on the opposition making a mistake if the opposition know exactly what you're going to try to do because of the level of players and coaching and organisation of the teams in this division.

Steve I'm amazed that you use XG as any barometer. VAR certainly cost us points (Imo) regarding the Villa result, is human error put into XG ?. You are a lot younger than myself and perhaps have faith in such calculations but to me a game of football cannot be filtered into a calculation. 

I have seen countless games in my supporting life where we have mullered teams and they have one chance and score to win. Ralph for me was a dictator, wouldnt take other advice (imo) and gave us the most dire performances I think I have ever seen, Villa and Wolves away. Villa where we didnt look like scoring or even having a shot, it was a most embarrassing performance played out on the Sky audience.

NJ has taken on a squad that were disenchanted and low ebb, that had served up those games I mentioned. I also am flabbergasted that we never had a new manager lift, perhaps the 5 weeks off took that away as the fresh impetus was lost in that time.

The results have been poor but the magic wand of stopping a players switching off at set pieces has been difficult. Hence the late defeat at Fulham and the goal v Villa. We do not have a dominant centre half who is brave and clear out the ball from crosses. Connor Coady type defenders are in short supply and we IMO dont have one who for 90 minutes can cope.

He cannot also (Ralph had to deal with this as well)not help forwards missing easy chances and one on ones.

Your research is in depth and so does paint a bad picture, but football is down to human error or special moments that change games. Not algorisms  that are based on different peoples definition of an easy chance or a hard chance. Forgive me if my understanding of XG is not correct, it is alien concept to me

 

[coalman]

24 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Its a shame they dont award additional points for doing great work on the training ground, we'd be laughing.

Except we've all seen that video from our training ground 😉

[OldNick]

16 minutes ago, coalman said:

Except we've all seen that video from our training ground 😉

Have i missed something?

[saintant]

8 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Have i missed something?

I think this relates to the video of a training session with Nathan Jones wearing a microphone and sounding a bit like a 1960's PE teacher.

[stevegrant]

33 minutes ago, OldNick said:

Steve I'm amazed that you use XG as any barometer. VAR certainly cost us points (Imo) regarding the Villa result, is human error put into XG ?. You are a lot younger than myself and perhaps have faith in such calculations but to me a game of football cannot be filtered into a calculation. 

I have seen countless games in my supporting life where we have mullered teams and they have one chance and score to win. Ralph for me was a dictator, wouldnt take other advice (imo) and gave us the most dire performances I think I have ever seen, Villa and Wolves away. Villa where we didnt look like scoring or even having a shot, it was a most embarrassing performance played out on the Sky audience.

NJ has taken on a squad that were disenchanted and low ebb, that had served up those games I mentioned. I also am flabbergasted that we never had a new manager lift, perhaps the 5 weeks off took that away as the fresh impetus was lost in that time.

The results have been poor but the magic wand of stopping a players switching off at set pieces has been difficult. Hence the late defeat at Fulham and the goal v Villa. We do not have a dominant centre half who is brave and clear out the ball from crosses. Connor Coady type defenders are in short supply and we IMO dont have one who for 90 minutes can cope.

He cannot also (Ralph had to deal with this as well)not help forwards missing easy chances and one on ones.

Your research is in depth and so does paint a bad picture, but football is down to human error or special moments that change games. Not algorisms  that are based on different peoples definition of an easy chance or a hard chance. Forgive me if my understanding of XG is not correct, it is alien concept to me

 

A lot to digest there, but one summary point I would make is that if the Wolves game this season is in the top two for "the most dire performances I think I have ever seen" then I would suggest you've not been watching any game you've been in attendance at over your decades of support, and that, in fact, you are suffering from the common ailment known as recency bias.

We were "meh" against Wolves, they had one shot and scuffed it in, while we contrived to miss an actual open goal where the opposition keeper had literally given up trying to get up in time and three or more other very presentable chances (to the extent that I would expect even our profligate strikeforce to have taken at least one of them). I've been at games (and I'm sure you have too) where we've not even managed to lay a glove on teams, even bad teams from lower divisions in cup ties.

So you call for fairness from people in other posts when talking about Jones and yet your dislike of Hasenhüttl ("dictator", FFS ) plucks out a random defeat where we weren't objectively "bad" - whether you use the eye test or statistics, or a combination of both - leads you to ridiculous hyperbole to support that dislike. Very difficult to take any other point seriously, in truth.

As for xG, it's not based on "different people's definition of an easy chance or a hard chance". It is a statistical model based on all of the previous data that is available for shots from a particular position on the pitch and assigns a % chance of the player scoring that shot based on a range of variables:

• the angle the shot is taken from, so a shot from the centre of the goal naturally has a higher chance of being scored than a shot from the touchline;
• whether the shot is being taken on the player's stronger foot, their weaker foot, or with the head;
• the position of the goalkeeper;
• the number of defenders in the way;
• whether there is a challenge for the ball at the point of the shot;
• probably some other things I've not thought of

It's not an exact science, but then it doesn't claim to be. It's only statphobes who claim that people try to frame it as the be-all and end-all, and that if we "win the xG" then we win the game. It's *a* statistic that is useful for assessing the balance of play based on the quality of chances created, with a view to not simply relying on shots/shots on target figures which are fairly obviously not a brilliant barometer because any team could have 10 potshots from 40 yards that have practically zero chance of going in but lose to a team who creates two 5-yard tap-ins.

It's a useful context metric. Football is a low-scoring sport, so as you say, human error and special moments can be a much bigger difference than they would be in a higher-scoring sport like, say, rugby or individual sports like tennis or golf. xG applies context to the final score to give a more accurate - but by no means perfect - reflection of how the score should have looked.

Statistics are not meant to be used in isolation when assessing things overall - they're good for people who do modern betting, with things like over/under markets on shots on target, number of fouls, cards, corners, etc - but in conjunction with what you can see with your eyes. To disregard them is simply a luddite/dinosaur view these days, nobody in the modern game would seriously take a complete "I don't care what the stats say, my eyes tell me this" approach because they'd be laughed out of the room, even at non-league level there's basically nobody that stubborn anymore.

[OldNick]

10 minutes ago, stevegrant said:

A lot to digest there, but one summary point I would make is that if the Wolves game this season is in the top two for "the most dire performances I think I have ever seen" then I would suggest you've not been watching any game you've been in attendance at over your decades of support, and that, in fact, you are suffering from the common ailment known as recency bias.

We were "meh" against Wolves, they had one shot and scuffed it in, while we contrived to miss an actual open goal where the opposition keeper had literally given up trying to get up in time and three or more other very presentable chances (to the extent that I would expect even our profligate strikeforce to have taken at least one of them). I've been at games (and I'm sure you have too) where we've not even managed to lay a glove on teams, even bad teams from lower divisions in cup ties.

So you call for fairness from people in other posts when talking about Jones and yet your dislike of Hasenhüttl ("dictator", FFS ) plucks out a random defeat where we weren't objectively "bad" - whether you use the eye test or statistics, or a combination of both - leads you to ridiculous hyperbole to support that dislike. Very difficult to take any other point seriously, in truth.

As for xG, it's not based on "different people's definition of an easy chance or a hard chance". It is a statistical model based on all of the previous data that is available for shots from a particular position on the pitch and assigns a % chance of the player scoring that shot based on a range of variables:

• the angle the shot is taken from, so a shot from the centre of the goal naturally has a higher chance of being scored than a shot from the touchline;
• whether the shot is being taken on the player's stronger foot, their weaker foot, or with the head;
• the position of the goalkeeper;
• the number of defenders in the way;
• whether there is a challenge for the ball at the point of the shot;
• probably some other things I've not thought of

It's not an exact science, but then it doesn't claim to be. It's only statphobes who claim that people try to frame it as the be-all and end-all, and that if we "win the xG" then we win the game. It's *a* statistic that is useful for assessing the balance of play based on the quality of chances created, with a view to not simply relying on shots/shots on target figures which are fairly obviously not a brilliant barometer because any team could have 10 potshots from 40 yards that have practically zero chance of going in but lose to a team who creates two 5-yard tap-ins.

It's a useful context metric. Football is a low-scoring sport, so as you say, human error and special moments can be a much bigger difference than they would be in a higher-scoring sport like, say, rugby or individual sports like tennis or golf. xG applies context to the final score to give a more accurate - but by no means perfect - reflection of how the score should have looked.

Statistics are not meant to be used in isolation when assessing things overall - they're good for people who do modern betting, with things like over/under markets on shots on target, number of fouls, cards, corners, etc - but in conjunction with what you can see with your eyes. To disregard them is simply a luddite/dinosaur view these days, nobody in the modern game would seriously take a complete "I don't care what the stats say, my eyes tell me this" approach because they'd be laughed out of the room, even at non-league level there's basically nobody that stubborn anymore.

That is interesting how they get Xg. Thanks for that.

Perhaps I have over egged the performance re Wolves but it was dire and so have many more games been with this squad for a few seasons. I hasten to add that my dislike for Ralph is more recent, mainly from the last half of the previous season and his tenure this. NJ has been a desperately poor choice and the powers to be should have seen how the fanbase were when his name was mooted!. Very much the same as Benitez for Everton, it was always going to be nye impossible to work as he was not only fighting the pressure of our position but the fans own perception of him.

He wont have much shelf life left with the board, who fail to recognise they make a poor choice. I feel sorry for Nj as he took the opportunity and came into a storm he never expected, that Im sure. The gamble I assume was, that he would hit the floor running and soon appease our fears, but the just hasn't happened. I hope he can get 3 points saturday for us, and he has seen the madness of some of his selections. I haven't seen Carr play in the flesh and so cant say if he is the best we have, I thought Bella Kotchop with Salissu could have been the best pairing but CC seems to have the most backing from fans.

Anyway, I assume as you understand XG you will be walking away with the Fantasy football league, I myself am having a sticky 2nd season!!! Top 3m lol wheras I finished 200k last time. It must have a bit of a use for that game, especially when you are buying in players for certain gmes, I just go with my own gut feeling, so that tells you a lot.

Thanks again for the in depth explanation of XG

[OldNick]

34 minutes ago, saintant said:

I think this relates to the video of a training session with Nathan Jones wearing a microphone and sounding a bit like a 1960's PE teacher.

Lol. 

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, stevegrant said:

A lot to digest there, but one summary point I would make is that if the Wolves game this season is in the top two for "the most dire performances I think I have ever seen" then I would suggest you've not been watching any game you've been in attendance at over your decades of support, and that, in fact, you are suffering from the common ailment known as recency bias.

We were "meh" against Wolves, they had one shot and scuffed it in, while we contrived to miss an actual open goal where the opposition keeper had literally given up trying to get up in time and three or more other very presentable chances (to the extent that I would expect even our profligate strikeforce to have taken at least one of them). I've been at games (and I'm sure you have too) where we've not even managed to lay a glove on teams, even bad teams from lower divisions in cup ties.

So you call for fairness from people in other posts when talking about Jones and yet your dislike of Hasenhüttl ("dictator", FFS ) plucks out a random defeat where we weren't objectively "bad" - whether you use the eye test or statistics, or a combination of both - leads you to ridiculous hyperbole to support that dislike. Very difficult to take any other point seriously, in truth.

As for xG, it's not based on "different people's definition of an easy chance or a hard chance". It is a statistical model based on all of the previous data that is available for shots from a particular position on the pitch and assigns a % chance of the player scoring that shot based on a range of variables:

• the angle the shot is taken from, so a shot from the centre of the goal naturally has a higher chance of being scored than a shot from the touchline;
• whether the shot is being taken on the player's stronger foot, their weaker foot, or with the head;
• the position of the goalkeeper;
• the number of defenders in the way;
• whether there is a challenge for the ball at the point of the shot;
• probably some other things I've not thought of

It's not an exact science, but then it doesn't claim to be. It's only statphobes who claim that people try to frame it as the be-all and end-all, and that if we "win the xG" then we win the game. It's *a* statistic that is useful for assessing the balance of play based on the quality of chances created, with a view to not simply relying on shots/shots on target figures which are fairly obviously not a brilliant barometer because any team could have 10 potshots from 40 yards that have practically zero chance of going in but lose to a team who creates two 5-yard tap-ins.

It's a useful context metric. Football is a low-scoring sport, so as you say, human error and special moments can be a much bigger difference than they would be in a higher-scoring sport like, say, rugby or individual sports like tennis or golf. xG applies context to the final score to give a more accurate - but by no means perfect - reflection of how the score should have looked.

Statistics are not meant to be used in isolation when assessing things overall - they're good for people who do modern betting, with things like over/under markets on shots on target, number of fouls, cards, corners, etc - but in conjunction with what you can see with your eyes. To disregard them is simply a luddite/dinosaur view these days, nobody in the modern game would seriously take a complete "I don't care what the stats say, my eyes tell me this" approach because they'd be laughed out of the room, even at non-league level there's basically nobody that stubborn anymore.

But does xG take into account the person taking the shot? Without that it's all a bit hit and miss.

[OldNick]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But does xG take into account the person taking the shot? Without that it's all a bit hit and miss.

With us its all hit and miss the target lol

I yearn that Big Paul becomes a massive cult here and bags a few goals early matches and the team starts to roll. If not it doesn't bear thinking about.

The match thread will be its usual fun with

'The idiot shouldn't be in the team,'

'How didn't he pass that'

'How did he miss that' 

'He should have saved that'

'All long ball stuff' this will be just in the kick about before the game

[the saint in winchester]

On 09/02/2023 at 07:46, Charlie Wayman said:

One aspect that you have missed is the impact that the Fan’s Forum will have on the man himself. 
 

Nobody with an ounce of self awareness and self respect would want to continue in the job after watching and hearing what was said about him on Tuesday evening. 
 

It would be an arrogant and totally insensitive person indeed who could ignore that and think that he can brush it aside and just carry on as usual  

Also what will the players think having heard all that abuse piled on their manager. It is bound to affect their attitude towards him and their willingness to respond. 
 

I really do think we have crossed a point of no return. What has been said cannot be unsaid. The damage is done and is permanent. 
 

 

 

So you're saying he has to go because he has been verbally abused? The vitriole was constant even when the forum had moved on from 'on field activities'.

The moderator was trying to keep it civil, and Rasmus or Semmens complimented the audience for civility (really?). It was interesting to hear the explanation of why Jones was effectively headhunted, what are the KPI's he is being judged by now, and at what point his termination may come.

Although I don't think he is right for us, I don't want him hounded out by vitriolic fans alone. We need a manager who can work with the players we have, help them reach their potential, find a way of playing that suits their capabilities. Instead, we have a manager whose style of play doesn't suit our players, and it sounds like Jones will not compromise and we could be looking at basic park football. However, I don't think Rasmus will give him long. It was clear Rasmus talks to the players and gets their feedback, so my personal reading is that once he 'loses the dressing room' that will be the end of his time. That could be after this weekend, or the end of the season.

[stevegrant]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But does xG take into account the person taking the shot? Without that it's all a bit hit and miss.

I don't know if there is a model that differentiates between, say, a centre forward and a left-back taking a shot under the same circumstances. I would imagine there might be attempts to do so, but I imagine without being a bit of a "best guess", it's quite difficult to quantify the shooting ability of an individual player relative to another, especially across potentially different eras. A lot of the originating stats probably date back at least 15 years or so - there will obviously be a weighting towards more recent data, but old data will have been used to set the initial baselines.

[SambaMaverick]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But does xG take into account the person taking the shot? Without that it's all a bit hit and miss.

That's one of the values of using xG. Outperforming xG usually means a good finisher, underperforming xG means a poor finisher.

Edited 10 February, 2023 by SambaMaverick

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, stevegrant said:

I don't know if there is a model that differentiates between, say, a centre forward and a left-back taking a shot under the same circumstances. I would imagine there might be attempts to do so, but I imagine without being a bit of a "best guess", it's quite difficult to quantify the shooting ability of an individual player relative to another, especially across potentially different eras. A lot of the originating stats probably date back at least 15 years or so - there will obviously be a weighting towards more recent data, but old data will have been used to set the initial baselines.

Don't all models rely on the subjective opinion of the assessor to decide the danger level involved? Presumably that would take into account the ability of the shot taker - but oddly, not when it comes to penalties as they have a fixed xG.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, SambaMaverick said:

That's one of the values of using xG. Outperforming xG usually means a good finisher, underperforming xG means a poor finisher.

Possibly, but in my view that just means that the xG was wrong.

[egg]

Just now, Whitey Grandad said:

Possibly, but in my view that just means that the xG was wrong.

Absolutely. 

xG - guesswork.

Football pitch - reality. 

[Turkish]

just when you thought xg couldn’t get duller up pops this thread

[Toadhall Saint]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

just when you thought xg couldn’t get duller up pops this thread

Snore 💤