|
|
 lew chaterleys lover |
|
Vodka Drinker  Posts: 5,026
Posts Per Day: 1.07
Reputation: 75.9%
Rep Score: +30 / -10
Approval: +10,793
Gold Stars: 237
|
There are many ways to win a football match but all the statistics, all the data mean diddly squat.
A long ball team can have a winning formula and an ultra passing team can have a winning formula, which is one of football's many joys.
The only thing that matters is how many goals you score, and any near misses, goals you should have scored or chances missed are irrelevant.
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
|
| ginnywings |
|
 Recovering Alcoholic  Posts: 28,151
Posts Per Day: 5.01
Reputation: 73.79%
Rep Score: +88 / -32
Approval: +56,153
Gold Stars: 548
|
Those dismissing data are missing the point. It helps enormously if you analyse it correctly. Just ask Brentford.
It's the same principle as highlighted in the film moneyball.
All this data has done, as Poojah says, is confirm what we all know and PH knows. We don't score enough when on top in games and we need players who statistically score more of their chances.
In terms of performances this season, I think we have been generally good and I haven't seen many teams who are demonstrably better than us. They just score more of the chances that come their way.
Fix that conundrum and we will rise up the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| lew chaterleys lover |
|
Vodka Drinker Posts: 5,026
Posts Per Day: 1.07
Reputation: 75.9%
Rep Score: +30 / -10
Approval: +10,793
Gold Stars: 237
|
Those dismissing data are missing the point. It helps enormously if you analyse it correctly. Just ask Brentford.
It's the same principle as highlighted in the film moneyball.
All this data has done, as Poojah says, is confirm what we all know and PH knows. We don't score enough when on top in games and we need players who statistically score more of their chances.
In terms of performances this season, I think we have been generally good and I haven't seen many teams who are demonstrably better than us. They just score more of the chances that come their way.
Fix that conundrum and we will rise up the table.
As you say you don't need data analysis to tell you that?! Funny thing is adding a player who "scores more goals" upsets the balance in other areas making the previous data meaningless. |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Mariner_09 |
|
Whiskey Drinker  Posts: 3,549
Posts Per Day: 1.09
Reputation: 63.94%
Rep Score: +19 / -13
Approval: +1,194
Gold Stars: 55
|
Those dismissing data are missing the point. It helps enormously if you analyse it correctly. Just ask Brentford.
It's the same principle as highlighted in the film moneyball.
All this data has done, as Poojah says, is confirm what we all know and PH knows. We don't score enough when on top in games and we need players who statistically score more of their chances.
In terms of performances this season, I think we have been generally good and I haven't seen many teams who are demonstrably better than us. They just score more of the chances that come their way.
Fix that conundrum and we will rise up the table.
We do seem to give away more daft goals than we score. Not many come to mind where the opposition has gifted us a goal, like Salford's second, and I can recall several quality goals scored from outside the box that will have an xG of about 0.05. These things tend to balance themselves out over the course of a season though. |
| I've wasted my life in black and white, a pathetic act for a worthless cause |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Abdul19 |
|
 Season Ticket Holder Posts: 20,443
Posts Per Day: 3.41
Reputation: 73.77%
Rep Score: +71 / -26
Location: Scarborough
Approval: +17,617
Gold Stars: 220
|
I do find stuff like this interesting, but it baffles me sometimes: how was Matt Smith's total xg against us 0.6 when one of his goals was a header from about 5 yards out? (surely that would be at least that much on its own?)
|
| |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Mariner_09 |
|
Whiskey Drinker Posts: 3,549
Posts Per Day: 1.09
Reputation: 63.94%
Rep Score: +19 / -13
Approval: +1,194
Gold Stars: 55
|
I do find stuff like this interesting, but it baffles me sometimes: how was Matt Smith's total xg against us 0.6 when one of his goals was a header from about 5 yards out? (surely that would be at least that much on its own?)
Good point, but the other two will be worth very little between them, one was a scuff into the ground and it's hit his standing leg, the other is one you'd actually expect Max to save, bet they're barely worth 0.1 between them. |
| I've wasted my life in black and white, a pathetic act for a worthless cause |
|
| Logged |
|
|
|
|
| Les Brechin |
|
 ModeratorPosts: 23,807
Posts Per Day: 4.16
Reputation: 82.43%
Rep Score: +114 / -24
Location: Grimsby
Approval: +12,727
Gold Stars: 174
|
Good point, but the other two will be worth very little between them, one was a scuff into the ground and it's hit his standing leg, the other is one you'd actually expect Max to save, bet they're barely worth 0.1 between them.
I can't remember which team it was but was watching a game on MOTD and one team scored 4 but their xG was something like 1.75? |
| [img]https://news.images.itv.com/image/file/402260/image_update_img.jpg[/img]
OFFICIAL FUNDRAISER FOR THE BRAIN TUMOUR CHARITY
TOTAL AMOUNT RAISED SINCE AUGUST 2008 £16613.24
LATEST DONATION - FROM DONATION FROM THE FISHY FORUM - AUG 2023 AMOUNT RAISED £170.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Son of Cod |
|
Champagne Drinker  Posts: 2,074
Posts Per Day: 0.92
Reputation: 89.2%
Rep Score: +8 / 0
Approval: +5,331
Gold Stars: 196
|
Some nerds basically determine the statistical likelihood of scoring a goal from each attempt, based on things like distance from goal, angle, body part used and some subjective shite like if it's a 'big chance' and the 'pattern of play', and then give it a score from 0 (no chance of ever scoring a goal) to 1 (100% chance of scoring a goal). Basically if a chance has an xG of 0.79 (such as a penalty), then it should result in a goal 79 times out of 100 (statistically 79% of penalties are converted into goals). Someone hitting a backheeled shot from 30 yards at an acute angle would probably be given an xG on the effort of like 0.02. I don't massively rate it as a method for analysing the performance of a team within a match or over a season - I think really all it does is tell you is if you've got some good or poor finishers in your team (and it seems our finishing this season has been poor based on xG).
If you're not sure what xG is and you're only going to take notice of one post in this thread then this is the one. |
|
|
|
|
|
| OddShapedBalls |
|
Table Wine Drinker  Posts: 681
Posts Per Day: 1.01
Reputation: 81.19%
Rep Score: +5 / -1
Approval: +1,195
Gold Stars: 40
|
Not into all this xG crap.
The only statistic that matters is how many times you put the ball into the net!
Do you write your team name on the back of a cigarette packet too? - I'm only joking btw |
|
|
|
|
|
| OddShapedBalls |
|
Table Wine Drinker Posts: 681
Posts Per Day: 1.01
Reputation: 81.19%
Rep Score: +5 / -1
Approval: +1,195
Gold Stars: 40
|
There are many ways to win a football match but all the statistics, all the data mean diddly squat.
A long ball team can have a winning formula and an ultra passing team can have a winning formula, which is one of football's many joys.
The only thing that matters is how many goals you score, and any near misses, goals you should have scored or chances missed are irrelevant.
Who was the first chap to really analyse football games? Can't remember off the top of my head but anyway he discovered that the vast majority of goals were scored in 3 passes or less from his data, and everyone immediately decided that this meant long ball was the best way to score goals without thinking about the fact a high press to turnover ball near the opposition box would also result in a '3 passes or less' goal etc. The data is only as good as the person reading it really |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site Home
News
Football
Season
Database
Club
POM
Contact
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
lew chaterleys lover
Logged
