Also shows how good the Stevenage defence is, obviously we should have still probed more but it’s not like they’re an awful team
I was never expecting us to score many past a side that contains Piergianni. Still one of the best centre backs in this league. We had no luck against him, again.
Haha been waiting for you to bring him up! He was good at the weekend, think it would’ve been good to see him up against Ahadme so I was annoyed about his nose
Going to buy a signed shirt of his and frame it.
Jokes aside, they are just a solid side defensively and I had literally 0 expectations of more than a goal, as soon as the first went in, I knew it was done. Hope it isn't like this for much longer.
Sort of does show that xG is also a useful thing to follow as if you were going to the game/watching and paying attention to stats, you'd know we were due this bad run
in the xG table if in a match the xG is 1.01 versus 1.99 does that go down as a point for a 1-1 draw ?
Or does the expected points give the 1.99 a ‘win’
In full awareness that I’m opening myself up for ridicule from certain quarters. If you wanted to be proper nerdy about it and distribute points based on xG… here’s what I’d do.
Take Stevenage v Charlton yesterday.
Stevenage had 0.50 xG on 11 shots, averaging 0.045 per shot. Charlton had 0.16 xG on 7 shots, averaging 0.023 per shot.
You can use a Binomial distribution to figure out some percentages based on the chances that were created during the 90 mins…
Stevenage: n(shots)=11, p(probability of goal)=0.045 ~60% scores 0, ~31% scores 1, ~7% scores 2, ~1% scores 3 and smaller for more…
Charlton: n=7, p=0.023 ~84% scores 0, ~14% scores 1, ~1% scores 2 and smaller for more…
Then multiply those percentages… ~51% of 0-0, ~26% of 1-0, ~8% of 0-1, ~4% of 1-1, ~6% of 2-0, ~1% of 2-1 and smaller for other results…
Then add up the scorelines to each result… ~33% Stevenage ~55% Draw ~8% Charlton (yes 4% is missing - because of all the rough calculations I’ve done above)
Then allocate the points based on those outcomes… Stevenage (3pts * 0.33 + 1pt * 0.55) = 1.54 Charlton (3pts * 0.08 + 1pt * 0.55) = 0.79
in the xG table if in a match the xG is 1.01 versus 1.99 does that go down as a point for a 1-1 draw ?
Or does the expected points give the 1.99 a ‘win’
In full awareness that I’m opening myself up for ridicule from certain quarters. If you wanted to be proper nerdy about it and distribute points based on xG… here’s what I’d do.
Take Stevenage v Charlton yesterday.
Stevenage had 0.50 xG on 11 shots, averaging 0.045 per shot. Charlton had 0.16 xG on 7 shots, averaging 0.023 per shot.
You can use a Binomial distribution to figure out some percentages based on the chances that were created during the 90 mins…
Stevenage: n(shots)=11, p(probability of goal)=0.045 ~60% scores 0, ~31% scores 1, ~7% scores 2, ~1% scores 3 and smaller for more…
Charlton: n=7, p=0.023 ~84% scores 0, ~14% scores 1, ~1% scores 2 and smaller for more…
Then multiply those percentages… ~51% of 0-0, ~26% of 1-0, ~8% of 0-1, ~4% of 1-1, ~6% of 2-0, ~1% of 2-1 and smaller for other results…
Then add up the scorelines to each result… ~33% Stevenage ~55% Draw ~8% Charlton (yes 4% is missing - because of all the rough calculations I’ve done above)
Then allocate the points based on those outcomes… Stevenage (3pts * 0.33 + 1pt * 0.55) = 1.54 Charlton (3pts * 0.08 + 1pt * 0.55) = 0.79
Glad you both liked it. :-)
FWIW I did the same thing for all 8 of our games so far this seasons and came to a points total of 11.5 odd, so not far off the 13 we have in reality.
Next job, work it out for all 90 odd games played so far do an entire league table..!
Also shows how good the Stevenage defence is, obviously we should have still probed more but it’s not like they’re an awful team
I was never expecting us to score many past a side that contains Piergianni. Still one of the best centre backs in this league. We had no luck against him, again.
Haha been waiting for you to bring him up! He was good at the weekend, think it would’ve been good to see him up against Ahadme so I was annoyed about his nose
He'd have had Ahadme for breakfast, lunch, dinner and dessert.
Interesting the Stevenage fan on Charlton Live saying that Piergianni is shipping-tanker-slow. But you'd never notice because of the way Stevenage play.
And the way WE play. Punts up the pitch and loopy high crosses from the side are meat and drink to him, whereas if we had played incisive through balls from midfield we might have exposed his lack of pace.
Bristol R bottom of the table based on xG/xA. Smashing us 3-0 before we grabbed 2 late goals.
They’re still bottom as well.
In another post I shared that that’s only the fourth time this season, after 102 games played, that any team has scored twice from outside the area in one game.
They got lucky that two of their four long range efforts tonight found the net, won’t happen often and they’ll have to improve if the win isn’t to be a one off for them.
Doesn’t excuse our own issues before people jump down my throat.
I don't think they were lucky. We gifted them the first two by not closing them down and failing to block the shots. I'd have to have another look but I think it was Berry and Anderson who made half arsed efforts to block the shots.
Bristol R bottom of the table based on xG/xA. Smashing us 3-0 before we grabbed 2 late goals.
They’re still bottom as well.
In another post I shared that that’s only the fourth time this season, after 102 games played, that any team has scored twice from outside the area in one game.
They got lucky that two of their four long range efforts tonight found the net, won’t happen often and they’ll have to improve if the win isn’t to be a one off for them.
Doesn’t excuse our own issues before people jump down my throat.
It’s not luck that both players had loads of space on the edge of the box to pick their spot
Does it still count as a long range effort when you give the opposition all the time they want on the edge of the box? Most decent midfielders could put it in the corner from there, they drill it in training enough. I don't think it's a case of being unlucky, perhaps it's only 4 times in 102 games that teams have defended so poorly.
We could’ve stood off them completely, had zero defenders and they still would be unlikely to score twice in four efforts from that range.
Last night, Berry closed down Sinclair and Anderson closed down (a little belatedly) Lindsay. Both found the net in the same evening anyway. Our closing down certainly wasn’t any worse than Bristol Rovers on a couple of our long range efforts but their shots go in and ours don’t. That’s football.
Neither of these look like the result of us not working hard to close down shots from range. They’re just well placed shots that have done us. Any other night both of them end up in the stands because of the pressure they’re under.
We have problems sure. We also got unlucky, and I’m standing by that.
If you want to ignore the statistical significance to justify having a moan then that’s fine.
There isn't any statistical evidence in your post to ignore, Callum. All you've got is the assertion that, "we could’ve stood off them completely, had zero defenders and they still would be unlikely to score twice" and some description of how you saw things.
You did post earlier, stating that the rate of long range goal-scoring is currently 4 in 102. All this does though is give a very loose understanding of how likely such events are. There is no explanatory power within that statistc as to why this conversion figure appears quite low. Your conjecture is that it's very difficult for professional footballers to hit an 8 foot high, 8 yard wide target from outside the box even when no one is defending it; we've just got unlucky.
This sounds a bit too over optimistic and a bit too woolly for me. I think to understand why we are conceding more goals from long range than other teams, we have to think about what the defending teams do. By that, I'm not really talking out the defenders per say. At the time those long range shots are being taken the dedicated defenders are typically in positions too deep, yet too far away from the goalmouth, to have any chance of stopping the ball. There are a group of players who can have an impact though, that's the midfielders. They should be goal-side, tight on their opponents and highly alert to the danger, ready to tackle before the trigger is pulled or block the moment it is. I'm not picking up any signs of our midfield doing those things well. As you said yourself, Sinclair and Anderson's closing down was, "a little belatedly". The reason we're conceding long range goals is because our midfield isn't good enough, not because of some unaccountable run of bad luck.
Of course, all this really highlights is the folly of getting rid of Dobson, because we're in desperate need of a midfielder or two who will really snap at the oppositions heels and make long range shooting more difficult for them.
Copied this from the match thread, as it's more of an xG issue. I'm not an xG sceptic, but the actual numbers do confuse me.
1) We regularly concede goals from the edge of the box, indeed if I was an opposition coach I'd be asking my players to target this area, yet the xG values for BR's 2 shots are really low, as if they were worldy strikes.
2) Mitchell's goal has a really high xG as it was basically on the goal line, but if he had left it and it was given as a Godden goal, the xG presumably would have been much lower, despite being the same attack. Because Mitchell poached it on the line it now becomes a "big chance" making our team xG look much higher than BR's.
It’s amazing how obsessed some people have become with xG . It’s flawed statistics because they very rarely hold up to reality . As soon as I see anyone talking about it on TV I instantly switch off .
We could’ve stood off them completely, had zero defenders and they still would be unlikely to score twice in four efforts from that range.
Last night, Berry closed down Sinclair and Anderson closed down (a little belatedly) Lindsay. Both found the net in the same evening anyway. Our closing down certainly wasn’t any worse than Bristol Rovers on a couple of our long range efforts but their shots go in and ours don’t. That’s football.
Neither of these look like the result of us not working hard to close down shots from range. They’re just well placed shots that have done us. Any other night both of them end up in the stands because of the pressure they’re under.
We have problems sure. We also got unlucky, and I’m standing by that.
If you want to ignore the statistical significance to justify having a moan then that’s fine.
It's true that the odds of League one players continually hitting the top corner is very unlikely and we are very unlucky in that sense, but equally I think the stills are a bad indicator of the closing down job being done. The stills make it look like our player has got so close to stopping the shot from happening, but in reality they're nowhere near. Closing down a shot is to do one of two things; either rush the opposition into not being able to take the shot they want or physically blocking it from making its way to the goal. Our players aren't getting there quick enough and the opposition players are taking exactly the shot they want with no-one being able to stop them. I've taken a different still about a second before yours:
He's fully measured his shot there, he's been able to do exactly what he wants and Berry has neither put him off nor got close enough to make contact. The fact is our midfielders have a habit of reacting a second too late, often Berry or Docherty are trailing behind or Anderson reads it too late and their closing down efforts are token. That's what needs to change, we've got to be aggressively stopping these players from being able to measure these shots, rush them and we'll suddenly see them flying over the bar like they would against other teams.
You n half clutch at straws Cal but I admire your positivity. Wish I could have some supporting this club.
Blind faith is not necessarily a good thing, it can get in the way of reality.
As for the xg rubbish..............
The assumption of absolutes is what gets me.
It’s not blind faith in the slightest. I know we have problems.
I know that the xG numbers given to these shots by the model are probably a touch lower than they should be because we’re not up to scratch in terms of closing down.
Regardless, even if they were both doubled in xG value to 6% and 12% due to poor closing down - that is still extremely unlucky to have conceded from both!!!
Look at Conor Coventry’s effort in the same game - no closing down from the Bristol Rovers defenders at all. If that was against us and the oppo had scored it would’ve been pulled apart by us fans in the post match analysis. A well struck shot under little pressure and the keeper makes a good save to tip it over.
You n half clutch at straws Cal but I admire your positivity. Wish I could have some supporting this club.
Blind faith is not necessarily a good thing, it can get in the way of reality.
As for the xg rubbish..............
The assumption of absolutes is what gets me.
It’s not blind faith in the slightest. I know we have problems.
I know that the xG numbers given to these shots by the model are probably a touch lower than they should be because we’re not up to scratch in terms of closing down.
Regardless, even if they were both doubled in xG value to 6% and 12% due to poor closing down - that is still extremely unlucky to have conceded from both!!!
Look at Conor Coventry’s effort in the same game - no closing down from the Bristol Rovers defenders at all. If that was against us and the oppo had scored it would’ve been pulled apart by us fans in the post match analysis. A well struck shot under little pressure and the keeper makes a good save to tip it over.
You n half clutch at straws Cal but I admire your positivity. Wish I could have some supporting this club.
Blind faith is not necessarily a good thing, it can get in the way of reality.
As for the xg rubbish..............
The assumption of absolutes is what gets me.
It’s not blind faith in the slightest. I know we have problems.
I know that the xG numbers given to these shots by the model are probably a touch lower than they should be because we’re not up to scratch in terms of closing down.
Regardless, even if they were both doubled in xG value to 6% and 12% due to poor closing down - that is still extremely unlucky to have conceded from both!!!
Look at Conor Coventry’s effort in the same game - no closing down from the Bristol Rovers defenders at all. If that was against us and the oppo had scored it would’ve been pulled apart by us fans in the post match analysis. A well struck shot under little pressure and the keeper makes a good save to tip it over.
You n half clutch at straws Cal but I admire your positivity. Wish I could have some supporting this club.
Blind faith is not necessarily a good thing, it can get in the way of reality.
As for the xg rubbish..............
The assumption of absolutes is what gets me.
It’s not blind faith in the slightest. I know we have problems.
I know that the xG numbers given to these shots by the model are probably a touch lower than they should be because we’re not up to scratch in terms of closing down.
Regardless, even if they were both doubled in xG value to 6% and 12% due to poor closing down - that is still extremely unlucky to have conceded from both!!!
Look at Conor Coventry’s effort in the same game - no closing down from the Bristol Rovers defenders at all. If that was against us and the oppo had scored it would’ve been pulled apart by us fans in the post match analysis. A well struck shot under little pressure and the keeper makes a good save to tip it over.
It’s amazing how obsessed some people have become with xG . It’s flawed statistics because they very rarely hold up to reality . As soon as I see anyone talking about it on TV I instantly switch off .
You turn off the TV if you see anyone talking about xG, and yet you open a thread about xG.
Inside your head must be a very complicated world.
Copied this from the match thread, as it's more of an xG issue. I'm not an xG sceptic, but the actual numbers do confuse me.
1) We regularly concede goals from the edge of the box, indeed if I was an opposition coach I'd be asking my players to target this area, yet the xG values for BR's 2 shots are really low, as if they were worldy strikes.
2) Mitchell's goal has a really high xG as it was basically on the goal line, but if he had left it and it was given as a Godden goal, the xG presumably would have been much lower, despite being the same attack. Because Mitchell poached it on the line it now becomes a "big chance" making our team xG look much higher than BR's.
1) think of the hundreds of shots from the edge of the box that don’t go in. It might seem like we concede from them a lot but that’s probably just natural to not remember all the times a shot from there was blocked/missed. If it was that easy to score from the edge of the box, we’d see it everywhere a lot more in football across all leagues
2) xG has flaws and this is one of them. But that’s why xG isn’t designed to be looked at on a game by game basis. It’s better looking at medium-long term where this kind of thing isn’t as impactful
It’s amazing how obsessed some people have become with xG . It’s flawed statistics because they very rarely hold up to reality . As soon as I see anyone talking about it on TV I instantly switch off .
You turn off the TV if you see anyone talking about xG, and yet you open a thread about xG.
Inside your head must be a very complicated world.
Copied this from the match thread, as it's more of an xG issue. I'm not an xG sceptic, but the actual numbers do confuse me.
1) We regularly concede goals from the edge of the box, indeed if I was an opposition coach I'd be asking my players to target this area, yet the xG values for BR's 2 shots are really low, as if they were worldy strikes.
2) Mitchell's goal has a really high xG as it was basically on the goal line, but if he had left it and it was given as a Godden goal, the xG presumably would have been much lower, despite being the same attack. Because Mitchell poached it on the line it now becomes a "big chance" making our team xG look much higher than BR's.
1) think of the hundreds of shots from the edge of the box that don’t go in. It might seem like we concede from them a lot but that’s probably just natural to not remember all the times a shot from there was blocked/missed. If it was that easy to score from the edge of the box, we’d see it everywhere a lot more in football across all leagues
2) xG has flaws and this is one of them. But that’s why xG isn’t designed to be looked at on a game by game basis. It’s better looking at medium-long term where this kind of thing isn’t as impactful
I saw several goals in the Champions League this week scored from a similar position to the first 2 BR goals. Attackers cutting in from wide positions to score from the edge of the box is pretty common now, especially when so many teams play inverted wingers.
According to Opta’s supercomputer after 10 games played…
- Mansfield, Wrexham, Lincoln and Exeter biggest over performers.
- Huddersfield, Bolton, Rotherham and Cambridge the biggest under performers.
Birmingham, Wycombe and Charlton performing close to expectations at the top end. Northampton, Crawley and Shrewsbury rightly struggling at the bottom.
Both of those tables are mis-named. They don't show whether teams have overperformed or underperformed at all. What they show is how good xG has been at predicting match outcomes. For some teams, Charlton is a good example, Opta's 'game outcome simulations' seem to be a pretty decent indicator of match day outcomes. Though these tables only show the overall pattern; it could be spot-on or wildly out on a match by match basis, we can't tell from this. For other teams, Exeter and Cambridge are prime examples, the xG model is underperforming as an indicator.
Both of those tables are mis-named. They don't show whether teams have overperformed or underperformed at all. What they show is how good xG has been at predicting match outcomes. For some teams, Charlton is a good example, Opta's 'game outcome simulations' seem to be a pretty decent indicator of match day outcomes. Though these tables only show the overall pattern; it could be spot-on or wildly out on a match by match basis, we can't tell from this. For other teams, Exeter and Cambridge are prime examples, the xG model is underperforming as an indicator.
In what way is it under performing as an indicator, if actual and expected position are quite different?
It's not supposed to necessarily be the same, it's not trying to mirror the league positions. It's giving us an indication of how good a team is at creating chances and preventing chances.
Comments
Jokes aside, they are just a solid side defensively and I had literally 0 expectations of more than a goal, as soon as the first went in, I knew it was done. Hope it isn't like this for much longer.
Sort of does show that xG is also a useful thing to follow as if you were going to the game/watching and paying attention to stats, you'd know we were due this bad run
FWIW I did the same thing for all 8 of our games so far this seasons and came to a points total of 11.5 odd, so not far off the 13 we have in reality.
Next job, work it out for all 90 odd games played so far do an entire league table..!
Smashing us 3-0 before we grabbed 2 late goals.
In another post I shared that that’s only the fourth time this season, after 102 games played, that any team has scored twice from outside the area in one game.
They got lucky that two of their four long range efforts tonight found the net, won’t happen often and they’ll have to improve if the win isn’t to be a one off for them.
Doesn’t excuse our own issues before people jump down my throat.
We gifted them the first two by not closing them down and failing to block the shots.
I'd have to have another look but I think it was Berry and Anderson who made half arsed efforts to block the shots.
Last night, Berry closed down Sinclair and Anderson closed down (a little belatedly) Lindsay. Both found the net in the same evening anyway. Our closing down certainly wasn’t any worse than Bristol Rovers on a couple of our long range efforts but their shots go in and ours don’t. That’s football.
Neither of these look like the result of us not working hard to close down shots from range. They’re just well placed shots that have done us. Any other night both of them end up in the stands because of the pressure they’re under.
We have problems sure. We also got unlucky, and I’m standing by that.
If you want to ignore the statistical significance to justify having a moan then that’s fine.
You did post earlier, stating that the rate of long range goal-scoring is currently 4 in 102. All this does though is give a very loose understanding of how likely such events are. There is no explanatory power within that statistc as to why this conversion figure appears quite low. Your conjecture is that it's very difficult for professional footballers to hit an 8 foot high, 8 yard wide target from outside the box even when no one is defending it; we've just got unlucky.
This sounds a bit too over optimistic and a bit too woolly for me. I think to understand why we are conceding more goals from long range than other teams, we have to think about what the defending teams do. By that, I'm not really talking out the defenders per say. At the time those long range shots are being taken the dedicated defenders are typically in positions too deep, yet too far away from the goalmouth, to have any chance of stopping the ball. There are a group of players who can have an impact though, that's the midfielders. They should be goal-side, tight on their opponents and highly alert to the danger, ready to tackle before the trigger is pulled or block the moment it is. I'm not picking up any signs of our midfield doing those things well. As you said yourself, Sinclair and Anderson's closing down was, "a little belatedly". The reason we're conceding long range goals is because our midfield isn't good enough, not because of some unaccountable run of bad luck.
Of course, all this really highlights is the folly of getting rid of Dobson, because we're in desperate need of a midfielder or two who will really snap at the oppositions heels and make long range shooting more difficult for them.
Copied this from the match thread, as it's more of an xG issue. I'm not an xG sceptic, but the actual numbers do confuse me.
1) We regularly concede goals from the edge of the box, indeed if I was an opposition coach I'd be asking my players to target this area, yet the xG values for BR's 2 shots are really low, as if they were worldy strikes.
2) Mitchell's goal has a really high xG as it was basically on the goal line, but if he had left it and it was given as a Godden goal, the xG presumably would have been much lower, despite being the same attack. Because Mitchell poached it on the line it now becomes a "big chance" making our team xG look much higher than BR's.
He's fully measured his shot there, he's been able to do exactly what he wants and Berry has neither put him off nor got close enough to make contact. The fact is our midfielders have a habit of reacting a second too late, often Berry or Docherty are trailing behind or Anderson reads it too late and their closing down efforts are token. That's what needs to change, we've got to be aggressively stopping these players from being able to measure these shots, rush them and we'll suddenly see them flying over the bar like they would against other teams.
Also, this is the second goal when he picks up the ball. He's got all the time he needs.
It’s not blind faith in the slightest. I know we have problems.
I know that the xG numbers given to these shots by the model are probably a touch lower than they should be because we’re not up to scratch in terms of closing down.
Regardless, even if they were both doubled in xG value to 6% and 12% due to poor closing down - that is still extremely unlucky to have conceded from both!!!
Look at Conor Coventry’s effort in the same game - no closing down from the Bristol Rovers defenders at all. If that was against us and the oppo had scored it would’ve been pulled apart by us fans in the post match analysis. A well struck shot under little pressure and the keeper makes a good save to tip it over.
5:40 here https://youtu.be/WqmfsI6mprM?si=ZHngulM5P9nDx7Bi
Okay, you are clearly a fan of XG and I am not, let's leave it at that.
Thank you.
Inside your head must be a very complicated world.
According to Opta’s supercomputer after 10 games played…
- Mansfield, Wrexham, Lincoln and Exeter biggest over performers.
- Huddersfield, Bolton, Rotherham and Cambridge the biggest under performers.
Birmingham, Wycombe and Charlton performing close to expectations at the top end. Northampton, Crawley and Shrewsbury rightly struggling at the bottom.
It's not supposed to necessarily be the same, it's not trying to mirror the league positions. It's giving us an indication of how good a team is at creating chances and preventing chances.