Rovers vs Reading at Virtual Ewood

[magicalmortensleftpeg]

Tough game tonight. Looking forward to it. To be taken seriously we’ve got to beat an in form team. On paper, Reading have no one particularly special in their ranks but you can’t argue with their start to the season.

Holtby and Elliott should be able to do the damage. Win this, get back into the top 6 and then we can settle in for a big season.

[windymiller7]

9 minutes ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

It seems that this season the Red Button is no longer available for Sky subscribers on the Virgin TV platform. 

My mum & dad have Virgin & my dad watched the Watford game on red button last week with no problems as he couldn't be bothered messing about with iFollow & plugging the laptop into the tv etc.

[Superunknown]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

I do think that Reading may well struggle to last the pace, but I have never really embraced the xG table.

I dont get how you can make the quality of chances created an exact science, you definitely cant.

Doesnt it also assume that everyone has the same ruthlessness in terms of taking those chances created? In that it implies that it will level out, for example if a team outperforms its place in the xG, maybe that is just because they are clinical with the chances they have.

Seems like a bit of a nonsense stat to me unless I am missing something.

I dont get how we are top of the league for it either. I dont feel that in any game so far, even if we have been competitive that we havent got what would be expected on the balance of play.

Its definitely something to take with a pinch of salt, for example a shot taken when a ball is  dollied up to a player 10 yards out has the same xG as a shot when the ball is fizzed in to a player (provided they take it first time) in the same position. Kind of gives a false picture of the event, there's a quite interesting thing a guy called Ben Mayhew (I think) does on twitter where he tracks xG throughout matches. I sometimes check it if it comes up after a rovers game, there was a case a few weeks ago when a massive xG was given to one of our attempts when it was Gallagher at a full stretch to a bouncing ball across the box, there wasn't much he could do with it but because he was only a few yards out and despite the tight angle it garners a very high xG. 

 

[roversfan99]

3 minutes ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I sympathise and as someone who hasn’t financially lost out, it’s hard to properly judge. But the club were in a very difficult situation and made a judgement call. They would have angered people whatever they’d done. I don’t necessarily agree with the approach but equally I haven’t got a much better solution. You have to hope fans don’t take it too personally and can see the wider picture. If people choose to throw away their season tickets, fair enough. But punishing Waggott is only punishing the club.

Surely like many other clubs, put the option that they can either have the ifollow links or a pro-rata refund. You can even mention that ideally to take the links to help the club in the press release, and if cash flow is that tight, which it seemingly isnt, then you can offer the refund deferred onto this season, that way people have been reimbursed and it also acts essentially as a deposit practically guaranteeing a season ticket holder going forward. Its not rocket science, and even taking the moral side out of it, from a business perspective, it is a poor decision, especially longer term. 

[roversfan99]

Just now, Superunknown said:

Its definitely something to take with a pinch of salt, for example a shot taken when a ball is  dollied up to a player 10 yards out has the same xG as a shot when the ball is fizzed in to a player (provided they take it first time) in the same position. Kind of gives a false picture of the event, there's a quite interesting thing a guy called Ben Mayhew (I think) does on twitter where he tracks xG throughout matches. I sometimes check it if it comes up after a rovers game, there was a case a few weeks ago when a massive xG was given to one of our attempts when it was Gallagher at a full stretch to a bouncing ball across the box, there wasn't much he could do with it but because he was only a few yards out and despite the tight angle it garners a very high xG. 

 

Agreed, that is a perfect example.

Also, if a team is "outperforming" or "underperforming" compared to their xG, even assuming that the expected goals statistic is black and white which of course it never can be, it is only considering chances created and not the fact that some teams have better attacking players who will be more clinical than others!

[Superunknown]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

Also, if a team is "outperforming" or "underperforming" compared to their xG, even assuming that the expected goals statistic is black and white which of course it never can be, it is only considering chances created and not the fact that some teams have better attacking players who will be more clinical than others!

Absolutely, its also pretty poor when tracking long shots

[A Northern Horde...]

Reading the Bookies favourites for this but I think we can cause an upset.

 

2-1 Rovers.

[islander200]

6 minutes ago, A Northern Horde... said:

Reading the Bookies favourites for this but I think we can cause an upset.

 

2-1 Rovers.

Which bookies?Most IV see have us at 11/10 or 21/20 while Reading are 11/4

[oldjamfan1]

3 minutes ago, islander200 said:

Which bookies?Most IV see have us at 11/10 or 21/20 while Reading are 11/4

Yeah that's what I would have expected to see, particularly given Reading's relatively poor midweek away record.

[Sparks Rover]

17 minutes ago, A Northern Horde... said:

Reading the Bookies favourites for this but I think we can cause an upset.

 

2-1 Rovers.

No , we are faves, reading odds against.

[Butty]

43 minutes ago, A Northern Horde... said:

Reading the Bookies favourites for this but I think we can cause an upset.

 

2-1 Rovers.

They aren’t on Sky bet, we are just under evens to win where as reading are over 2/1. EDIT: We are even money and reading are 13/5 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Butty

[DavidMailsTightPerm]

I am worried - as I feel far too optimistic about this match. Reading sound a little like us when first relegated under Kean - where results were far better than performances. Let's hope we can put an end to their run.

[den]

Hope that pitch is holding up. It’s not stopped raining for about a month.

[SBlue]

2 hours ago, only2garners said:

Yes, free to ST holders and you should have had a code already. If you're not a ST holder I presume you can pay £10, but it's also on the Sky red button and I believe there is a way to see it through Bet365 as well.

Sky Bet 

 

 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 minutes ago, den said:

Hope that pitch is holding up. It’s not stopped raining for about a month.

I was thinking that. It's hardly stopped raining all day here in Rochdale and we're not that far away.

[superniko]

2 hours ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

It seems that this season the Red Button is no longer available for Sky subscribers on the Virgin TV platform. 

You can try on the Sky Sports app (although i think that has to be Sky subscribers too). Otherwise it's free on the Sky Bet app if you happen to have an account with them.

 

EDIT: noticed plenty of others have suggested this too now.

Edited October 27, 2020 by superniko

[Guest]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I do think that Reading may well struggle to last the pace, but I have never really embraced the xG table.

I dont get how you can make the quality of chances created an exact science, you definitely cant.

Doesnt it also assume that everyone has the same ruthlessness in terms of taking those chances created? In that it implies that it will level out, for example if a team outperforms its place in the xG, maybe that is just because they are clinical with the chances they have.

Seems like a bit of a nonsense stat to me unless I am missing something.

I dont get how we are top of the league for it either. I dont feel that in any game so far, even if we have been competitive that we havent got what would be expected on the balance of play.

Yes! xG does assume everyone has the same level of ability, but for important reasons. I think you may be misunderstanding why xG models exist. 

An example:

I'll start with an example. Let's say Adam Armstrong and Ben Brereton both have an identical chance on goal. Adam Armstrong given the same chance in the same circumstances as Ben Brereton would definitely be more likely to score, as he's the better striker. The xG for this chance for both Adam and Ben would be let's say 0.40 for example. Therefore over a season, if Armstrong and Brereton have a 1.40xG per game stat each, and when one finishes the season on 20 goals and the other has 7, you can see mathematically who the more clinical striker is.

 

What is xG?:

If xG as a figure took into account the ability of the person taking the shot it would create a myriad of problems. For example, good strikers would never be able to outperform their expected goals, every single player would be scoring as expected or below, which is silly. But it also creates huge difficulties in determining who's better than who.

The data for xG is not a data point you're supposed to use in singularity. Over a decent amount of games xG(PG) is supposed to show you whether a striker is finishing chances they should, perhaps even scoring more than is mathematically predicted.

 

What can xG tell us/offer?:

To be a top end striker in the Premier League you have to consistently outperform your xG. In Leeds' 2019/20 side, Patrick Bamford was criticised for his abilities, despite scoring a heavy amount of goals. This is because Leeds' created so many chances for him. Bamford's 2019/20 xG(PG) was incredibly high, abnormally high to be honest, and his goals scored figure simply didn't match. It's why many expected him to fail at Premier League level. (he has actually done well to be fair to him in 20/21).

We're top of the league for xG because of the Wycombe, Derby and Coventry fixtures, where we had very abnormal levels of xG as a team over the 90 minutes. We scored the goals, so yes we got what was expected, but the expected goals are still high in comparison to most teams. Nobody else has stuck 5 past Wycombe for example.

We are top of the goals scored column, so it's only natural that we be top of the xG column too.

For teams like Reading, who's xG is significantly lower than their actual goals scored, xG is a great measurement of their lethalness in attack. We can use xG models to prove statistically how clinical Reading are. They score goals with minimal chances, and they score goals that mathematically they shouldn't score. It speaks to their quality and helps us formulate more fact based views on sides, rather than just sheer opinion.

 

Is it possible to make the quality of a chance an exact science?

The point on how its possible to rank the quality of a given chance on goal mathematically I can definitely attempt to go into. xG takes into account so many factors. Different models work differently but variables like distance from goal, strong or weak foot, position of the goalkeeper, # of defenders back, whether its a clear sight on goal, the type of shot (headed or foot etc.).

Your statement that "You Definitely Can't" make the quality of chances an exact science is both true and not true. An exact science? No. I don't think many analytic enthusiasts would imply that you can ever put much in football down to an exact science. I do think xG offers a lot more than you give it credit for, and I think the shift towards data driven football tactics and training at the top end of our sport speaks to the value that clubs place on things like xG models.  

Anyway, hope this was a nice detailed defence/explanation, always enjoy the chance to go into things like this  And on the specific Sam Gallagher example, it was a bloody dreadful touch, any striker worth their salt has put the ball in their net within two touches of the ball there. Sat there aghast at his inability to control a football.

Edited October 27, 2020 by JoeH

[toooldforthis]

1 hour ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I sympathise and as someone who hasn’t financially lost out, it’s hard to properly judge. But the club were in a very difficult situation and made a judgement call. They would have angered people whatever they’d done. I don’t necessarily agree with the approach but equally I haven’t got a much better solution. You have to hope fans don’t take it too personally and can see the wider picture. If people choose to throw away their season tickets, fair enough. But punishing Waggott is only punishing the club.

Fully understand your viewpoint.  But I don't believe it was a difficult decision to refund ST holders.  We were one of only 3 professionals football clubs in England who chose not to refund.  So, we 3 were right and the other 100+ were wrong?  I'm not allowed streaming services on my company laptop, and probably wouldn't bother with iplayer even if I was, due to my internet speed being SOOOOOO slow.  The point is that Waggott's constant "take it or leave it" attitude has eventually worn me down.  I know several other long-term fans who are doing the same as me.  Very sad.

[superniko]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I do think that Reading may well struggle to last the pace, but I have never really embraced the xG table.

I dont get how you can make the quality of chances created an exact science, you definitely cant.

Doesnt it also assume that everyone has the same ruthlessness in terms of taking those chances created? In that it implies that it will level out, for example if a team outperforms its place in the xG, maybe that is just because they are clinical with the chances they have.

Seems like a bit of a nonsense stat to me unless I am missing something.

I dont get how we are top of the league for it either. I dont feel that in any game so far, even if we have been competitive that we havent got what would be expected on the balance of play.

It's not a definite science by any measure, but allows you to see where positions may be false and gives you a guide to under/over performance vs luck essentially. For example a poster here assuming Reading were the bookies favourites, probably from just purely looking at the league table. 

Bookmakers and pro's would incorporate it into their pricing, especially for outright modelling, if we remain as dominant as we have been in the last few matches over the next week or two expect us to be one of the favourites for the league.

It's not solely based on the quality of chances, it also takes into account the location of the chance and the type of chance e.g. penalty, 1 on 1, header etc. Different companies have different models though and some may not take this into account in lower leagues.

It's obviously not the be all and end all, but it offers a bit of perspective on what is currently a small sample size (6 games)

EDIT: what Joe said ?

Edited October 27, 2020 by superniko

[roversfan99]

5 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Yes! xG does assume everyone has the same level of ability, but for important reasons. I think you may be misunderstanding why xG models exist. 

An example:

I'll start with an example. Let's say Adam Armstrong and Ben Brereton both have an identical chance on goal. Adam Armstrong given the same chance in the same circumstances as Ben Brereton would definitely be more likely to score, as he's the better striker. The xG for this chance for both Adam and Ben would be let's say 0.40 for example. Therefore over a season, if Armstrong and Brereton have a 1.40xG per game stat each, and when one finishes the season on 20 goals and the other has 7, you can see mathematically who the more clinical striker is.

 

What is xG?:

If xG as a figure took into account the ability of the person taking the shot it would create a myriad of problems. For example, good strikers would never be able to outperform their expected goals, every single player would be scoring as expected or below, which is silly. But it also creates huge difficulties in determining who's better than who.

The data for xG is not a data point you're supposed to use in singularity. Over a decent amount of games xG(PG) is supposed to show you whether a striker is finishing chances they should, perhaps even scoring more than is mathematically predicted.

 

What can xG tell us/offer?:

To be a top end striker in the Premier League you have to consistently outperform your xG. In Leeds' 2019/20 side, Patrick Bamford was criticised for his abilities, despite scoring a heavy amount of goals. This is because Leeds' created so many chances for him. Bamford's 2019/20 xG(PG) was incredibly high, abnormally high to be honest, and his goals scored figure simply didn't match. It's why many expected him to fail at Premier League level. (he has actually done well to be fair to him in 20/21).

We're top of the league for xG because of the Wycombe, Derby and Coventry fixtures, where we had very abnormal levels of xG as a team over the 90 minutes. We scored the goals, so yes we got what was expected, but the expected goals are still high in comparison to most teams. Nobody else has stuck 5 past Wycombe for example.

We are top of the goals scored column, so it's only natural that we be top of the xG column too.

For teams like Reading, who's xG is significantly lower than their actual goals scored, xG is a great measurement of their lethalness in attack. We can use xG models to prove statistically how clinical Reading are. They score goals with minimal chances, and they score goals that mathematically they shouldn't score. It speaks to their quality and helps us formulate more fact based views on sides, rather than just sheer opinion.

 

Is it possible to make the quality of a chance an exact science?

The point on how its possible to rank the quality of a given chance on goal mathematically I can definitely attempt to go into. xG takes into account so many factors. Different models work differently but variables like distance from goal, strong or weak foot, position of the goalkeeper, # of defenders back, whether its a clear sight on goal, the type of shot (headed or foot etc.).

Your statement that "You Definitely Can't" make the quality of chances an exact science is both true and not true. An exact science? No. I don't think many analytic enthusiasts would imply that you can ever put much in football down to an exact science. I do think xG offers a lot more than you give it credit for, and I think the shift towards data driven football tactics and training at the top end of our sport speaks to the value that clubs place on things like xG models.  

Anyway, hope this was a nice detailed defence/explanation, always enjoy the chance to go into things like this  And on the specific Sam Gallagher example, it was a bloody dreadful touch, any striker worth their salt has put the ball in their net within two touches of the ball there. Sat there aghast at his inability to control a football.

Thanks for the explanation firstly, certainly a very thorough description so fair play.

So is the xG not even specific to individual games? I presumed that it was implying that ultimately in the games that we didnt win, that we should have done based on xG. It is incredibly flawed because if most of our xG in 7 games came within 3 games, then that isnt fair to suggest that we should be top based on that!

You mention Bamford, what the stat also doesnt factor in is to have so many chances is reliant on him having that anticipation and intelligence to get himself into goalscoring situations, it isnt solely a striker being reliant on service scenario. Take Brereton, he never gets himself into goalscoring positions, so I wouldnt be surprised if his one goal from distance ensures that he is out scoring his xG. Whereas Bamford will have more yet might not take them all. So forwards who keep managing to get into positions to get clear cut chances will be penalised by this method should they not take them all. Andy Cole would have been screwed if his performance was measured like this!

You imply that it is not sustainable to outscore your xG consistently but surely you can if you have particularly clinical forwards?

I totally appreciate data in general and of course it does play a role but I can be incredibly skeptical of its use in football in certain situations. xG just seems flawed in my opinion to the point where it has limited value in my opinion.

[superniko]

7 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

So is the xG not even specific to individual games? I presumed that it was implying that ultimately in the games that we didnt win, that we should have done based on xG. It is incredibly flawed because if most of our xG in 7 games came within 3 games, then that isnt fair to suggest that we should be top based on that!

 

Yes the table is specific to individual games. e.g. i think one model i saw had us drawing with Bournemouth, beating Watford and Cardiff and losing to Forest.

The 2nd sentence would be relating to the goal difference and xG actually has us 1 goal fewer than we've scored through the 7 games so far. So we can be top of overall xG table which takes into account game by game and also xG goals scored.

[neophox]

Reading seems to have a team full of overseas players... Think they are trying doing what Brentford done. Meite and Joao are dangerous players and they have some portuguise players on loan from big teams. Quite a Young team and technically gifted.

[Gone to seed]

15 minutes ago, neophox said:

Reading seems to have a team full of overseas players... Think they are trying doing what Brentford done. Meite and Joao are dangerous players and they have some portuguise players on loan from big teams. Quite a Young team and technically gifted.

It is a big change from last season, when they were very poorly organised. We will need to be on our game tonight. C'mon you Blues!

[Ewood Ace]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

I do think that Reading may well struggle to last the pace, but I have never really embraced the xG table.

It's a load of crap. There's a lot of pointless stats out there these days but expected goals is the most pointless and useless of them all. 

3 hours ago, Uddersfelt Blue said:

Sometimes you just can’t look at the financial angle but I understand that some may choose to do so. 

That's the only angle Waggott ever looks at things at.

2 hours ago, magicalmortensleftpeg said:

I sympathise and as someone who hasn’t financially lost out, it’s hard to properly judge. But the club were in a very difficult situation and made a judgement call. They would have angered people whatever they’d done. I don’t necessarily agree with the approach but equally I haven’t got a much better solution. You have to hope fans don’t take it too personally and can see the wider picture. If people choose to throw away their season tickets, fair enough. But punishing Waggott is only punishing the club.

The solution was simple give the refund we had what 8500 season ticket holders and sizeable portion of them would not have requested a refund anyway. Clubs in much worse financial situations than Rovers managed to offer refunds to those who wanted it.

The they couldn't afford it argument no longer holds any traction after they extended contracts of players who never played and then you see the money that has been spent on wages and transfers over the summer. 

As for talking about fans under Waggott fans are not valued or treated like fans. They are purely seen as customers and his only interested in them is how much money he can milk out of them.

[roversfan99]

Just now, Ewood Ace said:

It's a load of crap. There's a lot of pointless stats out there these days but expected goals is the most pointless and useless of them all. 

That's the only angle Waggott ever looks at things at.

The solution was simple give the refund we had what 8500 season ticket holders and sizeable portion of them would not have requested a refund anyway. Clubs in much worse financial situations than Rovers managed to offer refunds to those who wanted it.

The they couldn't afford it argument no longer holds any traction after they extended contracts of players who never played and then you see the money that has been spent on wages and transfers over the summer. 

As for talking about fans under Waggott fans are not valued or treated like fans. They are purely seen as customers and his only interested in them is how much money he can milk out of them.

I think the debate is often measured on the morality of not offering refunds but financially it made no sense either. Refunds claimed would have been minimal and could have been deferred, yet a percentage of those who feel cheated will now as we have seen not buy a season ticket going forward, therefore any slight saving from denying refunds will be removed.