I'm not convinced on the eyesight of Wimbledon fans I must say! They were singing 'Same old Wycombe, always cheating' after Vokes has almost had his legged snapped in 2 by their young no.10. He was quite fortunate to get away with a yellow for that challenge.
@Wycombe85 - I think that the fuss about Thompson’s handball was that he had already been booked earlier in the game. You are quite right in that the handball itself was not a red card offence, but it was a yellow card offence and I think the ref would have given it if Curtis had not already been booked, so I think we can consider ourselves lucky not to go down to ten men at that point.
@Wycombe85 said:
I'm not convinced on the eyesight of Wimbledon fans I must say! They were singing 'Same old Wycombe, always cheating' after Vokes has almost had his legged snapped in 2 by their young no.10. He was quite fortunate to get away with a yellow for that challenge.
Poor old Wimbledon fans, getting old, set in their ways, losing their eyesight and letting Bayo go. I hope they beat franchise every time they play them, but I don't wish them well against us.
I have to say I agree with him and found the negativity from the bit of the Valley End I was on pretty disappointing (especially moans when we didn't chuck it in the mixer at the first opportunity and looked to keep working a better opportunity). While on the other hand good play and less glamorous defensive work was met with near total silence. For all the moaning about acoustics making our male voice choir sound like five pissheads singing out of tune, how about getting fundamental basics like that right first?
It was a frustrating first half, though we looked like we were just about to click any moment - something that is less likely to happen if you get on the backs of our players up against one of the best organised pressing I've seen this season.
Not just the frothing at the mouth every time a player has the audacity to take a bad touch, but I always forget just how bad the view is too. I see what people mean about the LEDs at the far end now.
@ReturnToSenda said:
Every time I swap to the terrace, I'm reminded of why I rarely watch from there - and yesterday was no different.
I asked the club to change my season ticket from the Terrace to the Frank Adams last week (mainly the lack of a full pitch view was annoying me). Bit of a pricey switch but worth it already in my opinion
I think some of the negative crowd reaction is down to a different level of expectation. I didn’t feel like the crowd got on the team’s back en masse, just individuals (like on this board).
On the fascinating subject of stats, the average football fan would surely understand the ‘dangerous attacks’ stat better than any xG nonsense...
@TheOldMan ah ok! I was completely unaware he'd been booked earlier. Yes, in that case he was very fortunate not to receive a 2nd yellow. Similar situation to the Burton lad who dodged a 2nd yellow in the week.
Agree with the comments about the crowd being moany yesterday. The atmosphere was great after we equalised and were pushing for the winner, but you'd hope the crowd would get behind the team more, when they're having an off day. It's not as if it's very often we're that poor. That's actually pretty much as good as I've ever seen us play against Wimbledon in a league game! Probably says more about how we usually play against them as much as anything else.
@LeedsBlue said:
I think some of the negative crowd reaction is down to a different level of expectation. I didn’t feel like the crowd got on the team’s back en masse, just individuals (like on this board).
On the fascinating subject of stats, the average football fan would surely understand the ‘dangerous attacks’ stat better than any xG nonsense...
xG is not hard to understand. Here, let one of our own take you through it!
@LeedsBlue said:
It’s not that I don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand it... but thanks anyway
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that! What is it that makes you call it nonsense, though? I understand if people don't want to use it, but it's a very relevant part of the game.
When I see GMac bamboozling defenders down the left and whipping in a cross I can turn to my mate and say ‘that was a dangerous attack’, but I might struggle to instantly factor in all the elements of a lumbering 40 year old outside the box, being pulled back, and with the keeper off his line but still plenty to do and still be able to turn to my mate and say, “wow, That goal from Bayo had an xG of blah point blah.” And even if I could, my mate would just say “we’re back in this, come on you blues! Anyway, what’s xG?”
I guess that’s what I was saying. You dismissed ‘dangerous attacks’ as a ‘bookie term’ but it’s instantly understood by the average fan.
@LeedsBlue said:
When I see GMac bamboozling defenders down the left and whipping in a cross I can turn to my mate and say ‘that was a dangerous attack’, but I might struggle to instantly factor in all the elements of a lumbering 40 year old outside the box, being pulled back, and with the keeper off his line but still plenty to do and still be able to turn to my mate and say, “wow, That goal from Bayo had an xG of blah point blah.” And even if I could, my mate would just say “we’re back in this, come on you blues! Anyway, what’s xG?”
I guess that’s what I was saying. You dismissed ‘dangerous attacks’ as a ‘bookie term’ but it’s instantly understood by the average fan.
Well, for starters, that's not how xG is meant to be used - it's a long-term metric and I don't pay much attention until 10 games into the season minimum. Unfortunately, mainstream outlets use it in the context of single games, and that just causes confusion and I think turns people against something that's really quite basic if used in the right way.
@LeedsBlue said:
I guess the answer is, there’s a place for both ?
I agree with that - I was just curious as to how 'dangerous attacks' are defined as it seems quite subjective. You can't always quantify domination - and you're always going to get the best idea from watching the game at hand!
We were possibly given a false sense of security in midweek, controlling the midfield has never really been our thing but we got so much joy / so little resistance with our attacking that Curtis and co didn't really look overrun against the brewers. Wimbledon's kids were rapid and came at as full throttle from the off and we couldn't really handle it as we set up.
Let's not forget we've got several players to come back in and there's potential for new players in a couple of weeks.
Vokes isn't doing too badly but as well as better service he might need a rest, not sure how much football he's had in the last couple of years before joining us.
Apart from against the weakest teams, when going more gung-ho is likely to pay off, the only way we can sensibly get GMac-Mehmeti-Hanlan-Vokes into the same team is in a 4-2-3-1 - and in that set-up I'd bring Horgan in for Hanlan, then you have good deliveries from either side. I guess the question is can JJ still play LB? Whenever we've switched to a back four, Obita has stayed on and shifted into that role.
No, but that's where post-shot xG comes in - judges the quality of the finish and then you can look at the difference between the two figures (again, over a sustained period).
For instance, McCleary, off the top of my head, has 6 goals from under 2 xG - but none of us will be surprised by that as we know he's an outrageous finisher.
@ReturnToSenda said:
Apart from against the weakest teams, when going more gung-ho is likely to pay off, the only way we can sensibly get GMac-Mehmeti-Hanlan-Vokes into the same team is in a 4-2-3-1 - and in that set-up I'd bring Horgan in for Hanlan, then you have good deliveries from either side. I guess the question is can JJ still play LB? Whenever we've switched to a back four, Obita has stayed on and shifted into that role.
JJ can play LB with a bit of cover, and can have a rest occasionally, The question is who can be the second in the two if Gape, Scowen, Wheeler are all injured and Pendlebury is not fully fit, hopefully not one we have to answer too often. Needed GMac or Horgan or Mehmeti to cover the back 4 in a way that isn't their natural game. Obita in that role might not be a bad shout occasionally if needed.
The reason xG is not loved is because the game is about goals. There is some value to it in certain circumstances, I.e., when the game is 0-0 and it exemplifies who may be on top but not a lot else. But even then it is not a great indicator as it doesnt take into account the team’s approach. For example, an away team may look to defend deep and soak up pressure for long periods and concede a lot of ‘poor quality’ chances that would add up. The counter attacks may be rare so xG is lower but that is the plan.
The old adage of goals change games is also important - how a game is played will always affected by the goals in it. Wycombe are actually a great example of why xG isn’t that valuable. When we lead a game, we are not particularly interested in extending that lead. We deliberately time waste and manage the game. We are not bothered about scoring more as, most as it’s not my preferred approach, whether you defend a lead or extend a lead the end product will be 3 points. For example, if an away team scores a world class goal on the first minute they then know a clean sheet will result in 3 points. The game plan would be to soak up pressure and even a team defending perfectly will give up some poor chances which add up. The home team would ‘win’ on xG despite it being a comfortable 3 points.
Stats are an interesting indicator especially over a long period of time and, for example, the way you present them is interesting and informative, but they are only part of the picture. Football is a complex game made up of so many team and individual elements and just cannot be condensed into a few numbers.
@ReturnToSenda said:
For instance, McCleary, off the top of my head, has 6 goals from under 2 xG - but none of us will be surprised by that as we know he's an outrageous finisher.
Comments
The second goal was so frustrating.
Taf tried to run it out when clearly it had too far to run, should have pumped it out for a throw.
Then McCarthy seemed not to notice their striker coming in behind him and got beaten for the header.
Great response though and nice to see Kaikai having an impact.
Was reading tweets from Wimbledon fans saying sulley was a soft one. They have very good eyes I must say from down the other end of the pitch!
I'm not convinced on the eyesight of Wimbledon fans I must say! They were singing 'Same old Wycombe, always cheating' after Vokes has almost had his legged snapped in 2 by their young no.10. He was quite fortunate to get away with a yellow for that challenge.
Especially since he should earlier have been booked for diving
@Wycombe85 - I think that the fuss about Thompson’s handball was that he had already been booked earlier in the game. You are quite right in that the handball itself was not a red card offence, but it was a yellow card offence and I think the ref would have given it if Curtis had not already been booked, so I think we can consider ourselves lucky not to go down to ten men at that point.
Poor old Wimbledon fans, getting old, set in their ways, losing their eyesight and letting Bayo go. I hope they beat franchise every time they play them, but I don't wish them well against us.
Interesting tweet from GMac
I have to say I agree with him and found the negativity from the bit of the Valley End I was on pretty disappointing (especially moans when we didn't chuck it in the mixer at the first opportunity and looked to keep working a better opportunity). While on the other hand good play and less glamorous defensive work was met with near total silence. For all the moaning about acoustics making our male voice choir sound like five pissheads singing out of tune, how about getting fundamental basics like that right first?
It was a frustrating first half, though we looked like we were just about to click any moment - something that is less likely to happen if you get on the backs of our players up against one of the best organised pressing I've seen this season.
Every time I swap to the terrace, I'm reminded of why I rarely watch from there - and yesterday was no different.
Not just the frothing at the mouth every time a player has the audacity to take a bad touch, but I always forget just how bad the view is too. I see what people mean about the LEDs at the far end now.
I asked the club to change my season ticket from the Terrace to the Frank Adams last week (mainly the lack of a full pitch view was annoying me). Bit of a pricey switch but worth it already in my opinion
I think some of the negative crowd reaction is down to a different level of expectation. I didn’t feel like the crowd got on the team’s back en masse, just individuals (like on this board).
On the fascinating subject of stats, the average football fan would surely understand the ‘dangerous attacks’ stat better than any xG nonsense...
@TheOldMan ah ok! I was completely unaware he'd been booked earlier. Yes, in that case he was very fortunate not to receive a 2nd yellow. Similar situation to the Burton lad who dodged a 2nd yellow in the week.
Agree with the comments about the crowd being moany yesterday. The atmosphere was great after we equalised and were pushing for the winner, but you'd hope the crowd would get behind the team more, when they're having an off day. It's not as if it's very often we're that poor. That's actually pretty much as good as I've ever seen us play against Wimbledon in a league game! Probably says more about how we usually play against them as much as anything else.
xG is not hard to understand. Here, let one of our own take you through it!
It’s not that I don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand it... but thanks anyway
Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that! What is it that makes you call it nonsense, though? I understand if people don't want to use it, but it's a very relevant part of the game.
When I see GMac bamboozling defenders down the left and whipping in a cross I can turn to my mate and say ‘that was a dangerous attack’, but I might struggle to instantly factor in all the elements of a lumbering 40 year old outside the box, being pulled back, and with the keeper off his line but still plenty to do and still be able to turn to my mate and say, “wow, That goal from Bayo had an xG of blah point blah.” And even if I could, my mate would just say “we’re back in this, come on you blues! Anyway, what’s xG?”
I guess that’s what I was saying. You dismissed ‘dangerous attacks’ as a ‘bookie term’ but it’s instantly understood by the average fan.
I guess the answer is, there’s a place for both ?
I'm with @LeedsBlue , maybe my age but I find all this xg stuff incredibly boring
Well, for starters, that's not how xG is meant to be used - it's a long-term metric and I don't pay much attention until 10 games into the season minimum. Unfortunately, mainstream outlets use it in the context of single games, and that just causes confusion and I think turns people against something that's really quite basic if used in the right way.
I agree with that - I was just curious as to how 'dangerous attacks' are defined as it seems quite subjective. You can't always quantify domination - and you're always going to get the best idea from watching the game at hand!
We were possibly given a false sense of security in midweek, controlling the midfield has never really been our thing but we got so much joy / so little resistance with our attacking that Curtis and co didn't really look overrun against the brewers. Wimbledon's kids were rapid and came at as full throttle from the off and we couldn't really handle it as we set up.
Let's not forget we've got several players to come back in and there's potential for new players in a couple of weeks.
Vokes isn't doing too badly but as well as better service he might need a rest, not sure how much football he's had in the last couple of years before joining us.
Apart from against the weakest teams, when going more gung-ho is likely to pay off, the only way we can sensibly get GMac-Mehmeti-Hanlan-Vokes into the same team is in a 4-2-3-1 - and in that set-up I'd bring Horgan in for Hanlan, then you have good deliveries from either side. I guess the question is can JJ still play LB? Whenever we've switched to a back four, Obita has stayed on and shifted into that role.
xG doesn't take into account which player a chance falls to does it? This seems a major flaw to me.
The same chance falls to Mark West and Richard Harris and we all know that the "xG" is very different indeed
No, but that's where post-shot xG comes in - judges the quality of the finish and then you can look at the difference between the two figures (again, over a sustained period).
For instance, McCleary, off the top of my head, has 6 goals from under 2 xG - but none of us will be surprised by that as we know he's an outrageous finisher.
JJ can play LB with a bit of cover, and can have a rest occasionally, The question is who can be the second in the two if Gape, Scowen, Wheeler are all injured and Pendlebury is not fully fit, hopefully not one we have to answer too often. Needed GMac or Horgan or Mehmeti to cover the back 4 in a way that isn't their natural game. Obita in that role might not be a bad shout occasionally if needed.
I still think McCarthy is an option - did well there v Stoke last season
Yeah, I think point @LeedsBlue is probably making is that none of us really need that to know that Mark West is a better finisher than Richard Harris
At what point of "outperforming your xG" (a horrific phrase that has come into the vernacular) do you start to wonder if your expectations are wrong?
The reason xG is not loved is because the game is about goals. There is some value to it in certain circumstances, I.e., when the game is 0-0 and it exemplifies who may be on top but not a lot else. But even then it is not a great indicator as it doesnt take into account the team’s approach. For example, an away team may look to defend deep and soak up pressure for long periods and concede a lot of ‘poor quality’ chances that would add up. The counter attacks may be rare so xG is lower but that is the plan.
The old adage of goals change games is also important - how a game is played will always affected by the goals in it. Wycombe are actually a great example of why xG isn’t that valuable. When we lead a game, we are not particularly interested in extending that lead. We deliberately time waste and manage the game. We are not bothered about scoring more as, most as it’s not my preferred approach, whether you defend a lead or extend a lead the end product will be 3 points. For example, if an away team scores a world class goal on the first minute they then know a clean sheet will result in 3 points. The game plan would be to soak up pressure and even a team defending perfectly will give up some poor chances which add up. The home team would ‘win’ on xG despite it being a comfortable 3 points.
Stats are an interesting indicator especially over a long period of time and, for example, the way you present them is interesting and informative, but they are only part of the picture. Football is a complex game made up of so many team and individual elements and just cannot be condensed into a few numbers.
This is exactly my point! It is a very blunt tool