Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Fox92

Brendan Rodgers

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

How many of those shots were actually chances to score though?

This is a pretty meaningless stat, when a team defends well it can mean teams are left with taking pot shots from outside the area.

Newcastle might have had 16 shots, but other than the two goals did Kasper have to make a save? 

Obsession with stats is weird nowadays.

Media have done so well to bring this into the game.

 

Out of all those shots I would say Newcastle had 0 clear cut chances really. Kasper rarely made a save.

 

We could spend the whole game shooting from 25 yards, it doesn't mean anything aside from we hit a few shots. Newcastle having 16 shots, but only 7 on target highlights this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

How many of those shots were actually chances to score though?

This is a pretty meaningless stat, when a team defends well it can mean teams are left with taking pot shots from outside the area.

Newcastle might have had 16 shots, but other than the two goals did Kasper have to make a save? 


Ok, if you want more context on the quality of the chances the xG in the game was Newcastle 1.4 - 0.6 according to StatsBomb’s data on FBref (we’re an official partner of their’s).

 

I totally understand how stats can be misleading but in the Newcastle game they weren’t at all. We had over two thirds of the ball and had two shots on target. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stadt said:


Ok, if you want more context on the quality of the chances the xG in the game was Newcastle 1.4 - 0.6 according to StatsBomb’s data on FBref (we’re an official partner of their’s).

 

I totally understand how stats can be misleading but in the Newcastle game they weren’t at all. We had over two thirds of the ball and had two shots on target. 

How were we only 0.6.  Does that mean that Daka and Barnes each were only expected to convert less than once in 5?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, majaco said:

How were we only 0.6.  Does that mean that Daka and Barnes each were only expected to convert less than once in 5?

xG is best when using larger numbers of chances than individual ones as the model doesn't have thousands of identical situations. It weights chances based on very similar shot positions, ball height, number of players in proximity and other factors like that.

 

Understat has an interactive shot map, they don't have any shots from Barnes or Daka registered 

https://understat.com/match/16701

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Stadt said:

xG is best when using larger numbers of chances than individual ones as the model doesn't have thousands of identical situations. It weights chances based on very similar shot positions, ball height, number of players in proximity and other factors like that.

 

Understat has an interactive shot map, they don't have any shots from Barnes or Daka registered 

https://understat.com/match/16701

That's a little problematic as they were good chances.    There was quite a lot of expectation around two chances that weren't expected enough to be recognised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Some bizarre revisionism here being used to discredit Rodgers. He has undoubtedly improved players - it’s one of the areas that his career speaks volumes throughout. 
 

How did he turn a squad which was 9th eventually into one which went 5th? 
 

Vardy got his first golden boot under him and his goalscoring had taken a dip before Rodgers arrival.
Maddison is having his best goal involvement season in the PL (despite being taken off corners and some free kicks).

Tielemans last season looked worthy of any team in the world.

Barnes went from a player Puel called back and never used to being on the cusp of England call up.

The latter of that applies to Justin and even Thomas according to some media outlets. 
Soyuncu he actually was quite assured and clever with rather than giving up on.

Evans went from someone Puel barely used and looking a bit washed up West Brom. 
Kelechi improved beyond all belief. 

KDH I’d say in recent weeks is beginning show improvement on his actual impact on games - assists and goals. 
Chilwell went from a player who looked weak and timid into a modern full back, sold for millions. 
Even Amartey at times this season has looked the most confident he ever has at Leicester

His career is littered with improving players - he made Swansea, Liverpool and Celtic some tidy sums of money. 
 

His tactics are worthy of criticism and often has a blind eye to a certain player - thinking Praet here (but that happens a lot elsewhere). 

You can take your logic and sense and I raise you a load of nonsense by @filbertway!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

Seems to me that if you’re defending Brendo by claiming “it”s all injuries’ fault!” and then absolving him of any responsibility for a terrible run of injuries season after season on his watch, you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Let me chop your legs off and see how much of the field you can run around on..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, TJB-fox said:

To a lesser extent. 
 

There’s a reason the top players remain at the top and it’s due to ruthless consistency and mindset. 
 

You can’t suddenly teach that to Daniel Amartey and Ademola Lookman.

 

Sounds like more boring Rodgers slander again. 

Mistakes can be reduced.  This isn't about only Rodgers... I know of no managers focusing on this 

Besides everything else that have to do they should look at this.

I would. Rodgers should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Stadt said:

xG is best when using larger numbers of chances than individual ones as the model doesn't have thousands of identical situations. It weights chances based on very similar shot positions, ball height, number of players in proximity and other factors like that.

 

Understat has an interactive shot map, they don't have any shots from Barnes or Daka registered 

https://understat.com/match/16701

I have noticed that Newcastle’s xG is boosted massively by Guimaraes taking 3 attempts for the 1st goal - 1.81 xG for him to actually get the ball in the net

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

I have noticed that Newcastle’s xG is boosted massively by Guimaraes taking 3 attempts for the 1st goal - 1.81 xG for him to actually get the ball in the net

FBref's/Statsbomb's more advanced model doesn't include that chance but understat's does

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

I have noticed that Newcastle’s xG is boosted massively by Guimaraes taking 3 attempts for the 1st goal - 1.81 xG for him to actually get the ball in the net

One of the many reasons xG is flawed as should be in the same level as possession, and not the gospel stat thats close to being a goal.

 

Also doesnt factor chances that arent shots, like when a team is three on one but a player makes an awful run instead of squaring it for an easy goal.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Col city fan

Remains one of the most perplexing managers I think we’ve ever had.

I heard that he said after the Newcastle game that ‘he hadnt played a weakened side’!!

😳

Some of his tactics and subs are bizarre to say the least… and then we can look absolutely dazzling on our day

There’s just no consistency with this team at all, which makes nearly every game one where you just don’t have a clue how we’ll play, or do.

Tonight is a good example. We could either go to Everton and smash a very poor team, or just as easily get turned over without much of a fight

🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Chocolate Teapot
5 hours ago, moore_94 said:

I have noticed that Newcastle’s xG is boosted massively by Guimaraes taking 3 attempts for the 1st goal - 1.81 xG for him to actually get the ball in the net

Good spot. Its such bullshit isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Remains one of the most perplexing managers I think we’ve ever had.

I heard that he said after the Newcastle game that ‘he hadnt played a weakened side’!!

😳

Some of his tactics and subs are bizarre to say the least… and then we can look absolutely dazzling on our day

There’s just no consistency with this team at all, which makes nearly every game one where you just don’t have a clue how we’ll play, or do.

Tonight is a good example. We could either go to Everton and smash a very poor team, or just as easily get turned over without much of a fight

🤷‍♂️

I wouldn’t expect him to say he’s played a weakens side tbf, that’s not gonna do a lot for the confidence of the players who came into the side.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His obsession with defending 1 goal leads with as many defenders on the pitch as possible has cost us so many points this season.

 

As soon as you make that negative switch the game changes and the doubt creeps in, how hasn’t he learnt this yet?

 

Big games against Roma coming up, he has to do well otherwise he has to go. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...