What Our Opponents' Fans Are Saying About Us 19/20

[spids]

xG is a really useful statistic. It allows the measurement of the quality of chances a team are creating during games (and also conceding). Under Poch in the last 8 months we were increasingly conceding good chances and creating fewer and fewer ourselves, to the point that nearly every game could be lost. For us to go away to an in-form team and only concede 0.8 xG (translated to 1 goal) shows how Mourinho has improved us defensively around our penalty area. For example, for all of Wolves possession and width they only had 5 out of 22 completed crosses all game.

 

[dagraham]

xG is a really useful statistic. It allows the measurement of the quality of chances a team are creating during games (and also conceding). Under Poch in the last 8 months we were increasingly conceding good chances and creating fewer and fewer ourselves, to the point that nearly every game could be lost. For us to go away to an in-form team and only concede 0.8 xG (translated to 1 goal) shows how Mourinho has improved us defensively around our penalty area. For example, for all of Wolves possession and width they only had 5 out of 22 completed crosses all game.

Could that not also be about a lack of quality balls into the box as much as our defenders being in good positions?

I didn’t see the game so difficult for me to comment, but although stats are helpful you need to use your eyes as well.

 

[Flashspur]

Leicester don’t like us because of the 61 FA Cup final and the 99 Worthington Cup. I have no clue what Wolves problem is. Most of their fans I have met where sound. That was a fair few years ago though when they were not in the top division.

cough EUFA Cup Final...Martin Chivers etc

 

[spursfan77]

Quite the contrary. xG is brilliant. There is a certain randomness to goals - xG evaluates this. Obviously difficult to objectively evaluate every chance, but it very often gives a much better overview of the game than goals do.

With AI I could see xG becoming more and more important for coaches, scouts etc.

See, this is where the argument for it falls down for me. The best overview of a game is that the team who wins has scored the most goals. Goals are the most important stat. Playing well and losing but winning the xG battle means fuck all.

 

[Marty]

cough EUFA Cup Final...Martin Chivers etc

I find hating other teams for cup final defeats to them is just bizarre. I don't hate Coventry for '87 or Blackburn for '02, and there are thousands of reasons to dislike Liverpool but losing two finals to them doesn't come into it.

Yet City, Wolves and Leicester all seem to have chips on their shoulder (originally) solely because they lost cup finals to us. I don't get it.

 

[Flashspur]

Agree but it was one of the few highlights for them since their heyday. They were a big club once.

 

[Hakkz]

See, this is where the argument for it falls down for me. The best overview of a game is that the team who wins has scored the most goals. Goals are the most important stat. Playing well and losing but winning the xG battle means fuck all.

As an example, our game against City (2-2), the xG numbers tells the story of that game much better than the result does. Goals are goals, but if you want a more honest indicator of who was more likely to win then xG is better. But it's just that, an indicator.

 

[dudu]

Quite the contrary. xG is brilliant. There is a certain randomness to goals - xG evaluates this. Obviously difficult to objectively evaluate every chance, but it very often gives a much better overview of the game than goals do.

With AI I could see xG becoming more and more important for coaches, scouts etc.

The randomness aspect is backed up by the fact the goals actually scored in the game were the ones with extremely low probability.

There are still a lot of factors that need to be considered I feel for this to really be a valuable stand-alone stat. but it is interesting.

 

[dagraham]

As an example, our game against City (2-2), the xG numbers tells the story of that game much better than the result does. Goals are goals, but if you want a more honest indicator of who was more likely to win then xG is better. But it's just that, an indicator.

Agree, but you could come to the same conclusion just watching the game with your eyes.

 

[Hakkz]

Agree, but you could come to the same conclusion just watching the game with your eyes.

Well, yeah...

But that's the point of stats.

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

I'll take your word for it.

There are those that use it on Twitter amongst a myriad of other stats to try and objectively analyse football rather than actually watching it, usually coming up with complete guff as the conclusion.

I've read stuff like Harry Kane is a similar level to Danny Ings and Andre Gray - based on stats (obvioulsy not concerned with goals..?!?).

Sucks the joy out of football.

 

[Gassin's finest]

Expected goals? That's a new one for me!!!! How on earth is that measured?!

By how feverishly the beard was stroked by its hipster.

 

[LeSoupeKitchen]

I have a bit of a soft spot for Wolves as I lived and went to University there for a few years ( even had some lectures in the stadium - when I bothered to turn up ). So I’ll always want them to do well.

Having lived in the midlands ( even if it was in a student bubble) I can tell you it’s quite grim, so that might explain why they are a bit moody .

I've lived here my whole life and it's definitely grim which is why I think outside of football people in the midlands generally get on with things. If someone is from the north you always hear about it and how they've beaten the odds to be successful etc. You never really hear sob stories from people from Derby, Walsall, Telford etc.

My personal opinion is that Wolves and Leicester are the only two teams to challenge the top six and so they're the fans we're hearing about. I think we would feel similar towards Everton or Southampton fans if those teams started to challenge.

 

[Shadydan]

What a load of bollocks.

Ok boomer

 

[whitelightwhiteheat]

"Expected goals" is up there with "dribbles completed" as useless fucking statistics. This nonsense has turned football into a game of spreadsheets rather than something to be enjoyed. I get enough spreadsheets in work, fuck that.

 

[TheHoddleWaddle]

I have a bit of a soft spot for Wolves as I lived and went to University there for a few years ( even had some lectures in the stadium - when I bothered to turn up ). So I’ll always want them to do well.

Having lived in the midlands ( even if it was in a student bubble) I can tell you it’s quite grim, so that might explain why they are a bit moody .

I stayed in Coventry, then leamington spa for a year or so. The former is a very different to the latter. Mostly really good lads though, wherever they live. Had a good time up there, most of the fans i met supported Birmingham city / Coventry fans and were very likeable in their self depreciating, pessimistic view of football.

Wolves of old were great. The days of Steve Bull. He was a footballing god to them. I think united wanted to sign him.and he refused. Even had his own beer! Was so loyal, but could have gone on to much higher achievements if he wanted to.

 

[TheHoddleWaddle]

Ok boomer

Oi. I'm not in that bracket! You hipster, stat loving millennial. X

 

[Havre]

See, this is where the argument for it falls down for me. The best overview of a game is that the team who wins has scored the most goals. Goals are the most important stat. Playing well and losing but winning the xG battle means fuck all.

I think someone already mentioned the City-game. Obviously it doesn't change the number of points, but it it was hardly an amazing performance by us just because we managed a draw. xG would modify that. Don't really see the controversy. If you don't care then fine.

 

[Havre]

The randomness aspect is backed up by the fact the goals actually scored in the game were the ones with extremely low probability.

There are still a lot of factors that need to be considered I feel for this to really be a valuable stand-alone stat. but it is interesting.

Absolutely. I don't think there are many suggesting xG give the perfect overview of how a game was "actually" played. Goals scored is very "black and white" xG just provides some gray into the mix.

 

[Stamford]

Quite the contrary. xG is brilliant. There is a certain randomness to goals - xG evaluates this. Obviously difficult to objectively evaluate every chance, but it very often gives a much better overview of the game than goals do.

With AI I could see xG becoming more and more important for coaches, scouts etc.

Its another pointless statistic which people have become obsessed with. Assists being another one which doesn't tell the full picture