Football Terminology

[Mattyblue]

Who’s wound up? I find it amusing more than anything when they come out with it all in such earnest tones.

And fair play to them for getting a career out of it…

[Sweaty Gussets]

'Deceptive ventilation' is my favourite term du jour. 

It means allowing the opposition time and space on the ball in areas of the field where they can't hurt you, but once the trap is sprung and possession is won back then it's impossible for them to prevent being over-run. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 hours ago, Sweaty Gussets said:

'Deceptive ventilation' is my favourite term du jour. 

It means allowing the opposition time and space on the ball in areas of the field where they can't hurt you, but once the trap is sprung and possession is won back then it's impossible for them to prevent being over-run. 

You mean like “ letting them over commit “ ?

[roversfan99]

Expected goals. In all 3 games we have protected leads so meaningless twaddle.

[Upside Down]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Expected goals. In all 3 games we have protected leads so meaningless twaddle.

What the fuck does that mean? 

[Oldgregg86]

4 hours ago, Upside Down said:

What the fuck does that mean? 

Absolutely nothing mate

it means we are top of the league and everyone else is talking shite

[arbitro]

5 hours ago, Upside Down said:

What the fuck does that mean? 

It means it's a load of bollocks to me. Only one thing matters and that's winning.

[Mattyblue]

Why has number ‘6’ become the accepted holding midfielder number anyway in the tactics/boffins world?

I’m sure number ‘4’ was always more for midfielders previously, with 6 being for centre halves? Or at least a bit of crossover between the two?

Hoddle, Viera, Makelele, Zanetti, Gerrard (for England). Closer to home Sherwood, Cowans.

#restorethe4

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Mattyblue

[roversfan99]

1 hour ago, Mattyblue said:

Why has number ‘6’ become the accepted holding midfielder number anyway in the tactics/boffins world?

I’m sure number ‘4’ was always more for midfielders previously, with 6 being for centre halves? Or at least a bit of crossover between the two?

Hoddle, Viera, Makelele, Zanetti, Gerrard (for England). Closer to home Sherwood, Cowans.

#restorethe4

 

New foreign coaches with exciting new and groundbreaking ideas, or so I have heard.

[Upside Down]

Yes like closing down the opposition. Something that English football was derided for for decades, all of a sudden it becomes 'pressing' and its all the rage.

[Guest]

I think they (Second Tier Pod) ended up being proved bang on correct last season. Our xG was low compared to our goals scored, we had managed to score goals from fairly unlikely situations. The two goals vs West Brom on Sunday, are they sustainable? Are we going to score goals like that every week? Great that we put them away and fantastic that we held on, but data like xG (amongst other metrics) allows us to assess how sustainable results like that are. Last season the bubble burst, we stopped sticking the half chances away and fell down the table. That could easily happen again.

xG is a good tool for showing us whether or not data indicates we're "deserving" of the goals we've scored. Yes it means nothing to the table, but it helps us prepare. It's a piece of data used at every professional club in the country within performance analysis and recruitment analysis. 

If a player has 3 goals in 2 games but his xG across that same time period is 0.5, then you can likely deduce it's a purple patch and it's going to end. And 9 times of 10, that ends up being bang on. Just the same for team data, and last year it was bang on. xG suggested our goalscoring couldn't continue with the poor quality chances we had been creating, and in the end, it was right.

For me, instead of calling such a universally accepted and utilised metric "bollocks" "a load of twaddle" and "meaningless", it would be better to try and understand why clubs value it. There's a reason that those xG models are used.

--
As for pressing vs closing down, I think that's just a case of words changing rather than anything tangible. Words change all the time, just a sign of the times.

[oldjamfan1]

21 minutes ago, JoeH said:

I think they (Second Tier Pod) ended up being proved bang on correct last season. Our xG was low compared to our goals scored, we had managed to score goals from fairly unlikely situations. The two goals vs West Brom on Sunday, are they sustainable? Are we going to score goals like that every week? Great that we put them away and fantastic that we held on, but data like xG (amongst other metrics) allows us to assess how sustainable results like that are. Last season the bubble burst, we stopped sticking the half chances away and fell down the table. That could easily happen again.

xG is a good tool for showing us whether or not data indicates we're "deserving" of the goals we've scored. Yes it means nothing to the table, but it helps us prepare. It's a piece of data used at every professional club in the country within performance analysis and recruitment analysis. 

If a player has 3 goals in 2 games but his xG across that same time period is 0.5, then you can likely deduce it's a purple patch and it's going to end. And 9 times of 10, that ends up being bang on. Just the same for team data, and last year it was bang on. xG suggested our goalscoring couldn't continue with the poor quality chances we had been creating, and in the end, it was right.

For me, instead of calling such a universally accepted and utilised metric "bollocks" "a load of twaddle" and "meaningless", it would be better to try and understand why clubs value it. There's a reason that those xG models are used.

--
As for pressing vs closing down, I think that's just a case of words changing rather than anything tangible. Words change all the time, just a sign of the times.

The xG thing you have described (very eloquently I may add) is pretty much what @arbitro and I were discussing yesterday, albeit without using the terminology. All 6 of our league goals so far this season have been 'worldies' and you do doubt whether that is sustainable, so we need a few scruffy goals and penalties and to score them you have to create chances.  

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, oldjamfan1 said:

The xG thing you have described (very eloquently I may add) is pretty much what @arbitro and I were discussing yesterday, albeit without using the terminology. All 6 of our league goals so far this season have been 'worldies' and you do doubt whether that is sustainable, so we need a few scruffy goals and penalties and to score them you have to create chances.  

Think JDT described them as Playstation goals, which is probably a good lamens terms way of describing it. Especially if we lose Díaz, we're going to score less and less of those. 

It's why some of the teams with huge budgets go for your Alex Mowatt's and John Swifts, because they provide those low xG conversions that other (very talented players) can't. 

I'd say our squad has a bit of that right now, but it's not going to last permanently. Lewis Travis won't score 2 in 3 games across a 46 game season etc..

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, JoeH said:

I think they (Second Tier Pod) ended up being proved bang on correct last season. Our xG was low compared to our goals scored, we had managed to score goals from fairly unlikely situations. The two goals vs West Brom on Sunday, are they sustainable? Are we going to score goals like that every week? Great that we put them away and fantastic that we held on, but data like xG (amongst other metrics) allows us to assess how sustainable results like that are. Last season the bubble burst, we stopped sticking the half chances away and fell down the table. That could easily happen again.

xG is a good tool for showing us whether or not data indicates we're "deserving" of the goals we've scored. Yes it means nothing to the table, but it helps us prepare. It's a piece of data used at every professional club in the country within performance analysis and recruitment analysis. 

If a player has 3 goals in 2 games but his xG across that same time period is 0.5, then you can likely deduce it's a purple patch and it's going to end. And 9 times of 10, that ends up being bang on. Just the same for team data, and last year it was bang on. xG suggested our goalscoring couldn't continue with the poor quality chances we had been creating, and in the end, it was right.

For me, instead of calling such a universally accepted and utilised metric "bollocks" "a load of twaddle" and "meaningless", it would be better to try and understand why clubs value it. There's a reason that those xG models are used.

--
As for pressing vs closing down, I think that's just a case of words changing rather than anything tangible. Words change all the time, just a sign of the times.

Surely the biggest reason that our xG is so low is because we took the lead in all 3 games, so the game naturally became a case of the opposition pushing more for a goal than us?

Another flaw can be highlighted by an example on Sunday. A player can be put through on goal but due to a poor touch or a bit of indecision, he may be through on goal and not actually shoot, which would be an xG of 0. The same can be said if a ball like in the first half on Sunday when Hedges slid the ball across and no one got a proper shot away is put across but not quite tapped in, again, 0 expected goals. In either instance, a fantastic chance has been created but neither register on this flawed metric. Another good example is Brereton at home to Barnsley last season, put in and took a poor touch but managed to score from a difficult angle. He turned a great chance into a poor chance with a poor touch but scored anyway, meaning that the stats unjustifiably show us as being more "clinical" than we actually were.

This idea that it catches up on you isn't always right either. Second Tier Podcast relentlessly criticised Steve Cooper's Swansea because their xG was well below their league position yet they made the play offs in both seasons, irrespective of predictions that they would drop off. Alternatively, because Russell Martin's football is a stats mans dream, there is an expectation that they will eventually catch up their xG. There are just so many flaws.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Surely the biggest reason that our xG is so low is because we took the lead in all 3 games, so the game naturally became a case of the opposition pushing more for a goal than us?

That's not how xG works

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Another flaw can be highlighted by an example on Sunday. A player can be put through on goal but due to a poor touch or a bit of indecision, he may be through on goal and not actually shoot, which would be an xG of 0. The same can be said if a ball like in the first half on Sunday when Hedges slid the ball across and no one got a proper shot away is put across but not quite tapped in, again, 0 expected goals. In either instance, a fantastic chance has been created but neither register on this flawed metric. Another good example is Brereton at home to Barnsley last season, put in and took a poor touch but managed to score from a difficult angle. He turned a great chance into a poor chance with a poor touch but scored anyway, meaning that the stats unjustifiably show us as being more "clinical" than we actually were.

So much inaccuracy here about xG models work!

[roversfan99]

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

That's not how xG works

How is it not? If you go ahead in all 3 games, then the opposition naturally end up attacking more than you (more often than not) to chase an equaliser, in which case they tend to take shots to try and get that goal.

Add in the fact that our opening goals in 2 of the 3 games were from low xG shots and that only makes that stat seem worse.

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

So much inaccuracy here about xG models work!

Would you not be better telling me how specifically I am wrong rather than being patronising in a way that you would definitely react negatively to if the shoe was on the other foot?

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Alternatively, because Russell Martin's football is a stats mans dream, there is an expectation that they will eventually catch up their xG. There are just so many flaws.

Now we're getting into hyperbole? That's just subjective opinions. I certainly don't think RM is a dream at all and I'm sure you'd call me a stats man. xG doesn't take possession into account at all so I don't understand the relevance of this point.

To be honest, I think it's just really difficult to defend a metric that is clearly so poorly understood. 

Edited August 16, 2022 by JoeH

[Guest]

1 minute ago, roversfan99 said:

Would you not be better telling me how specifically I am wrong rather than being patronising in a way that you would definitely react negatively to if the shoe was on the other foot?

I'm not trying to patronise but trying to articulate a solid debate about something like this is really difficult.

It's like trying to explain why the sky isn't purple & gold, it just isn't.

[Guest]

xG doesn't take into account possession, so I don't understand the Russel Martin, Swansea, Stats man dream thing at all.

[Guest]

@roversfan99 Take a look at NSxG, it's a metric which is quite niche but increasing in popularity and aims to eradicate the issues you bring up about when players don't get a shot away. Non-Shot xG info here http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.com/2018/05/non-shot-xg-models.html

[roversfan99]

5 minutes ago, JoeH said:

xG doesn't take into account possession, so I don't understand the Russel Martin, Swansea, Stats man dream thing at all.

The Martin comments were not specific to xG, its mainly the possession Swansea have that makes people give Martin excessive "patience" that his principles will come together. It was just as a comparison albeit at a slight tangent to my point about Steve Cooper's Swansea and those comments which were about xG.

2 minutes ago, JoeH said:

@roversfan99 Take a look at NSxG, it's a metric which is quite niche but increasing in popularity and aims to eradicate the issues you bring up about when players don't get a shot away. Non-Shot xG info here http://thepowerofgoals.blogspot.com/2018/05/non-shot-xg-models.html

But the stats we quoted were on xG whereby my point is surely valid.

Even so, the idea that these stats will catch up to you is flawed even if we take for granted that NSxG factors in occasions like I flagged, poor touches, players not getting on the end of pull backs etc. And I have serious issues with the idea that any metric can totally objectify such aspects. Because teams will naturally over/under perform on these stats based on the quality of their attackers who get on these chances. A team might have ruthless strikers or indeed create better chances specific to the strengths of those attackers (for example, a target man might be much more likely to score a header of the same xG than a different type of chance, say a one on one) that means that they outperform those stats in a sustainable way.

[JeffRover]

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.

[Butty]

3 hours ago, JoeH said:

Think JDT described them as Playstation goals, which is probably a good lamens terms way of describing it. Especially if we lose Díaz, we're going to score less and less of those. 

It's why some of the teams with huge budgets go for your Alex Mowatt's and John Swifts, because they provide those low xG conversions that other (very talented players) can't. 

I'd say our squad has a bit of that right now, but it's not going to last permanently. Lewis Travis won't score 2 in 3 games across a 46 game season etc..

I turned to my dad on Saturday when that Diaz goal went in and said there aren’t many others in this division who could score a goal like that, out of pretty much nothing to find the corner like he did was pure class. He’ll be such a loss when he eventually goes. 

[K-Hod]

4 hours ago, JoeH said:

I think they (Second Tier Pod) ended up being proved bang on correct last season. Our xG was low compared to our goals scored, we had managed to score goals from fairly unlikely situations. The two goals vs West Brom on Sunday, are they sustainable? Are we going to score goals like that every week? Great that we put them away and fantastic that we held on, but data like xG (amongst other metrics) allows us to assess how sustainable results like that are. Last season the bubble burst, we stopped sticking the half chances away and fell down the table. That could easily happen again.

xG is a good tool for showing us whether or not data indicates we're "deserving" of the goals we've scored. Yes it means nothing to the table, but it helps us prepare. It's a piece of data used at every professional club in the country within performance analysis and recruitment analysis. 

If a player has 3 goals in 2 games but his xG across that same time period is 0.5, then you can likely deduce it's a purple patch and it's going to end. And 9 times of 10, that ends up being bang on. Just the same for team data, and last year it was bang on. xG suggested our goalscoring couldn't continue with the poor quality chances we had been creating, and in the end, it was right.

For me, instead of calling such a universally accepted and utilised metric "bollocks" "a load of twaddle" and "meaningless", it would be better to try and understand why clubs value it. There's a reason that those xG models are used.

--
As for pressing vs closing down, I think that's just a case of words changing rather than anything tangible. Words change all the time, just a sign of the times.

I’ll be honest, I was as skeptical as anyone re the XG stat (and still am tbf)- but fair play to Joe for this explanation. It certainly made things more understandable for me!