Warnock
Warnock
Incredible end to the season in the Championship. Everyone wanking themselves silly over Brentford only for them completely bottle it and lose to Stoke and Barnsley is absolutely glorious.
Cardiff in the playoffs then, I think we should make it past them over 2 legs, we comfortably beat them 2-0 a fortnight ago.
Pulisic is so fucking good
Who went up?
He's incredible
My Liverpool died on that fateful night against Atletico.
He is spellbinding to watch in the way Hazard was.
Ah, West Brom.
Unbelievable last 20 minutes in both games - I can understand Swansea thumping a few past 10-man Reading but for Forest to implode like that is incredible. Swansea come into the playoffs in good form too - they could upset Brentford if they don't shake off those 2 losses.
If I had one piece of advice for Joe Gomez it would be to connect his beard to his hair.
Oh
The absolute ease they concede goals is fascinating.
I couldn’t think of a worse player than Jorginho defending a counter attack
Can these commentators stop making Lallana out to be some fucking 50 year old mascot? He'd walk into every XI outside of City, he's being protected you clueless cunts.
Where is he going, back to Southampton?
lol at all the defenders stopping there and just shouting "KEPA".
https://www.theguardian.com/football...fer-says-klopp
Leicester likely.
Lol at those quotes btw.
There were a few months, I think during the early Klopp years, where Lallana was insanely good, culminating in him taking a penalty for England (wtf?) and being linked with £85m moves to the likes of PSG.
Then he got injured, again, and that was that. I hope he goes somewhere and is good.
Liverpool’s XG was 1.32 to Chelsea’s 2.57. James will be having a fit
The xG from that Trent free kick alone was 1 so I'm not buying that.
All the talk of De Bruyne being a shoe-in for the player of the year (has his season really been that exceptional in, say, the way Slaah's was a few years ago?) makes me wonder why Alexander-Arnold doesn't seem to be in the debate. A phenomenal player and a(nother) phenomenal season.
I didn't see the third Chelsea goal, was it some sort of tap-in? That's the only way they could be hitting those sort of xG numbers (seeing as the other two goals were from about 2 yard out with no 'keeper).
Cause he's a black life.
He is, nominally at least, a defender.
As if we're just gonna start pretending defenders are real footballers, Niko. Fucking behave yourself.
Aye, and a fullback to boot. No chance.
Poor Minamino looks a right billy no mates in all this.
The place I go to for my xG needs tells me it was actually 0.04. I think he might have scored 4 freekicks this season, and I'm fairly sure he hasn't taken 100. It's absolute wank. Van Dijk had Liverpool's best xchance and missed it, if Willian scores the first goal the xG is probably about 0.1 but because the 'keeper saves it and Giroud has a tap in the xG from that suddenly leaps up to 0.7 or something, taking chances is actively punished by the metric.
Christ, xvideos has treated me well but it might be time to switch to Greenwood goal compilations.
Bruno throwing a headbutt, good to see the cunt starting to feel at home.
That last one would be two xGs summed together, the first shot and the rebounded shot
And yeah, probably 1 in 25 of those Trent goals gets scored. Trent scores more than 1 in 25 of that type of shot though, so he outperforms his xG, which is the whole point of the metric
The more I've read into xG the more I like it for what it is. it's properly trained too
Who's the average footballer according to xG? Championship?
As far as I understand it a footballer who earns the same as a nurse has an xG of 0.0 for every shot at goal they take. If they earn twice what a nurse earns it goes to 0.1, and then it multiplies until anyone on over a hundred grand a week should be scoring every shot they attempt.
My complaint is that the metric grossly overvalues 'open goals', and basically assumes all other chances are unlikely to score situations, whereas in reality most goals are not the products of open goal situations, so something seems broken, to me and also that if a player takes a 1 in 10 chance his team suffers on the xG dickheadery, whereas if he scuffs the same chance into the 'keeper but manages to get the rebound in (as an open goal) all of a sudden his team has created a 0.8 goal situation. It feels unbalanced and actually not at all reflective of reality.
I think it's pretty good at measuring what it measures, but I also think that in the context of real football matches/competitions all that it actually tells you is who took their chances best, which you can pretty much glean from watching a game/reading the scoreline in the paper the next morning.
For it to be indicative of much you'd have to be playing a baseball style season to make the sample size massive.
My heart aches when I have to listen to you cunts discuss statistics. Best to just have a ban in place for xG talk on here. One thing Jimmy is right about is it is largely meant for those who didn't actually watch the game, understand the game or were simply too busy tracking planes to do their own cognitive work.
Sample sizes m8, what are they. Stuff like the latter point does rankle with me but the better models will mark Giroud's shot down for being created from a rebound. The whole thing, to me, is about repeatability of process. Giroud positioning himself two yards from goal when the ball drops to him is obviously Good Football.
Single shot xG is obviously useless, single match xG very slightly less so. You've got huge error bars on every data point when looking at individual shots and single game tallies are context ignorant. You really need a season's worth of data for it to be useful, or enough games that the data supports the point you're trying to make natch.
xG is amazing if you make a living betting on football, but I can see why you lot think it's a load of joyless bollocks tbf.
Last edited by -james-; 22-07-2020 at 11:43 PM.
What Dino said. Although many of the complaints above about xg are fair, they're only really valid for that particular xg model and a better xg model will address those concerns.
My whole problem with it is that isn't 38 (or 46) games - the longest meaningful span of matches that you ever have in football - still too small to get anything that meaningful? And do teams not change so much within that span as to make it hard to quantify anyway? September Leicester vs June Leicester is an evolution in itself.
You can build in various adjustments that account for such issues. And on the sample size point, it will never be 100% accurate but you're comfortably looking at over 15,000 data entries for a 38 game season so it isn't an insubstantial amount of data. Anyway, for my model I actually limit the number of games that affect a team's rating due to outdated data not really being representative of current performance (your Leicester example being a good one).
I'd missed Super Frankie Binman's little seethe last night.
Chelsea firmly back in the tactical enigma subset after that shitshow, no savant status yet.
Frank has won everything in the game (except the World Cup, Euros, World Club Cup and the European Super Cup), I would listen to what he has to say.
As some Leeds' fans have pointed out I'm not really sure he's one to be lecturing on winning with good grace.
They spied on him, niko. It besmirches a man's honour, particularly a man of his standing. You can't take that lying down.
I'm in a boring mood but Frankie is about to match David Moyes record breaking season albeit finish in the CL places.
4 Chelsea 37 19 6 12 67 54 +13 63
7 Manchester United 38 19 7 12 64 43 +21 64
Asians largely lack the big dick energy required to flourish in this league. If he'd gone to Bundesliga, he'd be recognised as some talent by now and could maybe have done a Son after a couple seasons of development.
I spend a lot of most days wondering who has the smallest dick in the Premier League. At the moment my best guess is Will Hughes, but I'm open to alternative arguments.
It'll be one of the midgets like Alexis Sanchez.