I must admit that Blooms mentioning xG made me smile, as a regular critic of 'statball'. But in true 'TACRITE' style, I'm enjoying the fact that we see more of the ball these days, and our style of play in general, and, of course, the stats which show the evolution over time.
I would, however, still love a poster of the infamous Sky stats graphic shown during that Play-off final... Or at least, to see a printout in full view behind @bluntphil when he's interviewing on the couch for WanderersTV - along with the brilliant other memorabilia he has there.
Matt using or mentioning xG is fine because it’s a stat he can do something with. It’s giving him information that he can use to inform the squad or adapt training.
Same for the stat nerds that have no intention of actually watching a game. It gives a little bit of shade to the corners of the black and white of the traditional stats.
For the average fan thats watched a game, it’s still an absolutely pointless discussion point and it doesn’t give you any more info than what you see with your eyes.
I think someone said xG only measures shots too, so you could have a lot of amazing crosses that flash through the corridor of uncertainty and just miss the striker's toes which would not count towards xG (if I remember correctly), when in reality they were a lot more likely to be a goal than that long range shot which did move the xG-ometer.
I am not dissing it either - I find the analytical talk interesting, as I have no great comprehension of the finer points of tactics and analyis myself.
I would have to disagree strongly with your last point, though – our eyes deceive us, so any tool to help us quantify and verify what we *think* we've seen is useful.
I quite like stats. Especially watching British football on American TV which includes “box penetrations” and everyone keeps a straight face. XG to me though, still feels so subjective as to be akin to going through Van Gogh’s paintings giving each a score out of 100 for “artness”, and then claiming it’s factual and the sunflowers should go in the bin as not art enough.
Without advanced analysis we would probably not have the likes of Brighton doing what they are doing, too. It is a way to level the playing field a little for smaller clubs who know what they are looking for.
Yeah, it's not perfect (find me a metric that is!), but it adds another level of insight – which, whether someone is a 'statto' or not, is a good thing.
Maybe. But when you take a lot of the emotion, feeling and passion out of a game of football and replace it with stats , what do end up being, or looking like?
I mean, what are you trying to prove when you bring stats into a conversation down the pub/on a forum to show you saw the game?
That some how your view of the game is more right than Johnny Lovesfootball because your xG stat says Team B should have scored more? “ Well ackchyually I think you’ll find…”
Not everything has to be sterile and cut down to cold hard facts and numbers. Sometimes your view and how you saw a game of football is vastly more interesting and certainly provokes more conversation
Don’t worry, I have absolutely no idea how it’s calculated. I assume it’s something along the lines of number of times Ally McCoist says “he’s got to score there, he’s got to score”, plus the number of times Jonathan Pearce says “it would have been easier to score”.
I do have a vague recollection of you explaining the actual method to me before (sorry for forgetting), but if I remember correctly the datapoints that it’s calculated on are not all possible datapoints - the decision on which to include and which to ignore is therefore subjective, and thus xG is subjective. I’m neither for or against it, I’m just against it being presented as fact.
Wanging on about XG if you're in the pub, or a hackneyed old ex pro talking BS on the telly because you have no actual job skills and an ex wife, is often pretty dull but there's some good stuff if it's put together well, certain things are notable, like the fact your opponent conceded every corner they have faced in the last few weeks, and they can make for a good insight into what a team might be like, ironically like @ReturnToSenda used to do. Bring back the previews I say.
It's a bit like dull TV, you can always turn it off and do something else instead if it's not for you.
And I think we’ve previously agreed that it’s an extremely useful metric for managers, coaches, analysts etc. but far less so for a caption on Match of the Day. Out of interest, at our level is it calculated in real time? Like, does Blooms have access to that information on an iPad in the technical area during the match?
If I watch live football on the telly, I tune in at kick off, do something else at half time and switch off within minutes of the end.
If I watch MOTD, it’s recorded and I forward through all analysis and interviews, unless there’s been a big punch up or similar.
So I’m not much interested in analysis and stats, which is why after almost 40 years of watching the game, I am mystified by even basic formation talk. I am genuinely more likely to remember a game based on whether a partridge deposited its load on a supporter’s head than any actual result.
In a rather long winded way, I’m trying to say that we all see the game differently and neither way is wrong. Some will get joy from stats, others from the more emotional side of the game. The well adjusted will probably get something from both (I’m not in that group).
At the risk of further stats opprobrium, I saw a post on the Trotters forum which claimed that Wycombe have scored more goals from set pieces than any other L1 team, and also conceded the most from open play.
It's calculated from thousands of previous chances from the same position (a good xG model will be based on coordinates). Then you have post-shot xG, which takes into account the actual quality of the finish (or not). It's not perfect, and plenty of (probably most) fans won't be interested, but it's been an invaluable innovation for many in and around the game.
In the stats v non-stats debate I liken it to listening to music.
As a non-musician I can listen to something like, for example, Eleanor Rigby and enjoy it for what it is. I can then be informed and enlightened to some degree by someone who knows enough to tell me that part of the way it makes me feel is due to it being in a minor key. My eyes do however glaze over when it gets to the next level of “oh and it was recorded on a ….” although I get that that level of detail can inform debate among musicians.
I like reading about the 'technical' side of recording, but most of it goes over my head as I'm not a musician (I just listened to that very song, as it happens!).
But when someone says "I feel at my best listening to the MP3 file on a tinny mono earphone" that is a valid thing for them to say because it how they feel whatever the music expert say about compression ratios etc..
Comments
This is how our pass completion has 'progressed' so far this season
And this is the same but just in the opposition half... Probably better to look at it in terms of this season vs last, tbh!
I must admit that Blooms mentioning xG made me smile, as a regular critic of 'statball'. But in true 'TACRITE' style, I'm enjoying the fact that we see more of the ball these days, and our style of play in general, and, of course, the stats which show the evolution over time.
I would, however, still love a poster of the infamous Sky stats graphic shown during that Play-off final... Or at least, to see a printout in full view behind @bluntphil when he's interviewing on the couch for WanderersTV - along with the brilliant other memorabilia he has there.
Matt using or mentioning xG is fine because it’s a stat he can do something with. It’s giving him information that he can use to inform the squad or adapt training.
Same for the stat nerds that have no intention of actually watching a game. It gives a little bit of shade to the corners of the black and white of the traditional stats.
For the average fan thats watched a game, it’s still an absolutely pointless discussion point and it doesn’t give you any more info than what you see with your eyes.
I think someone said xG only measures shots too, so you could have a lot of amazing crosses that flash through the corridor of uncertainty and just miss the striker's toes which would not count towards xG (if I remember correctly), when in reality they were a lot more likely to be a goal than that long range shot which did move the xG-ometer.
I am not dissing it either - I find the analytical talk interesting, as I have no great comprehension of the finer points of tactics and analyis myself.
You don't have to like it at all, but I've never understood the hate it gets. It's not an attack on the game!
I would have to disagree strongly with your last point, though – our eyes deceive us, so any tool to help us quantify and verify what we *think* we've seen is useful.
I quite like stats. Especially watching British football on American TV which includes “box penetrations” and everyone keeps a straight face. XG to me though, still feels so subjective as to be akin to going through Van Gogh’s paintings giving each a score out of 100 for “artness”, and then claiming it’s factual and the sunflowers should go in the bin as not art enough.
Without advanced analysis we would probably not have the likes of Brighton doing what they are doing, too. It is a way to level the playing field a little for smaller clubs who know what they are looking for.
Yeah, it's not perfect (find me a metric that is!), but it adds another level of insight – which, whether someone is a 'statto' or not, is a good thing.
I don't mean this to sound patronising, but do you know how xG is calculated? Again, it's not perfect, but there is a good level of objectivity to it.
At this point, you sound like this guy:
“…your eyes deceive you and my precious precious stats tell me more than being at the game ever could”
I've got a bit more hair, but otherwise pretty accurate
Ok, now you're just being a dick
Thanks for this. Probably the take away though is that we pass better when we are playing against 10 men!
Maybe. But when you take a lot of the emotion, feeling and passion out of a game of football and replace it with stats , what do end up being, or looking like?
I mean, what are you trying to prove when you bring stats into a conversation down the pub/on a forum to show you saw the game?
That some how your view of the game is more right than Johnny Lovesfootball because your xG stat says Team B should have scored more? “ Well ackchyually I think you’ll find…”
Not everything has to be sterile and cut down to cold hard facts and numbers. Sometimes your view and how you saw a game of football is vastly more interesting and certainly provokes more conversation
Don’t worry, I have absolutely no idea how it’s calculated. I assume it’s something along the lines of number of times Ally McCoist says “he’s got to score there, he’s got to score”, plus the number of times Jonathan Pearce says “it would have been easier to score”.
I do have a vague recollection of you explaining the actual method to me before (sorry for forgetting), but if I remember correctly the datapoints that it’s calculated on are not all possible datapoints - the decision on which to include and which to ignore is therefore subjective, and thus xG is subjective. I’m neither for or against it, I’m just against it being presented as fact.
Bit OTT no?
Wanging on about XG if you're in the pub, or a hackneyed old ex pro talking BS on the telly because you have no actual job skills and an ex wife, is often pretty dull but there's some good stuff if it's put together well, certain things are notable, like the fact your opponent conceded every corner they have faced in the last few weeks, and they can make for a good insight into what a team might be like, ironically like @ReturnToSenda used to do. Bring back the previews I say.
It's a bit like dull TV, you can always turn it off and do something else instead if it's not for you.
And I think we’ve previously agreed that it’s an extremely useful metric for managers, coaches, analysts etc. but far less so for a caption on Match of the Day. Out of interest, at our level is it calculated in real time? Like, does Blooms have access to that information on an iPad in the technical area during the match?
If I watch live football on the telly, I tune in at kick off, do something else at half time and switch off within minutes of the end.
If I watch MOTD, it’s recorded and I forward through all analysis and interviews, unless there’s been a big punch up or similar.
So I’m not much interested in analysis and stats, which is why after almost 40 years of watching the game, I am mystified by even basic formation talk. I am genuinely more likely to remember a game based on whether a partridge deposited its load on a supporter’s head than any actual result.
In a rather long winded way, I’m trying to say that we all see the game differently and neither way is wrong. Some will get joy from stats, others from the more emotional side of the game. The well adjusted will probably get something from both (I’m not in that group).
At the risk of further stats opprobrium, I saw a post on the Trotters forum which claimed that Wycombe have scored more goals from set pieces than any other L1 team, and also conceded the most from open play.
Take a bow, Mr Leahy.
It's calculated from thousands of previous chances from the same position (a good xG model will be based on coordinates). Then you have post-shot xG, which takes into account the actual quality of the finish (or not). It's not perfect, and plenty of (probably most) fans won't be interested, but it's been an invaluable innovation for many in and around the game.
But yeah, presenting it as straight facts is wrong - it has to be in context.
In the stats v non-stats debate I liken it to listening to music.
As a non-musician I can listen to something like, for example, Eleanor Rigby and enjoy it for what it is. I can then be informed and enlightened to some degree by someone who knows enough to tell me that part of the way it makes me feel is due to it being in a minor key. My eyes do however glaze over when it gets to the next level of “oh and it was recorded on a ….” although I get that that level of detail can inform debate among musicians.
I like reading about the 'technical' side of recording, but most of it goes over my head as I'm not a musician (I just listened to that very song, as it happens!).
@bookertease yes...I glaze over when musos say things like '...yeah the songs were a bit crap but the production on that album.'
Thanks for explaining yet again.
We're closing in on a vinyl vs CD vs MP3 debate here - I can feel it coming!
But when someone says "I feel at my best listening to the MP3 file on a tinny mono earphone" that is a valid thing for them to say because it how they feel whatever the music expert say about compression ratios etc..
I mean... I love collecting records, but I think the whole 'vinyl sounds better' thing is nonsense a lot of the time. But maybe that's just my ears 🤷