Premier League 2022/23 Thread

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

6 minutes ago, jmono84 said:

17 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Yeah Leicesters XG against Arsenal was about 0.05.

As if. I’ve seen 0.02 or 0.01!

 

I think arsenal’s vs us was about 0.60

Why anyone at all thought xG was worth inventing or thinks it is worth noticing or discussing is beyond me, it really is. In a crowded field, it's a strong contender for most stupidly useless statistic ever.

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Why anyone at all thought xG was worth inventing or thinks it is worth noticing or discussing is beyond me, it really is. In a crowded field, it's a strong contender for most stupidly useless statistic ever.

So tell me - how many chances or opportunities did we create last Saturday ?

 

i think the Xg stat was very informative in that particular game 

[Fox92]

Just now, st albans fox said:

So tell me - how many chances or opportunities did we create last Saturday ?

 

i think the Xg stat was very informative in that particular game 

I don't need a stat to tell me we created nothing last week. The evidence was right in front of me at the game.

[kingkisnorbo]

Just now, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Why anyone at all thought xG was worth inventing or thinks it is worth noticing or discussing is beyond me, it really is. In a crowded field, it's a strong contender for most stupidly useless statistic ever.

I’m no expert but analytics like this pretty much drive every successful club in the world at the moment. 

[kingkisnorbo]

Just now, Fox92 said:

I don't need a stat to tell me we created nothing last week. The evidence was right in front of me at the game.

Stats don’t exist solely for you though do they? 

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

So tell me - how many chances or opportunities did we create last Saturday ?

 

i think the Xg stat was very informative in that particular game 

Do you really need statistics to tell you that we were unlikely to score in that game??

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

2 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said:

I’m no expert but analytics like this pretty much drive every successful club in the world at the moment. 

I'm no expert either to be fair. But while I know clubs have massively detailed analysis of how they and everyone else scores/doesn't score, concedes/doesn't concede, I'd be suprised if they find xG much use.

[Corky]

Nothing will happen with Newcastle. Those owners are here to stay in whatever form of set up.

 

 

[KingsX]

1 minute ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Do you really need statistics to tell you that we were unlikely to score in that game??

 

Do we really need you to scream at us that statistics are "stupidly useless", then turn around a few minutes later and admit how accurate they can be?

 

Have a day off.  You're clowning yourself here.

[Fox92]

10 minutes ago, kingkisnorbo said:

Stats don’t exist solely for you though do they? 

Who leaves the game, or reads about the game, and thinks they need an xG stat to see how Leicester did?

 

Look at shots on the report, it said 1. Look at shots on target on the report, it said 0.

 

I'm not saying the xG stat is pointless, before anybody starts, but for games such as ours on Saturday what is the point. And what's worse is people then bringing it up "oh we had 0.01 xG", or whatever, well obviously yeah.

Edited 2 March 2023 by Fox92

[Stinkenzo]

Conte becomes the first manager in the history of probably anywhere to get nominated for manager of the month with a 100% losing record 

[Corky]

We could actually have an Assistant Manager of the Month curse.

[Finnegan]

37 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Why anyone at all thought xG was worth inventing or thinks it is worth noticing or discussing is beyond me, it really is. In a crowded field, it's a strong contender for most stupidly useless statistic ever.

 

Oh wow guys I've found Graeme Souness' FoxesTalk account.

[Finnegan]

Seriously though, how much of a troglodyte do you have to be to not understand the value of a performance indicator that's measuring the quantity and quality of chances created by a team. 

 

Honestly baffles me that people are still acting like xG is some sort of hipster science fad that's going to go away. It's obviously a pretty valuable statistic - but all statistics can and are misunderstood and misused by people that don't really 'get' statistics. Which, lets be honest, is a significant amount of the population.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

32 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

Do we really need you to scream at us that statistics are "stupidly useless", then turn around a few minutes later and admit how accurate they can be?

 

Have a day off.  You're clowning yourself here.

Lol. You clearly haven't understood a word I've said, which probably won't surprise many people.

I'll explain it for you. I didn't say 'statistics' are stupidly useless; I said xG was probably the most stupidly useless of statistics. Is that distinction something you can comprehend?

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

ol. You clearly haven't understood a word I've said, which probably won't surprise many people.

I'll explain it for you. I didn't say 'statistics' are stupidly useless; I said xG was probably the most stupidly useless of statistics. Is that distinction something you can comprehend?

 

Look, I really don't mean to be any more inflammatory than I usually am, but you probably don't want to be questioning someone else's comprehension and then claiming xG is the most useless of statistics. 

 

Just because you don't understand something it doesn't mean it's worthless. xG has become a bit of a byword for "new football statistics that we didn't really use to have" that seems to really trigger football traditionalists who probably used to think Motty brought up too many stats and whom probably have a heart attack at the thought of data analysts at City sitting showing the players all their metrics on an iPad.

 

It gets so much more attention than any other indicator and it's become popular for statistics cynics to, lets be honest here, parrot each other bashing xG. 

 

But I'd honestly like you to stop a moment and explain to me, if you can, why you think an indicator that measures quality and quantity of chances created is "stupidly useless?" Because to me that sounds extremely useful.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

But I'd honestly like you to stop a moment and explain to me, if you can, why you think an indicator that measures quality and quantity of chances created is "stupidly useless?"

Because if you watch a football match it's pretty obvious how likely a team is to score. Basically they're either very likely, quite likely, quite unlikely, or couldn't score in a month of Sundays. How is it helpful to have that expressed as an 'expected goals' including decimal places?

 

In all honesty, it might be the name they give it I have an issue with as much as the statistic itself.

But on the whole I do think football is better off without statistics. It isn't baseball. (And I don't mean for the clubs; I can see why they try to get any tiny advantage they can in a business of tight margins and high stakes). But they don't improve the experience one jot for me, and of all the statistics I'm presented with if I watch a match on telly, xG is very high up my list of the ones I find pointless. As I say, I'm watching the match. I can see how likely each team is to score.

[PhillippaT]

1 hour ago, Corky said:

Nothing will happen with Newcastle. Those owners are here to stay in whatever form of set up.

 

 

They need more layers of abstraction, that's all...  :-/  

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Because if you watch a football match it's pretty obvious how likely a team is to score. Basically they're either very likely, quite likely, quite unlikely, or couldn't score in a month of Sundays. How is it helpful to have that expressed as an 'expected goals' including decimal places?

 

In all honesty, it might be the name they give it I have an issue with as much as the statistic itself.

But on the whole I do think football is better off without statistics. It isn't baseball. (And I don't mean for the clubs; I can see why they try to get any tiny advantage they can in a business of tight margins and high stakes). But they don't improve the experience one jot for me, and of all the statistics I'm presented with if I watch a match on telly, xG is very high up my list of the ones I find pointless. As I say, I'm watching the match. I can see how likely each team is to score.

Do you watch every game every team plays and have a perfect memory that allows you to recall each chance they create?

[Finnegan]

5 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Because if you watch a football match it's pretty obvious how likely a team is to score.

 

But it isn't, is it? In fact, I'm almost a little bit surprised to hear a Leicester fan making statements like that.

How often have we heard people misrepresent a football match based on the superficial aesthetics of what's happening? Cast your mind back to our title win, how often did you hear both rival managers and fans bemoan losing to us after they'd claim to have been the better side or to have dominated the game based on, essentially, having more of the ball? They did fvck all with it and we usually created (and scored) far more chances than they did but you'd hear the same rubbish repeated anyway.

 

10 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

they don't improve the experience one jot for me, and of all the statistics I'm presented with if I watch a match on telly, xG is very high up my list of the ones I find pointless. As I say, I'm watching the match. I can see how likely each team is to score.

 

Thing is though, the value of these statistics isn't really just in the moment. It's about reflection and hindsight looking back and, ideally, looking back at a larger sample size than just one game. There isn't really a lot of value to the average fan at home knowing what the xG is live as a game as going on whilst you're watching it. Sky and BT might put it up there to show you but they're largely doing so because it's vogue and giving you lots of live data in-play is a selling point for them just as it used to be vogue to offer you things like special player tracking cams or alternative broadcasts where fans were commentating or whatever else.

 

But the actual value of xG is for the club, not you on your sofa at home. Is our xG noticeably higher against X or Y formation or when we play wing backs or when we play Madders at RW or whatever other eventuality. What's the xG of our next opponents when such and such a player is fit or when they start with 3 at the back. Or, another way of using it, is our ACTUAL goals keeping up with our xG, ie, are we too wasteful? Or is our actual goals much higher than our xG, meaning maybe we're over reliant on scoring goals from outside the area, opposition mistakes or individual moments of brilliance. These are all things xG can help you pick up.

 

But of course, that's it's value for the club, not you at home. Personally, I like to have that information, I think it's fun, I get value out of it but then I work with stats for a living and that's the kind of thing I find interesting.

[Manley Farrington-Brown]

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

But the actual value of xG is for the club, not you on your sofa at home.

I was talking about for me on my sofa at home. I'm talking about 'xG' as it exists as a statistic presented to the average consumer. That's what's stupidly useless. Clubs have all sorts of analysis of everything, and that's their lookout. I'm not talking about that.

[Jobyfox]

19 minutes ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Because if you watch a football match it's pretty obvious how likely a team is to score. Basically they're either very likely, quite likely, quite unlikely, or couldn't score in a month of Sundays. How is it helpful to have that expressed as an 'expected goals' including decimal places?

 

In all honesty, it might be the name they give it I have an issue with as much as the statistic itself.

But on the whole I do think football is better off without statistics. It isn't baseball. (And I don't mean for the clubs; I can see why they try to get any tiny advantage they can in a business of tight margins and high stakes). But they don't improve the experience one jot for me, and of all the statistics I'm presented with if I watch a match on telly, xG is very high up my list of the ones I find pointless. As I say, I'm watching the match. I can see how likely each team is to score.

I think that’s a point right there. You’re watching the match = you don’t need the statistic. What if you’re not watching the match? Statistics generally are something that can be rolled up to indicate performances over one match, several matches, a whole season - or to be compared to similar metrics from other clubs.

 

The phrase: “lies, damn lies and statistics” exists for a reason. Statistics can only tell you so much. But businesses across the globe are managed through the balance of risk with data provided by statistics and people are paid billions to assess them. 
 

Calling one statistic “stupid” or “useless” because you don’t like it is rather missing the point. It’s an indicator than you can either use or choose not to depending on the value you find in it. Personally, I rather like the xG stat. I always look for it for games when I’ve only seen a brief highlight of the whole as an indicator of which team had the better of the game for the full 90. As we know possession, shots, shots on target are other measures, but I think xG compliments them well. I’m also willing to bet that xG over a period of time could be analogous to a teams actual performance and position in the table. 
 

Statistics in football is a huge industry now. The way I think of it is the stats might not prove that a player is worth signing, but they very well might determine whether the player is worth watching in the first place. 

[so1]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

I'll be amazed if Howe ever wins the FA Cup.

Think he's a good manager. Was referring to the Liverpool epic series. Never let a good deed go unpunished. Enemies never tire of throwing that in his face. All managers owe him a debt of gratitude for showing them the power of editing.

[AKCJ]

3 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

Evertons

xG was 0.85

 

 

 

[so1]

1 hour ago, Manley Farrington-Brown said:

Why anyone at all thought xG was worth inventing or thinks it is worth noticing or discussing is beyond me, it really is. In a crowded field, it's a strong contender for most stupidly useless statistic ever.

Football Manager? A stats best friend. Just guessing never played.