Maybe it's just a general frustration at losing a bunch of attacking players.
Vernam, Wilson and Khan all operate in that wide attacking role, leaving just Eisa as our fully fit option in that role, with Gnahoua available but perhaps not quite up to speed.
I wonder if Hurst would play Pyke in one of those roles, in the way he played Monkhouse wide to win headers? Pyke's played wing back at Shrewsbury so it's not unrealistic.
Clearly, he'd be better through the middle, but he's not gonna oust Rose, and you're not gonna put someone of Rose's quality out wide. It'd be a waste.
"Don't shine that light in my face, mate - I've just lost a pint of blood."
Monkhouse was always a winger though, it's not a case that Hurst moved him out there just for his height. He definitely overdid that tactic mind.
Also not convinced Pyke's great in the air, certainly not enough to merit putting him out wide. Gnahoua seems to be getting fitter and better every game, I'd say he's ahead of Pyke in terms of fitness and sharpness now.
I’m not sure I agree with that. If Khan and Wilson haven’t been joining in with training and Vernam has just had an op, they’re not suddenly gonna pop up.
We look very thin on attacking players right now. An injury to Rose or Eisa will really put us in the sh**, which, I suppose, underlines the disappointment of not bringing in at least one forward during the window, or a ‘free agent’ before now.
From what I've seen Pyke certainly ain't the answer. Lacking in forward players atm so even more surprising no one was bought in last week.
Could really come to shaft us in the coming weeks if we don't get people back ASAP.
You need to give Pyke a chance. Out of the 7 League games he has played in, all 7 were as a sub, with only a total of 75 minutes spread across the 7 games. Ok, he played 90 minutes in the two cup games, but they were completely different to playing a League game.
A couple of interesting comments from Mark Hughes in his Bradford presser yesterday.
"The reality is our exchange is probably higher than theirs in terms of expected goals, but they've been scoring from outside the box from 20, 30 yards so that's obviously enabled them to to win games, but their expected goals are probably half of what they've scored, so they're riding what that wave at the moment".
In other words, if you discount all of the goals we've scored from outside the box, we haven't really scored that many at all. He's also wrong by the way, our expected goals (1.12) is only marginally lower than our actual goals scored (1.33).
"Grimsby are a good side and try and play in an attacking manner; and that may well help us because that gives us opportunities going the other way."
The notion that we prioritise attacking threat over defensive robustness is an odd one, especially given we have the second best defensive record in the league, is an odd one. I question how much he's actually watched us, or any Hurst team, personally.
Strikes me as a man under pressure. Given Bradford's apparent problems and our relative current clean bill of health, I can't help feel this is a game we should be winning. They like to play out from the back; get the press right, as we did against Gillingham last week, and it's ours to lose, imho.
In other words, if you discount all of the goals we've scored from outside the box, we haven't really scored that many at all. He's also wrong by the way, our expected goals (1.12) is only marginally lower than our actual goals scored (1.33).
No he isn't wrong. Bradford have an overall xG so far this season of 8.5, but have only converted those scoring opportunities into 4 actual goals suggesting they're better than us at creating chances but terrible at finishing them.
We have an xG of just 4.6 over the 6 league games played which shows we don't really create that many high quality goalscoring opportunities (which is correct - aside from last weekend against Gillingham we've struggled to create many quality chances inside the penalty area), but primarily due to Eisa banging in a load of screamers we've outperformed the expected return on the lower number of chances we've created by scoring 8 goals.
The XG thing is absolute sh1te. Dreamt up by statisticians that know nothing about football, just cold data. Bradford have lost their leading scorer from last season, and their leading scorer from this season, but the XG doesn't take this into account. XG wants binning, it's totally meaningless.
There is one stat that is more important than any other:
Grimsby 9 points Bradford 8 points
Everything else is froth.
Succinct but absolutely correct. I appreciate a lot of fans love the statistics that go with the modern game and good luck to them, but none of it matters one jot.
I find it amazing that as someone else mentioned, if we had beaten Notts County, we would now be top of the table. Just goes to show how much difference one game can make at this stage of the season.
I remember the time years ago when tables weren't even shown until after about 10 games.
OFFICIAL FUNDRAISER FOR THEBRAIN TUMOUR CHARITY TOTAL AMOUNT RAISED SINCE AUGUST 2008 £16613.24
LATEST DONATION - FROM DONATION FROM THE FISHY FORUM - AUG 2023AMOUNT RAISED £170.00
The XG thing is absolute sh1te. Dreamt up by statisticians that know nothing about football, just cold data. Bradford have lost their leading scorer from last season, and their leading scorer from this season, but the XG doesn't take this into account. XG wants binning, it's totally meaningless.
It does take that into account. Their expected goals total being 4 goals higher than their actual goals scored total suggests that their finishing has been poor and they haven't converted the chances they've created into goals, which is entirely consistent with their best striker / finisher being out injured.
The XG thing is absolute sh1te. Dreamt up by statisticians that know nothing about football, just cold data. Bradford have lost their leading scorer from last season, and their leading scorer from this season, but the XG doesn't take this into account. XG wants binning, it's totally meaningless.
It's not "sh1te" but it is often misinterpreted. It helps identify how many and the quality of chances a team created and best when used in conjunction with other stats. It is not meant to be definitive.
As for not taking into account the leading scorer not being available, that would depend if his replacement was as good or not. If not XG would likely go down so in effect, this would be taken into account.
Statistic now drives football at the professional level. Town used to identify transfer targets this season. The likes of Brentford have done extremely well using similar methods.
Many teams now employ teams of statisticians, especially at the top level.
Without mathematics, there’s nothing you can do. Everything around you is mathematics. Everything around you is numbers. — Shakuntala Devi
Let's hope we come bottom of the XG table but top of the actual league - too many algorithm's now ; hopefully we win tomorrow with 2 Eisa thunderbolts and they miss 2 on the goal line ,XG would have a field day .
Surely xg is a load of tosh is it not too difficult just to say we created 4 decent chances and scored 1 (25pc) do it each game then add it up divide by games played will tell you how good or shoite you are at attacking and if you need better attacking mids or strikers or try different tactics I don't need a computer programe to work it out (yes I am old).
That's the point though. The team with the lower xG could definitely win tomorrow but there is not a prayer that a team with the lowest xG over the season then finish in the top 3 of the league. Those who want to discredit it always overstate it's supposed importance to do so. It's one measure. It's not as important as points or goals scored. It needs context and understanding. That doesn't mean it's shite or balderdash though.
Surely xg is a load of tosh is it not too difficult just to say we created 4 decent chances and scored 1 (25pc) do it each game then add it up divide by games played will tell you how good or shoite you are at attacking and if you need better attacking mids or strikers or try different tactics I don't need a computer programe to work it out (yes I am old).
but there is not a prayer that a team with the lowest xG over the season then finish in the top 3 of the league. .
There's every prayer if their defence is the best in the league. If your xG is 1 goal per game you could absolutely walk the league by winning 46 games 1-0.
Statistically speaking.
Miss Scunthorpe. Not a beauty pageant, just sound advice.
It’s bang in the middle of a “half-chance” and a “good chance”.
Hard to quantify that though. Maybe someone could just give each chance a numerical value? It wouldn't b perfect but would just give a bit more to work with? 😂
There's every prayer if their defence is the best in the league. If your xG is 1 goal per game you could absolutely walk the league by winning 46 games 1-0.
It’s bang in the middle of a “half-chance” and a “good chance”.
So how do we divide them up? Given that Madeleymariner's equation was "4 decent chances and scored 1 (25pc)"
But now we also have "half chance" and "good chance" (that need defining too). So if we scored one goal in 4 "decent chances" to give us 0.25 how do we include the "half chances" and "good chances".
It is starting to sound very much like how eXpected Goals is worked out.
There's every prayer if their defence is the best in the league. If your xG is 1 goal per game you could absolutely walk the league by winning 46 games 1-0.
Statistically speaking.
Not quite true. xG is just the amount of goals you are expected to score. So all it would mean is you would be expected to score 1 goal each game. It doesn't take into account your oppositions xG and obviously just because your xG is 1 it doesn't mean you will score, either.
It's not "sh1te" but it is often misinterpreted. It helps identify how many and the quality of chances a team created and best when used in conjunction with other stats. It is not meant to be definitive.
As for not taking into account the leading scorer not being available, that would depend if his replacement was as good or not. If not XG would likely go down so in effect, this would be taken into account.
Statistic now drives football at the professional level. Town used to identify transfer targets this season. The likes of Brentford have done extremely well using similar methods.
Many teams now employ teams of statisticians, especially at the top level.
Without mathematics, there’s nothing you can do. Everything around you is mathematics. Everything around you is numbers. — Shakuntala Devi
On field stats mean diddly squat. You can have 10 really good chances and lose. You can allow the opposition all of the possession and allow them numerable chances and win. There is every conceivable permutation in between and reams of stats about it, but the only things that matter is goals scored and conceded, the result and the league placing.
As someone said the rest is froth; interesting froth I grant you but froth nonetheless.
Not quite true. xG is just the amount of goals you are expected to score. So all it would mean is you would be expected to score 1 goal each game. It doesn't take into account your oppositions xG and obviously just because your xG is 1 it doesn't mean you will score, either.
There's another factor, what your expected goals conceded is (I don't know (or care) what the abbreviation is).
If your xG is 1 per game but your expected number of goals conceded is 0.5 you will win the league. Statistically.
Miss Scunthorpe. Not a beauty pageant, just sound advice.
Whatever... We don't create enough penalty box chances and can't keep relying on worldies Last Saturday was more normal - great header from set piece and nice move in the box with good finish We need more 'scruffy' goals!
Why can't we keep relying on worldies? Be great if we won the league with amazing goals.
I think sometimes we try to be too clever with our shots actually. League 2 goalies aren't that great, just belt it at them, you'll score plenty.
Add to that, teams taking specific action to block long range opportunities from the likes of Eisa creates room elsewhere that wouldn’t otherwise exist. To position those goals as some sort of negative is a nonsense.
On field stats mean diddly squat. You can have 10 really good chances and lose. You can allow the opposition all of the possession and allow them numerable chances and win. There is every conceivable permutation in between and reams of stats about it, but the only things that matter is goals scored and conceded, the result and the league placing.
As someone said the rest is froth; interesting froth I grant you but froth nonetheless.
That is true but if all of the games are like that you probably won't win that many of them.
I think the problem with xg is that it doesn't take into account the state of the game. If you are winning and comfortable you are unlikely to create as many chances as when you are losing. Saying that I guess you must have created some chances to go in front Haha, it's a minefield.
That is true but if all of the games are like that you probably won't win that many of them.
I think the problem with xg is that it doesn't take into account the state of the game. If you are winning and comfortable you are unlikely to create as many chances as when you are losing. Saying that I guess you must have created some chances to go in front Haha, it's a minefield.
It's like VAR, the more you try to make sense of it the worse it gets. It was and always will be a very simple game, football. Score more than the opposition and you're laughing.
It's like VAR, the more you try to make sense of it the worse it gets. It was and always will be a very simple game, football. Score more than the opposition and you're laughing.
Not on here you're not, there'll always be something they find to moan about.
Miss Scunthorpe. Not a beauty pageant, just sound advice.
There is one stat that is more important than any other:
Grimsby 9 points Bradford 8 points
Everything else is froth.
League position is more important IMO. Points per game might give a more accurate representation of each team's merits for a particular match unfortunately these don't factor in form, injuries etc. I think we have also played more home games than Bradford 🙂
That's the point though. The team with the lower xG could definitely win tomorrow but there is not a prayer that a team with the lowest xG over the season then finish in the top 3 of the league. Those who want to discredit it always overstate it's supposed importance to do so. It's one measure. It's not as important as points or goals scored. It needs context and understanding. That doesn't mean it's shite or balderdash though.
You could statistically win the league by scoring 20 odd goals.Win 20 odd games 1-0 and draw a load 0-0. Job done.
You could also win the league with a massive goal deficit. Win 30 games 1-0 and lose the rest 10-0.
All these things are possible but highly unlikely.
We do know how important stats are though. Many a recent successful side has got there using stats to find value in players that others didn't spot, and all clubs use these stats now, even us.
You could statistically win the league by scoring 20 odd goals.Win 20 odd games 1-0 and draw a load 0-0. Job done.
You could also win the league with a massive goal deficit. Win 30 games 1-0 and lose the rest 10-0.
All these things are possible but highly unlikely.
We do know how important stats are though. Many a recent successful side has got there using stats to find value in players that others didn't spot, and all clubs use these stats now, even us.
No. It's meaningless fluff. That's why no Premier League team spend money on teams of analysts and why clubs like Brentford and Brighton keep signing duds.
It's like VAR, the more you try to make sense of it the worse it gets. It was and always will be a very simple game, football. Score more than the opposition and you're laughing.
Yep very true, I am torn on VAR.
Definitely means more decisions are correct but I do not like the way it takes away the spontaneity of being a football fan. Some of the VAR decisions recently have been beyond horrendous. The toe nail/armpit being offside after 5 minutes of deliberation is just painful. Personally I much prefer how we are down here.
Your argument was that a team with a very low xG couldn't finish in the top 3. But if they had an incredibly good defence they could.
my immediate thought was Greece, when they won the Euros would be the ones to look at. Arsenal were almost unbeatable but very parsimonious.There have been a fair few promotion winning sides who scored very few goals, but relied on a tight defence.
tbh, i quite like stats, but xG to me, seems like a load of bollox ball hits the post and goes in, next one hits the post but stays out, 3rd one hits the post, hits the keeper on the rebound and goes in. Screws your stats straight away
Aduana Stars romped to the Ghanaian championship in 2009-10, despite scoring only 19 goals in their 30 games – winning the title thanks to their head-to-head record against Ashanti Gold (rather predictably the Stars won one of their meetings 1-0, while the other was a 0-0 draw):
my immediate thought was Greece, when they won the Euros would be the ones to look at. Arsenal were almost unbeatable but very parsimonious.There have been a fair few promotion winning sides who scored very few goals, but relied on a tight defence.
tbh, i quite like stats, but xG to me, seems like a load of bollox ball hits the post and goes in, next one hits the post but stays out, 3rd one hits the post, hits the keeper on the rebound and goes in. Screws your stats straight away
Parsimonious and balderdash in one post gets a star from me!
It's like VAR, the more you try to make sense of it the worse it gets. It was and always will be a very simple game, football. Score more than the opposition and you're laughing.
It is nothing like VAR, VAR was brought in for absolutes and that is not what stats do. But the likelyhood of scoring is what xG shows and when compared to the opposition xG , what the chances were that you would score more than the opposition and were laughing.
It is just an insight to how the game played out and with that information you could conceivably increase your goals scored, if you use the information correctly.
It is nothing like VAR, VAR was brought in for absolutes and that is not what stats do. But the likelyhood of scoring is what xG shows and when compared to the opposition xG , what the chances were that you would score more than the opposition and were laughing.
It is just an insight to how the game played out and with that information you could conceivably increase your goals scored, if you use the information correctly.
VAR is not for absolutes though is it, otherwise managers, players,pundits would not argue about far too many VAR decisions would they? Apologies wouldn't need to be given for wrong decisions.
Regarding xg stats you cannot score more goals by using them because they relate to that individual match, which has finished.
The next match is completely different to the last one so they are no good then either. The opposition is different, the quality is different the weather is different, the venue may be different and the officials are different.
If xg stats were any good, you would have thought Hurst would have got the message by now.
VAR is not for absolutes though is it, otherwise managers, players,pundits would not argue about far too many VAR decisions would they? Apologies wouldn't need to be given for wrong decisions.
Regarding xg stats you cannot score more goals by using them because they relate to that individual match, which has finished.
The next match is completely different to the last one so they are no good then either. The opposition is different, the quality is different the weather is different, the venue may be different and the officials are different.
If xg stats were any good, you would have thought Hurst would have got the message by now.
Stats are interesting but interesting froth.
VAR is obviously about absolutes. It is a penalty or it isn't, it is offside or it isn't etc. Whether you agree with the decision or not VAR is all about getting an absolute answer in game.
You seem to have very little understanding of xG or football stats in general and how clubs find them useful. You could go educate yourself by researching it but if numbers aren't your thing you would likely find the subject extremely boring (as we all do with things that don't interest us).
But the club would be putting itself at a huge disadvantage if it didn't use them.
If you (or anyone else) is interested in finding more about xG and how it is used this gives a good high level view...
VAR is obviously about absolutes. It is a penalty or it isn't, it is offside or it isn't etc. Whether you agree with the decision or not VAR is all about getting an absolute answer in game.
You seem to have very little understanding of xG or football stats in general and how clubs find them useful. You could go educate yourself by researching it but if numbers aren't your thing you would likely find the subject extremely boring (as we all do with things that don't interest us).
But the club would be putting itself at a huge disadvantage if it didn't use them.
If you (or anyone else) is interested in finding more about xG and how it is used this gives a good high level view...
As you will have gathered Mal it bores me to tears.
I think I said somewhere that the individual match the stats refer to is gone, dead in the water. You won lost or drew so they have no relevance. The next match you might try to improve on the poorer stats of the last match, with some justification. Trouble is the complexities of the next match are completely different to the last game. The opposition, the weather, the venue possibly, injuries etc etc, and furthermore in trying to improve some stats you may reduce effectiveness in other parts of the team, so I don't see how stats help there either. Even if all the stats improve, but we still lose how does that help?
To simple men like me, football is a simple game and although interesting to some I don't think stats mean anything, but for those who love 'em go for it!
As you will have gathered Mal it bores me to tears.
I think I said somewhere that the individual match the stats refer to is gone, dead in the water. You won lost or drew so they have no relevance. The next match you might try to improve on the poorer stats of the last match, with some justification. Trouble is the complexities of the next match are completely different to the last game. The opposition, the weather, the venue possibly, injuries etc etc, and furthermore in trying to improve some stats you may reduce effectiveness in other parts of the team, so I don't see how stats help there either. Even if all the stats improve, but we still lose how does that help?
To simple men like me, football is a simple game and although interesting to some I don't think stats mean anything, but for those who love 'em go for it!
Stats are just a way of analysing performance. It can be just on one match or many matches to get a trend. The more matches, generally, the more you can induce from the stats. You are correct though, they can't win you a game in and of themselves but maybe give you some insight into something you haven't noticed previously.
But I'll stop boring you with it now. We each enjoy the game in our own way.
Stats are just a way of analysing performance. It can be just on one match or many matches to get a trend. The more matches, generally, the more you can induce from the stats. You are correct though, they can't win you a game in and of themselves but maybe give you some insight into something you haven't noticed previously.
But I'll stop boring you with it now. We each enjoy the game in our own way.
"Lies, damn lies and statistics" huh
"Maybe give you some insight into something you haven't noticed..." is something which is fair enough although you might have to change a few things around to sort it out and it could affect the dynamics in other areas. What really grates my gears is the feeling in some quarters that the stats are actually relevant to the game just gone. They are obviously not, apart from the stats of the final score. Nothing else matters for that game, but to see some lauding us over how much possession we had, or xg we had or how many heat maps showed this that and the other although we lost we actually almost won, sort of. I saw some league tables the other day that had us right up there in the promotion places. Great, apart from the fact they were tables based on a whole series of events that didn't equate to the actual final score of games!
I agree though, let each to their own and enjoy the games as they see fit.
This is not an official forum of Grimsby Town Football Club, the opinions expressed are those of the individual authors. If you see an offensive post then click "Report" on the relevant post. Posts will be deleted at the discretion of the moderators whose decision is final. Posts should abide by the Forum Rules. IP addresses of contributors together with dates and times of access are stored. The opinions and viewpoints expressed by contributors to The Fishy are their own and not necessarily those of The Fishy. The Fishy makes no claims that information dispersed through this forum is accurate or reliable. Also The Fishy cannot be held liable for any statements made by contributors of The Fishy.
Site Home
News
Football
Season
Database
Club
POM
Contact
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Poojah
Logged
WLLW - ended
