Football Terminology

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, JeffRover said:

One metric that I don’t think is quoted often enough in these discussions would have to be expected goals against. People on social media tend to solely fixate on expected goals for.

When talking about sustainability of results over the long term and reverting back to the mean, surely both elements have to be factored in to that?

Joe is great at this stuff so can hopefully provide some more clarification on this point if needed.

Totally agree

[Guest]

The best thing about our start under JDT is our xGC stat. 

xG For p90: 1
Actual Goals For p90: 2.4
Sustainable? Huge questions marks.

But...

xG Against p90: 0.88
Actual Goals Against p90: 0.60
Much more sustainable, highly impressive.

We are limited opposition teams to poor quality chances, and the data suggests that we're not just riding our luck when it comes to the defensive record.

Under TM in 2021/22 our xG Against sat at 1.17, for reference. Early days but very promising signs, with 1x less defender on the pitch as we're operating a back four not a five.

[roversfan99]

11 minutes ago, JoeH said:

The best thing about our start under JDT is our xGC stat. 

xG For p90: 1
Actual Goals For p90: 2.4
Sustainable? Huge questions marks.

But...

xG Against p90: 0.88
Actual Goals Against p90: 0.60
Much more sustainable, highly impressive.

We are limited opposition teams to poor quality chances, and the data suggests that we're not just riding our luck when it comes to the defensive record.

Under TM in 2021/22 our xG Against sat at 1.17, for reference. Early days but very promising signs, with 1x less defender on the pitch as we're operating a back four not a five.

Do you agree/disagree with my points that:

- The assertion that over/under performing xG and sustainability doesn't factor in the likelihood that teams will not automatically fall back towards their xG due to either having particularly ruthless/wasteful strikers either in general or if their teams create types of chances that their strikers specialise in

- The above point was a big factor in the drop off following Brereton's injury last season

- As evident in our first 3 games, the first goal can hugely skew the xG especially if a first half goal is not from a clear cut chance because of the natural way that a team losing will want/need to attack more than one protecting a lead

Or have they just been dismissed under the "he clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about" line?

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Do you agree/disagree with my points that:

- The assertion that over/under performing xG and sustainability doesn't factor in the likelihood that teams will not automatically fall back towards their xG due to either having particularly ruthless/wasteful strikers either in general or if their teams create types of chances that their strikers specialise in

- The above point was a big factor in the drop off following Brereton's injury last season

- As evident in our first 3 games, the first goal can hugely skew the xG especially if a first half goal is not from a clear cut chance because of the natural way that a team losing will want/need to attack more than one protecting a lead.

Or have they just been dismissed under the "he clearly doesn't understand what he is talking about" line?

1. xG doesn't account for specialisation, great point. If you've got a player who's uniquely good at heading the ball from anywhere in the box and you play up to that tactically, then sure, he's going to outscore his xG. However, this then becomes a debate about how we use/analyse xG, which is a subjective thing and varies from club to club - rather than a debate about whether xG as a metric is "bollocks" or not. Any piece of data is only useful if you understand it's limitations. I wouldn't say that our low xG this season is due to specialisation though, again just my opinion.

2. I'm not too sure whether specialisation is the reason for Ben Brereton's drop off following his injury last season. Could certainly be a factor, but again I don't know how that relates much to xG models. When we analyse an xG data set, we would always be taking into account the factors that might have caused it.

3. Our xG when winning this season has been 0.62, when drawing or losing it's been 0.39. So whilst I accept in theory it could be a factor, that's not reared it's head so far in 22/23. We had more xG in the 2nd half vs West Brom than the 1st. 1st Half vs WBA - 0.09xg. 2nd Half vs WBA 0.72xg.

Edited August 16, 2022 by JoeH

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

1. xG doesn't account for specialisation, great point. If you've got a player who's uniquely good at heading the ball from anywhere in the box and you play up to that tactically, then sure, he's going to outscore his xG. However, this then becomes a debate about how we use/analyse xG, which is a subjective thing and varies from club to club - rather than a debate about whether xG as a metric is "bollocks" or not. Any piece of data is only useful if you understand it's limitations. I wouldn't say that our low xG this season is due to specialisation though, again just my opinion.

2. I'm not too sure whether specialisation is the reason for Ben Brereton's drop off following his injury last season. Could certainly be a factor, but again I don't know how that relates much to xG models. When we analyse an xG data set, we would always be taking into account the factors that might have caused it.

3. Our xG when winning this season has been 0.62, when drawing or losing it's been 0.39. So whilst I accept in theory it could be a factor, that's not reared it's head so far in 22/23. We had more xG in the 2nd half vs West Brom than the 1st. 1st Half vs WBA - 0.09xg. 2nd Half vs WBA 0.72xg.

It is not just specific specialisation, but also on general ability too. If a team with good, ruthless strikers is over exceeding its xG, that could be sustainable, likewise a team with poor strikers and scoring less than xG suggests they should be. It goes back to sustainability and expecting teams to naturally revert close to their xG.

I don't think that it is bollocks but I think it is an incredibly flawed concept so needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. It makes sense to want to increase the number of chances that you create.

I also think that it is has become fashionable to use xG with little context in the mainstream media. Take the Second Tier Podcast, they can't and don't watch most games so they become somewhat reliant on soundbites and cliches, so xG can be used as a crutch to suggest more knowledge about how a team is doing than they actually have.

What I am saying about the way a game goes beyond measuring xG before and after goals. Games early often can be cagey and once players tire etc, the game can open up a bit for one. But say Travis/Brereton don't score the goals they do, the whole game is different. Maybe West Brom score first for example and we pen West Brom in the second half in their own half creating chances. So much is reliant on the flow of a game and when that first goal in particular comes.

I also don't think it makes for constructive debate to be so dismissive that people simply don't understand it.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

I also don't think it makes for constructive debate to be so dismissive that people simply don't understand it.

It's been nearly a year and half of this debate, I think it's perfectly understandable for me to assume that plenty on this forum who don't understand it have had plenty of chance to look into it before attacking it so vigorously & emotionally.

[Mike E]

Having read your explanation, it's clear that I had very badly misunderstood it, so I'll at least try to read up on it a bit more.

It's very different to my own interpretation of good chance Vs half-chance, and likely that of your average fan too.

[oldjamfan1]

34 minutes ago, Mike E said:

Having read your explanation, it's clear that I had very badly misunderstood it, so I'll at least try to read up on it a bit more.

It's very different to my own interpretation of good chance Vs half-chance, and likely that of your average fan too.

Same here Mike 

[Sweaty Gussets]

3 hours ago, JoeH said:

We are limited opposition teams to poor quality chances, and the data suggests that we're not just riding our luck when it comes to the defensive record.

Not surprising. You can see how organised we are and how deep the whole team drop when we don't have the ball. Against Hartlepool in open play Dack was on the edge of his own 6 yard box. 

It must be very hard for the opposition to play against. 

[windymiller7]

@JoeH  you posted in another topic than Ben's 1v1 against Swansea had an xG of 0.21 which seems quite low to me. Is this low as it takes onto account when & where he picked the ball up?

If it does, that would make more sense to me as he had a lot of work to do to get into that 1v1 situation. 

Also interesting that both goals on Sunday were scored from outside the box with both players 'weaker foot' which would obviously result in quite a low xG.

[Aqualung]

Stephen Hawking to the thread please. 

Is he still alive?  

[Guest]

14 hours ago, windymiller7 said:

@JoeH  you posted in another topic than Ben's 1v1 against Swansea had an xG of 0.21 which seems quite low to me. Is this low as it takes onto account when & where he picked the ball up?

If it does, that would make more sense to me as he had a lot of work to do to get into that 1v1 situation. 

Also interesting that both goals on Sunday were scored from outside the box with both players 'weaker foot' which would obviously result in quite a low xG.

The pass received is taken into account and the distance from goal. The position of the goalkeeper (rushing down onto him) is also considered. Not many are chipping that ball comfortably home like Ben.

[windymiller7]

2 hours ago, JoeH said:

The pass received is taken into account and the distance from goal. The position of the goalkeeper (rushing down onto him) is also considered. Not many are chipping that ball comfortably home like Ben.

Thanks Joe.

[roversfan99]

"Inverted forays."

[Mattyblue]

Google doesn’t even bring up anything for that. 

Obviously just making them up now, like we do at work with corporate jargon.
 

[Sweaty Gussets]

It clearly means coming inside with the ball. I'd often hear my coach shout 'don't let him inverted foray you idiot' as I showed the winger the inside. 

Get with the modern game, lads. 

[roversfan99]

https://www.lancs.live/sport/football/football-news/blackburn-rovers-tactics-risk-reward-25222040

Half spaces.

[roversfan99]

Interesting alternative view point and one that falls in line with what @J*B mentioned about monitoring training.

[Mattyblue]

Careful now, you’ll be getting put on ignore by the resident statto (like me) 😁

[M_B]

Youngsters pretending that they've invented the game. 

Expected bollox. 

[rigger]

4 minutes ago, M_B said:

Youngsters pretending that they've invented the game. 

Expected bollox. 

I used to work on expected sex. It never worked.

[AllRoverAsia]

Is an inverted foray like a 69?

Can an inverted foray be done in a half space? Like the back seat of a Mini

 

Edited October 14, 2022 by AllRoverAsia

[rigger]

14 minutes ago, AllRoverAsia said:

Is an inverted foray like a 69?

Can an inverted foray be done in a half space? Like the back seat of a Mini

 

I have tried on more than one  occasion.

[Upside Down]

On 15/10/2022 at 08:34, AllRoverAsia said:

Is an inverted foray like a 69?

Can an inverted foray be done in a half space? Like the back seat of a Mini

 

We talking an og mini or the new ones?

[AllRoverAsia]

1 hour ago, Upside Down said:

We talking an og mini or the new ones?

Original Mini Cooper, just like this