| XG score 20:43 - Oct 19 with 843 views | kernow |
Please could somebody enlighten this owld feckwit wtf our potentially up and coming, brilliant, young coach is on about ?
I have no clue. |  | | |  |
| XG score on 21:28 - Oct 19 with 776 views | Saintcole7 |
Sorry can't help, I'm too old in the tooth and would play 4-4-2, have a quick attacker on the half way line when defending a corner and realise that to win a football match you need to score more goals than the opposition?sadly tactics not employed by Will Still? | | | |
| XG score on 21:32 - Oct 19 with 766 views | Southamptonfan |
An xG (Expected Goals) score is a statistical measure in sports, primarily football, that represents the likelihood of a shot resulting in a goal. It was very high yesterday, meaning that we were very likely to score.
I didn't just Google it, I knew that from the top of my head 😂 [Post edited 19 Oct 21:32]
| |
| |
| XG score on 21:58 - Oct 19 with 723 views | TripleNiemi |
To quote a proper football man / manager….
‘Expected goals (xG) is total nonsense. You’ve got to remember what the game is about: winning football matches, and that means scoring goals, not recording the expectation of them. It’s a clueless development. Some people just use these words to try to sound clever.’
Martin O’Neill
That said, the Noddy Brigade love it.
#Ballers #xG’s |  |
| |
| XG score on 22:34 - Oct 19 with 704 views | saintmark1976 |
| XG score on 21:28 - Oct 19 by Saintcole7 |
Sorry can't help, I'm too old in the tooth and would play 4-4-2, have a quick attacker on the half way line when defending a corner and realise that to win a football match you need to score more goals than the opposition?sadly tactics not employed by Will Still? |
Spot on Saintcole7.
Adam Armstrong on the centre spot would take two opposition players out of our 18 yard box to mark him.
It used to work as a tactic in years gone by but probably won’t now because it hasn’t got some bloody stupid code to describe it ! | |
| |
| XG score on 23:45 - Oct 19 with 640 views | dirk_doone |
| XG score on 23:30 - Oct 19 by kingslandstand1 |
But why on earth do we need to know that, do they use that within their tactical meetings etc or do they just look at the goals for and goals against columns as most normal people do  |
It shows how good or, in our case, bad, your strikers' finishing is. A lot of good chances to score gives you a high xG (expected goals). So, according to the xG, if our finishing had been average by Championship standards, we'd have scored 3 or 4 goals v Swansea, but of course, as we all know, even without Xg telling us, our finishing is terrible.
xG is to Will Still as possession stats are to Russell Martin. When a manager doesn't have winning goals to talk about in his post match interviews, he can talk about winning possession or xG instead. We've gone from being the possession champs to becoming the xG kings, whilst only winning 4 of our last 48 games with actual goals. [Post edited 20 Oct 10:22]
|  |
| |
| XG score on 23:47 - Oct 19 with 637 views | Gennaro_Contaldo |
| XG score on 21:32 - Oct 19 by Southamptonfan |
An xG (Expected Goals) score is a statistical measure in sports, primarily football, that represents the likelihood of a shot resulting in a goal. It was very high yesterday, meaning that we were very likely to score.
I didn't just Google it, I knew that from the top of my head 😂 [Post edited 19 Oct 21:32]
|
Interestingly I think xG is a load of bollocks too, but ... yesterday it reflected what we could all see with our own eyes, WE NEED A FKING STRIKER.
Would've won probably 3-0 with a proper striker. The service is not there, the creativity is now there, the defense killed of Swansea (who looked poor but whatever). A decent striker, we win that 3-0. xG was right there. |  |
| |
| XG score on 10:24 - Oct 20 with 456 views | kingslandstand1 |
| XG score on 23:45 - Oct 19 by dirk_doone |
It shows how good or, in our case, bad, your strikers' finishing is. A lot of good chances to score gives you a high xG (expected goals). So, according to the xG, if our finishing had been average by Championship standards, we'd have scored 3 or 4 goals v Swansea, but of course, as we all know, even without Xg telling us, our finishing is terrible.
xG is to Will Still as possession stats are to Russell Martin. When a manager doesn't have winning goals to talk about in his post match interviews, he can talk about winning possession or xG instead. We've gone from being the possession champs to becoming the xG kings, whilst only winning 4 of our last 48 games with actual goals. [Post edited 20 Oct 10:22]
|
So again, of what use does it do knowing that. You never know the players might look at that and think "wow, I'm going to score today", but we know differently
Still, it keeps the statisticians happy i suppose but without being factual |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| XG score on 10:40 - Oct 20 with 429 views | Saintcole7 |
So now "us uninformed" know what an XG means thanks to Will telling us he was very happy with the XG and basically saying those not happy with us not scoring/winning don't know anything about football. Thanks to the explanations above I would suggest he's shot himself in the foot here as I'm thinking this shows how bad we are as a team in scoring a goal as we should of scored 3 if our XG is to believed, so how can he be so happy? | | | |
| XG score on 10:49 - Oct 20 with 407 views | dirk_doone |
| XG score on 10:24 - Oct 20 by kingslandstand1 |
So again, of what use does it do knowing that. You never know the players might look at that and think "wow, I'm going to score today", but we know differently
Still, it keeps the statisticians happy i suppose but without being factual |
Apparently, it's used to show which areas of the pitch or types of play generate better chances, but, of course, as we don't have anyone to finish them, it's still not much use here.
I remember when Graham Taylor became the first manager to use statistical analysis to discover that most goals were generated by the long ball, and it helped him take Watford from the 4th tier to the first and finish runners-up in both the league and the cup in the mid-80s, by pumping long balls up the pitch to a big, pacy winger, John Barnes, and big centre forward, Luther Blissett.
I'd be interested to know what percentage of goals involve deflections. For years Saints' players have avoided talkng shots in or around a crowded penalty area, and continued to pass the ball sideways, so missing the opportunity of deflected shots beating the keeper. When you watch the top Premier League teams, you see that loads of their goals come from deflected shots. [Post edited 20 Oct 11:15]
| |
| |
| XG score on 10:53 - Oct 20 with 389 views | DorsetIan |
When he wasn't waffling about XG, Still said this:
“I’m really happy with the performance. I think it was one of the most dominating and complete performances that we’ve put in all season,”
'dominating' ???
'complete' ???
Wtf is he talking about?
We had some good chances but we were largely toothless and at no time were Swansea 'on the ropes' - even in the last 7 minutes of injury time.
And if he thinks that was a 'complete' performance then we are in real trouble. | |
| |
| XG score on 11:05 - Oct 20 with 373 views | dirk_doone |
| XG score on 10:53 - Oct 20 by DorsetIan |
When he wasn't waffling about XG, Still said this:
“I’m really happy with the performance. I think it was one of the most dominating and complete performances that we’ve put in all season,”
'dominating' ???
'complete' ???
Wtf is he talking about?
We had some good chances but we were largely toothless and at no time were Swansea 'on the ropes' - even in the last 7 minutes of injury time.
And if he thinks that was a 'complete' performance then we are in real trouble. |
Will Still uses xG in his post match interviews, like Russell Martin used possession stats, to deflect attention away from the fact we aren't winning games with actual goals. To be fair, most managers try any way they can to put a positive spin on poor results in their interviews, but it sounds increasingly risible, the closer they get to being sacked. [Post edited 20 Oct 11:11]
| |
| |
| XG score on 11:47 - Oct 20 with 325 views | Ifonly |
I do find it hilarious how many people say that stats like xG are a wate of time and take pride in being ignorant and then say, oh why can't we be successful like Brighton or Brentford? Well, duh. They are successful because they embraced stats long ago. Successful sports betting is all about analysing stats and the owners of those clubs took those insights to build successful clubs.
xG is one of many useful stats. It tells you how many goals should have been scored with average finishing, average luck etc. In one game, it doesn't tell you all that much because the stats can't tell you the reason e.g. the keeper might have made some worldie saves. But over a season it tells you a lot.
We've played enough games this season to see some meaning in the data:
https://footystats.org/england/championship/xg
This table shows xG for and against, compared to actual goals scored and conceded. Press on xGD (expected goal difference) and that shows that with average finishing and average goalkeeping we would be second in the table now. But we have conceded too many goals compared to the chances we allowed the opposition and not scored enough compared to the quality of chances we created.
That tells you that if we just had an average goalkeeper and average strikers, we would be second in the table now (approx), hence those are the positions we really need to address. One of them has been partially addressed already by replacing Bazunu, but a new striker will only arrive in January at the earliest. Maybe the coaching team can improve our current strikers but that's difficult.
Some people will say, oh we knew that anyway, but the stats are useful confirmation if nothing else and if you use all of the data that the clubs will have, it will tell you a lot more. | | | |
| XG score on 12:34 - Oct 20 with 278 views | DorsetIan |
| XG score on 11:47 - Oct 20 by Ifonly |
I do find it hilarious how many people say that stats like xG are a wate of time and take pride in being ignorant and then say, oh why can't we be successful like Brighton or Brentford? Well, duh. They are successful because they embraced stats long ago. Successful sports betting is all about analysing stats and the owners of those clubs took those insights to build successful clubs.
xG is one of many useful stats. It tells you how many goals should have been scored with average finishing, average luck etc. In one game, it doesn't tell you all that much because the stats can't tell you the reason e.g. the keeper might have made some worldie saves. But over a season it tells you a lot.
We've played enough games this season to see some meaning in the data:
https://footystats.org/england/championship/xg
This table shows xG for and against, compared to actual goals scored and conceded. Press on xGD (expected goal difference) and that shows that with average finishing and average goalkeeping we would be second in the table now. But we have conceded too many goals compared to the chances we allowed the opposition and not scored enough compared to the quality of chances we created.
That tells you that if we just had an average goalkeeper and average strikers, we would be second in the table now (approx), hence those are the positions we really need to address. One of them has been partially addressed already by replacing Bazunu, but a new striker will only arrive in January at the earliest. Maybe the coaching team can improve our current strikers but that's difficult.
Some people will say, oh we knew that anyway, but the stats are useful confirmation if nothing else and if you use all of the data that the clubs will have, it will tell you a lot more. |
Is that why we've been waiting so long to buy a striker, we needed a critical mass of xG data to confirm the bleedin' obvious?
What do the stats say about the managerial appointments made by Solak so far?
Have we got enough data yet for him to conclude that he's not very good at this and sell up?
I'm now wondering how Brain Clough managed to get a get a team promoted, win the league and then two European Cups? That stats that guy must have had. | |
| |
| XG score on 13:01 - Oct 20 with 248 views | Ifonly |
| XG score on 12:34 - Oct 20 by DorsetIan |
Is that why we've been waiting so long to buy a striker, we needed a critical mass of xG data to confirm the bleedin' obvious?
What do the stats say about the managerial appointments made by Solak so far?
Have we got enough data yet for him to conclude that he's not very good at this and sell up?
I'm now wondering how Brain Clough managed to get a get a team promoted, win the league and then two European Cups? That stats that guy must have had. |
It tells you that Will Still isn't nearly as bad as many say. As the linked table says (which according to you is bleeding obvious), with just average strikers and an average keeper we would be second. So, how much of our place in the championship is WS's fault?
Solak has no football experience so he relied on Ankersen. Solak recognised the incredible achievements at Brentford and thought that Ankersen could bring that to Saints. Unfortunately, without the stats database that Phil Giles created, Ankersen is worse than useless. The reality is that Ankersen was nothing to do with the success at Brentford. Hence the parting of the ways and results since.
They didn't have stats in Clough's day, but Clough was smart enough to know he needed the 70s equivalent - a guy called Peter Taylor. [Post edited 20 Oct 13:04]
| | | |
| XG score on 13:48 - Oct 20 with 214 views | DorsetIan |
| XG score on 13:01 - Oct 20 by Ifonly |
It tells you that Will Still isn't nearly as bad as many say. As the linked table says (which according to you is bleeding obvious), with just average strikers and an average keeper we would be second. So, how much of our place in the championship is WS's fault?
Solak has no football experience so he relied on Ankersen. Solak recognised the incredible achievements at Brentford and thought that Ankersen could bring that to Saints. Unfortunately, without the stats database that Phil Giles created, Ankersen is worse than useless. The reality is that Ankersen was nothing to do with the success at Brentford. Hence the parting of the ways and results since.
They didn't have stats in Clough's day, but Clough was smart enough to know he needed the 70s equivalent - a guy called Peter Taylor. [Post edited 20 Oct 13:04]
|
My point is that we can sit in the stands and see what's going on.
As Peter Taylor did.
And Will Still's team is not impressing so far. | |
| |
| XG score on 14:53 - Oct 20 with 158 views | Ifonly |
| XG score on 13:48 - Oct 20 by DorsetIan |
My point is that we can sit in the stands and see what's going on.
As Peter Taylor did.
And Will Still's team is not impressing so far. |
Are you saying that the xG data is "bleeding obvious" or wrong? It can't be both, so which is it?
If the data is about right, then WS is doing well. The data says that based on chances created v. chances conceded we are the 2nd best team in the league. It is only the final finish and the final save that have let us down. Do you blame WS for the skills of Bazunu and Archer?
In my view, about the only thing he should be blamed for is that he should have recognised the weaknesses in the squad sooner and pushed to strengthen in those areas. He didn't so that's down to him. But, he didn't have much time to do that so it's understandable.
Since then, the data says that he's done well. We've created lots of good chances and not conceded many. There's not a lot more that he can do with the current squad. I'm not saying that he's the best thing since sliced bread, but we need to get over the frustration and look at the big picture, including the data. He may turn out to be a failure (no one knows after 10 games) but, so far, the data says he's doing pretty well with the things that are under his control. | | | |
| XG score on 16:39 - Oct 20 with 79 views | DorsetIan |
| XG score on 14:53 - Oct 20 by Ifonly |
Are you saying that the xG data is "bleeding obvious" or wrong? It can't be both, so which is it?
If the data is about right, then WS is doing well. The data says that based on chances created v. chances conceded we are the 2nd best team in the league. It is only the final finish and the final save that have let us down. Do you blame WS for the skills of Bazunu and Archer?
In my view, about the only thing he should be blamed for is that he should have recognised the weaknesses in the squad sooner and pushed to strengthen in those areas. He didn't so that's down to him. But, he didn't have much time to do that so it's understandable.
Since then, the data says that he's done well. We've created lots of good chances and not conceded many. There's not a lot more that he can do with the current squad. I'm not saying that he's the best thing since sliced bread, but we need to get over the frustration and look at the big picture, including the data. He may turn out to be a failure (no one knows after 10 games) but, so far, the data says he's doing pretty well with the things that are under his control. |
My 'bleedin' obvious' point was only about needing a striker (and, yes, a goalkeeper too).
But if the stats are saying that apart from that Still is doing well, then they there is something wrong with them, because I just don't see that.
For me, the team, as a team, doesn't seem to know what it's meant to be doing. There's just no fluency or consistent style to it.
It's an instinct, I know. An instinct as against statistical data. But you know what they say about statistics and I'll trust myself on this until we start winning and then I will eat my words and will be very happy to. | |
| |
| XG score on 18:21 - Oct 20 with 48 views | Ifonly |
| XG score on 16:39 - Oct 20 by DorsetIan |
My 'bleedin' obvious' point was only about needing a striker (and, yes, a goalkeeper too).
But if the stats are saying that apart from that Still is doing well, then they there is something wrong with them, because I just don't see that.
For me, the team, as a team, doesn't seem to know what it's meant to be doing. There's just no fluency or consistent style to it.
It's an instinct, I know. An instinct as against statistical data. But you know what they say about statistics and I'll trust myself on this until we start winning and then I will eat my words and will be very happy to. |
Yes, I agree there isn't much fluency, although it was better on Saturday. I can see your point, but to me it's not surprising with the number of changes to the team. People criticise him for making these changes, but should he just carry on with players that are failing? Should Bazunu, Stephens and Damian Downs still be in the team? He's had to make changes and experiment with the shape and that means a lack of fluency. Stewart being injured is also a big factor because you need a completely different style of play if you only have small forwards who can't win headers.
But despite all that, unless the data is completely wrong (it isn't) then we are still creating chances for ourselves and preventing chances for the opposition. All the rest of it: style, fluency, consistency etc. doesn't matter if we are creating chances and stopping the opposition, and that is what is happening.
The only thing that matters more is the final step of converting our chances and stopping the opposition from converting theirs. He's reduced the goals against us by making changes at the back, but increasing our goals scored may need to wait until we can buy a centre forward. | | | |
| XG score on 18:33 - Oct 20 with 32 views | DorsetIan |
| XG score on 18:21 - Oct 20 by Ifonly |
Yes, I agree there isn't much fluency, although it was better on Saturday. I can see your point, but to me it's not surprising with the number of changes to the team. People criticise him for making these changes, but should he just carry on with players that are failing? Should Bazunu, Stephens and Damian Downs still be in the team? He's had to make changes and experiment with the shape and that means a lack of fluency. Stewart being injured is also a big factor because you need a completely different style of play if you only have small forwards who can't win headers.
But despite all that, unless the data is completely wrong (it isn't) then we are still creating chances for ourselves and preventing chances for the opposition. All the rest of it: style, fluency, consistency etc. doesn't matter if we are creating chances and stopping the opposition, and that is what is happening.
The only thing that matters more is the final step of converting our chances and stopping the opposition from converting theirs. He's reduced the goals against us by making changes at the back, but increasing our goals scored may need to wait until we can buy a centre forward. |
Fair enough.
Your optimism is encouraging and I know I am also prejudiced against Still because of his age and because none of the other under-qualified recent managers came good.
I agree that we look solid defensively. But then I would hope so playing 5 at the back and two more sitting in front of them!
Let's see how it goes and what the XG is tomorrow night. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
