First game at the Valley for two years, and result aside that was a good game of football. I see a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but the season is over anyway. To me it felt a bit like one of those games where nothing quite falls where you want it. We were already 1-0 down when Gilbey shot the team in the foot, so after a reasonable first period (we'd already hit the bar remember) we went in behind and s man short. Second half we played some nice football, especislly after the Imps went down to 10 men. Stockley had two good chances he should have buried, Wash also showed great control bur poor finisjing, and Lincoln showed us how to score. Negatives for me were Gilbey, and the defending for their first. Positives were all mild. Dobson looked geat, Matthews turned in a good game after I told friends he was on my out list. CBT tormented their defence, but needs to try the easy ball sometimes.
We're where we are entirely on lack of merit, but some of these players show promise. We badly need a good striker, and the defence needs a rethink. And the loanees are all replaceable. But there could be a basis of a good team somewhere in there.
It was one of those games as was the week before even though we won it. We have been greatly improved by having Stockley and Washington back but both need to be sharper. Overall, I think this is more of a long term issue for Washington. If I was Jacko, I would see him as a squad option next season and confidence and great form would get him in the side, as with Aneke but I would be looking for a starting partner for Stockley. For me a great option is Cole Stockton. He Knows where the goal is, he can mix it up and knows the nasty side of the game bullying defenders, he can score from outside the area and I think he would be reasonably priced.
Having Missington and Donkley back turned us from relegation level to lower League One level. Those two+sicknote Aneke will not get us the goals needed for promotion. Sadly it looks like we will be stuck with two of them at least, if not three.
I'm beyond trying to analyse our team / squad now - the saviours turned into the villains on saturday with Stockley looking unfit and washington having an off day in front of goal - i'm done with Gilbey, not just because of Saturday - i wasn't sure but got converted with a few of those lung busting runs in the jacko bounce period but no, he's not the answer - ball's like a hot potato to him. I think the effort is there but we just aren't good enough bar Dobson and possibly a few others - I quite like Lavelle, Blackett Taylor in this form is very dangerous and stockley and washington are decent, if not world beaters - jfc did well and for the first time in ages we started playing the ball into the strikers feet and he did some proper playmaking but think we ae kidding ourselves if we think he is going to dive us to promotion - he couldn't get in the side when cullen, beilek, aribo and co were there - i can see some quality in fraser but needs to be played further up the pitch and realistically isn't an upgrade or much different to the little fella who we got fom Luton last year who kept putting it on Stockley's head - name escapes me - Famewho has his deficiencies but his physical dominance is worthy of a place in my book although eckon he's off - purington is a steady eddie and i think we need those solid citizens - the rest i would try and move on - we desperately need a goal scorer, anothe couple of workhorse all rounder midfield players and if we ae to continue with this formation, a couple of proper wing backs. Personally i think we should go back to the bowyer diamond. Heard rumours Nabby Sarr could be on his way back but not convinced - we need a summer of curbishley type players coming in - solid, meat and 2 veg 7 out of 10 week in week out characters - not a jayesemi or a sarr who can do something outstanding evey now and then but then be awful - i'm sure jacko knows whats needed but whether we can get it is another matter as i'm also eve more convinced that it was LB that was pulling the rabbits out of the hat with regards to the better than league 1 level loan players and signings generally and not Gallen.
on the Washington, Stockley fire, despite being a little profligate, we win 1-0 on Saturday if we don’t let 2 goals in. And let’s be honest, those goals have been seen week in/ week out, more often than BBC Re-runs. Cut in and shoot - we have a horizontal learning curve. If we don’t concede, we don’t lose, nor do we ask the strikers to score 2 or 3 a game to win.
There will not be a wholesale clear out in the summer but those that are moved on need to be replaced with quality and to fit the style, goals and needs of the team/formation/strategy, and from what I have seen that could be a major issue. If the last 2 windows are an insight we lose players and bring in worse players or pointless loans or unfit/injury prone players.
I think we have to face facts that low to middling Div 3 is where Charlton are and where they deserve to be, having largely been totally outplayed by most of the top half……but with money and good recruitment fitted into a working and worthwhile formation we could, next season, with a fair wind and a good tide, be top half with achieving the play offs being a right result.
I have found lower (or realistic) expectations reduces disappointment.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
First game at the Valley for two years, and result aside that was a good game of football. I see a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but the season is over anyway. To me it felt a bit like one of those games where nothing quite falls where you want it. We were already 1-0 down when Gilbey shot the team in the foot, so after a reasonable first period (we'd already hit the bar remember) we went in behind and s man short. Second half we played some nice football, especislly after the Imps went down to 10 men. Stockley had two good chances he should have buried, Wash also showed great control bur poor finisjing, and Lincoln showed us how to score. Negatives for me were Gilbey, and the defending for their first. Positives were all mild. Dobson looked geat, Matthews turned in a good game after I told friends he was on my out list. CBT tormented their defence, but needs to try the easy ball sometimes.
We're where we are entirely on lack of merit, but some of these players show promise. We badly need a good striker, and the defence needs a rethink. And the loanees are all replaceable. But there could be a basis of a good team somewhere in there.
It was one of those games as was the week before even though we won it. We have been greatly improved by having Stockley and Washington back but both need to be sharper. Overall, I think this is more of a long term issue for Washington. If I was Jacko, I would see him as a squad option next season and confidence and great form would get him in the side, as with Aneke but I would be looking for a starting partner for Stockley. For me a great option is Cole Stockton. He Knows where the goal is, he can mix it up and knows the nasty side of the game bullying defenders, he can score from outside the area and I think he would be reasonably priced.
I bet he won’t be. I suspect there’ll be a few clubs after him, and he won’t be coming here.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Two good but not great League 1 strikers who have more pressure on them to score because we lack goals elsewhere in the team.
We’re used to having a great striker or two backed up non-goalscoring strikers and a midfielder who gets into double figures.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Two good but not great League 1 strikers who have more pressure on them to score because we lack goals elsewhere in the team.
We’re used to having a great striker or two backed up non-goalscoring strikers and a midfielder who gets into double figures.
Yeah think it was Callum who was highlighting that the other day
Those stats for the rest of the team are extremely damning, its great we've so many scorers - But Mason Burstow shouldn't be joint third in the list - Especially as only one of those is in the bloody league.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
"Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane". This probably sums up why I don't bother looking at it.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Two good but not great League 1 strikers who have more pressure on them to score because we lack goals elsewhere in the team.
We’re used to having a great striker or two backed up non-goalscoring strikers and a midfielder who gets into double figures.
It is a good point. Whatever level you are in, you need goals through your team. You just do.
I hope one of our signings in the Summer is a "strong captain" who is able to marshall the team performance for 90+ minutes on the pitch. (eg. A Kinseller type)
There have been too many games this season when we just fall apart and lose our way because (IMO) there is no one on the pitch who steps up to assume control. The closest we have is Jason Pearce but he is in the Autumn of his playing career and has fitness problems.
This "captain figure" should be near the top of our "to buy" list and be free of any history of recurring injury problems.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Did you just suggest Stockley and Washington are better finishers than Harry Kane...
Three players we should be looking at are McGrandles and Scully from Lincoln and Stockdale from Morecombe.
I thought Scully was excellent against us and has a good scoring record for Lincoln. No doubt if we signed him he'd be Charltonised within a week.
Stockton (Morcombe) is too similar to Stockley, Alfie May (Cheltenham) with 21 goals this season would be a much better fit. Plays off a big forward and is quick with his feet as well.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Or better defenders restricting him to less goal-scoring chances?
Not quite got the highlight reel of Harry Kane missing 5 yard sitters like we do Washington and Stockley unfortunately.
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Did you just suggest Stockley and Washington are better finishers than Harry Kane...
Cant argue with the stats fella - They're right there in black and white
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Did you just suggest Stockley and Washington are better finishers than Harry Kane...
Cant argue with the stats fella - They're right there in black and white
Pep has scrapped plans to buy Kane, and will instead use Stockley as his number 9 next season
Still a meaningless stat. We were "expected" to score 3 times as many goals than the opposition given the chances we had. But does it take into account we have crap strikers who cant finish? Do XG know we have crap strikers or do they think we have Shearer & Owen up front.
Fundamental misunderstanding of what xG is meant to show.
The stat is supposed to be independent of the players taking the shot. It wouldn’t be much use if it did. It’s more closely related to shots and shots on target than it is to goals.
I don't think it's golfie who has the fundamental misunderstanding.
What he's trying to say is that if it's independent of the players taking the shot, where does expectancy come into it? XG is a fundamental nonsensical misunderstanding of football.
Here’s how to build a basic xG model… hopefully it helps explain where expectancy comes in.
- Start with a database of shots and goals over tens of leagues and thousands of matches. - Divide the pitch area into equal, smaller sections/areas. - Count the number of shots taken from any chosen section/area. - Count the number of goals scored from the same chosen section/area. - Divide the number of goals by the number of shots to arrive at a basic xG figure for each shot taken from that section/area.
For example, let’s imagine that we chose a section/area that happened to have 10000 shots and 1000 goals, regardless of the quality of player taking the shot or in goal.
On a historical basis, we can say that a shot from that section/area has a 10% chance of being a goal and therefore gets 0.1 xG assigned. That is where the ‘expectancy’ comes in.
Companies like Opta and Statsbomb are doing the above in a far more sophisticated way, for one they are doing it in 3D rather than the simple 2D example I gave above. They are also taking it many steps further, adding in conditions such as number of defenders between ball and net, whether it’s a header or a shot with the foot, etc.
Yes, but it would only make any sense if you based the calculations on one chosen team and then used them on that same chosen team. At the very least take them from one league and apply it to that same league.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
The point of xG is to give you the ability to compare teams and players, so to calculate it differently wouldn’t make sense.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
Notice that both Stockley and Washington have a better Goal Conversion record than Harry Kane
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
Did you just suggest Stockley and Washington are better finishers than Harry Kane...
Cant argue with the stats fella - They're right there in black and white
Pep has scrapped plans to buy Kane, and will instead use Stockley as his number 9 next season
Dont worry I'll be here silently waiting for the plaudits and thanks
Comments
Had zero to do with the football 🤣🤣😎♥️
There will not be a wholesale clear out in the summer but those that are moved on need to be replaced with quality and to fit the style, goals and needs of the team/formation/strategy, and from what I have seen that could be a major issue. If the last 2 windows are an insight we lose players and bring in worse players or pointless loans or unfit/injury prone players.
I think we have to face facts that low to middling Div 3 is where Charlton are and where they deserve to be, having largely been totally outplayed by most of the top half……but with money and good recruitment fitted into a working and worthwhile formation we could, next season, with a fair wind and a good tide, be top half with achieving the play offs being a right result.
I have found lower (or realistic) expectations reduces disappointment.
If you calculated it based on Premier League teams your 'expectancies' would be different to based on League Two.
So from what leagues are these statistics being compiled? Do they relate to a mid table 3rd division team?
I suspect there’ll be a few clubs after him, and he won’t be coming here.
Not sure about the leagues used but since it’s the same for every team then it doesn’t matter so much, the point is the quality of chances can be compared between teams and players.
I’ve had a quick look at shot conversion and shot accuracy of the top scorers in the Prem and L2, the %s are very similar. You’ll have better strikers higher up but it works both ways, they’re also up against better defenders and keepers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/charlton-athletic/top-scorers
Thank god he doesnt play for us, people would be calling him a dud in front of goal - Same with Cristiano Ronaldo, he may have won all there is in Football, but if he came down to League One... think it would be one challenge too far
We’re used to having a great striker or two backed up non-goalscoring strikers and a midfielder who gets into double figures.
Those stats for the rest of the team are extremely damning, its great we've so many scorers - But Mason Burstow shouldn't be joint third in the list - Especially as only one of those is in the bloody league.
This probably sums up why I don't bother looking at it.
There have been too many games this season when we just fall apart and lose our way because (IMO) there is no one on the pitch who steps up to assume control. The closest we have is Jason Pearce but he is in the Autumn of his playing career and has fitness problems.
This "captain figure" should be near the top of our "to buy" list and be free of any history of recurring injury problems.
M O R E C A M B E
MORECAMBE
Not quite got the highlight reel of Harry Kane missing 5 yard sitters like we do Washington and Stockley unfortunately.