v Reading (a) - 17/8/22 - Mark 1

[JacknOry]

50 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

Just checked and we have had 21 shots in the league. So that's 28.5% conversion rate. It's high of course, but nothing like 60%. The main reason for the high conversion rate is the Swansea game. They're a team who obsess over possession, it was at their ground, and they're vulnerable to the counter we used against them. 3 goals from 5 shots. We also don't need to win games 3-0 like we did there.

Yes, agree that our low xG is probably down to playing possession teams like Swansea and WBA. 

[Admiral Nelsen]

36 minutes ago, JoeH said:

The model removes almost all subjectivity, that's the quality of it. It takes into account all the factors & gives you a tangible, objective figure from 0.0 to 1.0 for how likely a shot is to end in a goal. The models are extremely intricate and take 1000's of shots to create.

 

Without wanting to derail the thread, does this mean that the data which goes into xG is entirely made up from the shots a team takes, and not other things (e.g. attacks which don't end up in a shot on goal)?

 

I'm thinking of Wharton taking the ball of Obafemi's toe vs Swansea for what would be a near certain tap in. I'm not suggesting that this makes xG any less valid! But for an individual game it would be useful to have a similar model which takes chances without shots into consideration - not sure if they exist or not. 

 

[smiller14]

10 minutes ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

 

Without wanting to derail the thread, does this mean that the data which goes into xG is entirely made up from the shots a team takes, and not other things (e.g. attacks which don't end up in a shot on goal)?

 

I'm thinking of Wharton taking the ball of Obafemi's toe vs Swansea for what would be a near certain tap in. I'm not suggesting that this makes xG any less valid! But for an individual game it would be useful to have a similar model which takes chances without shots into consideration - not sure if they exist or not. 

 

I often think the same. I'd love to see the metrics for it. For instance, vs QPR we had a lot of good opportunities where we picked the wrong pass, which is impossible to put into a model like this. Very intrigued to know the stance on tackles like this as well.

I think from what I've seen it does have value - typically teams 'revert to the mean' and outperforming XG can often be seen as an indicator of a freak run of form that will soon go 'back to normal'. What we're doing well is also restricting the opposite XG to very low levels, which is important. 

As an aside, my mate is obsessed with it, and spent a lot of time before Christmas using Celtic's higher 'expected points' (derived from XG vs XGA) as his justification that they would rein Rangers in. He was laughed at quite a lot based on his Twitter but was spot on. So I think it is a decent enough indicator, but where it lacks nuance is that it doesn't take into account the ability of the player in question. With players like BBD, we are more likely to 'overperform' XG wise as he's much more clinical than 90% of the league's strikers in front of goal. 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

 

Without wanting to derail the thread, does this mean that the data which goes into xG is entirely made up from the shots a team takes, and not other things (e.g. attacks which don't end up in a shot on goal)?

 

I'm thinking of Wharton taking the ball of Obafemi's toe vs Swansea for what would be a near certain tap in. I'm not suggesting that this makes xG any less valid! But for an individual game it would be useful to have a similar model which takes chances without shots into consideration - not sure if they exist or not. 

Yes, xG is a shot based metric. xG is very limited and the reason for the uproar 9 times out of 10 is a lack of public understanding about its strengths and weaknesses as a piece of data.

It can show you:
- Players who are finishing at above/below average rates
- Teams that are finishing at above/below average rates
- Leagues that are finishing at above/below average rates

There are other sets of models which attempt to fill this void. NSxG & PSxG. Non-shot & Post-Shot xG. Again, both have limitations but are interesting.

Yeah, having a similar discussion in another thread, so don't want to derail this further.

[Guest]

xG doesn't care if you have 1%, 10% or 100% possession. It doesn't care how many shots you've had. All it does it measure the quality value of a shot you take. It analyses thousands of historical shots, taking into account lots of factors like the angle, whether it's the players stronger or weaker foot, whether there's a defender in the way, the goalkeepers position and more. 

It's limited, but if you use it to analyse the right things, it can tell you lots about a footballer.

[SBlue]

I understand the theory, but I saw that BBD supposedly had a 92% chance of missing from here?

 

Maybe before the name change.

[smiller14]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

But if Travis and Brereton hadn't smashed in screamers to put us 1 up, the onus wouldn't have then gone almost solely onto our opponents to score an equaliser, making them attack more.

The primary reason I would suggest that we went from suddenly outperforming to underperforming last season was not even that it wasn't sustainable. Our main striker who was getting most of oru chances was injured and our remaining attackers (Dolan, Khadra, Gallagher) don't have that same level of composure.

Also true, but I guess it's just a more intuitive method of what was used before - before you'd have people pointing to 'we had X shots on target'. 

So early on in the season it isn't really too informative, it needs more data to really demonstrate trends and account for the sort of cases where a team scores and sits deep (like we have done). 

I'm a bit of a sceptic myself, but people are quick to decry it when it's been shown to be a pretty good indicator in the past. Although it isn't the be all and end all and I don't think our low XG this season is reflective of how the games have gone. We were largely in control for most of the 3 games. 

[Guest]

Just now, S8 & Blue said:

I understand the theory, but I saw that BBD supposedly had a 92% chance of missing from here?

 

Maybe before the name change.

The xG for this shot was 0.21 - giving him a 79% chance of missing

[SBlue]

10 minutes ago, JoeH said:

The xG for this shot was 0.21 - giving him a 79% chance of missing

Talking out me arse then. Someone on twitter said 0.08

 

Still seems high (low?) to me though, but data is certainly a powerful thing, I won't go against our future computer overlords.

Edited August 16, 2022 by S8 & Blue

[chaddyrovers]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

No way can we chuck Edun in, he is a liability. 

I would be wary of any changes bar Dack for Szmodics. Hard to take out a Buckley or a Hedges without weakening us. We badly need more players in.

why you making changing Dack for Szmodics then? 

[Mike E]

22 minutes ago, JoeH said:

The xG for this shot was 0.21 - giving him a 79% chance of missing

Does this mean as a relative chance, a one-on-one with a GK on your better foot still only has a roughly 1 in 5 chance of going in?

I'd have thought it closer to 50/50, ie: Striker Vs GK. The more you know...

[yankfan]

52 minutes ago, Admiral Nelsen said:

 

Without wanting to derail the thread, does this mean that the data which goes into xG is entirely made up from the shots a team takes, and not other things (e.g. attacks which don't end up in a shot on goal)?

 

I'm thinking of Wharton taking the ball of Obafemi's toe vs Swansea for what would be a near certain tap in. I'm not suggesting that this makes xG any less valid! But for an individual game it would be useful to have a similar model which takes chances without shots into consideration - not sure if they exist or not. 

 

The main criticisms of expected goals (xG) often appear in scenarios where the metric isn’t actually being applied correctly. The most common of which is at the game level. The team that has the higher xG in a match doesn’t necessarily imply that they should’ve won the game. xG is only measuring chance quality and not the expected outcome of the game. Exactly as the old saying suggests, goals do change games and the score line influences how teams play. If a team takes an early lead, they don’t necessarily ‘need’ to generate more chances and we often expect to see the opposition generate more goal scoring opportunities for the remainder of the game in pursuit of a comeback.

[arbitro]

No disrespect to anybody who uses these numbers and metrics but they don't interest me one iota. I watch the games live, praise and criticise during play and form an overall opinion post match. Good luck to anybody who uses them but I'd wager the vast, vast majority have no interest in them.

[smiller14]

9 minutes ago, arbitro said:

No disrespect to anybody who uses these numbers and metrics but they don't interest me one iota. I watch the games live, praise and criticise during play and form an overall opinion post match. Good luck to anybody who uses them but I'd wager the vast, vast majority have no interest in them.

I think a lot of the people are the same - I treat XG in the same way people casually talk about possession stats/shots etc. It doesn't dictate my view of the game but is quite interesting and I was shocked how predictive it ended up being last year (by and large). I do think it's flawed though and doesn't always reflect how a game's gone. I don't think XG would ever change my opinion of a game and I only really find it mildly interesting when there's a larger pool of data. 

Back on the game itself, I'm quietly confident but wary they may be a bit of a wounded animal. Either way, we have the quality to beat them and if we score early I'm confident of a pretty comfortable 3-0 win. No easy games in this league but this certainly isn't one to fear. 

[oldjamfan1]

15 minutes ago, arbitro said:

No disrespect to anybody who uses these numbers and metrics but they don't interest me one iota. I watch the games live, praise and criticise during play and form an overall opinion post match. Good luck to anybody who uses them but I'd wager the vast, vast majority have no interest in them.

Yeah I would certainly trust my own eyes and judgement over raw data but it was interesting the way even 3 games’ worth of stats backed up what you and I discussed on here yesterday about Rovers’ goals so far this season. 
 

More often than not it really isn’t rocket science.

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, arbitro said:

No disrespect to anybody who uses these numbers and metrics but they don't interest me one iota. I watch the games live, praise and criticise during play and form an overall opinion post match. Good luck to anybody who uses them but I'd wager the vast, vast majority have no interest in them.

Every club in the UK uses xG within performance and recruitment analysis.

Edited August 16, 2022 by JoeH

[Admiral Nelsen]

3 minutes ago, smiller14 said:

I think a lot of the people are the same - I treat XG in the same way people casually talk about possession stats/shots etc. It doesn't dictate my view of the game but is quite interesting and I was shocked how predictive it ended up being last year (by and large). I do think it's flawed though and doesn't always reflect how a game's gone. I don't think XG would ever change my opinion of a game and I only really find it mildly interesting when there's a larger pool of data. 

Back on the game itself, I'm quietly confident but wary they may be a bit of a wounded animal. Either way, we have the quality to beat them and if we score early I'm confident of a pretty comfortable 3-0 win. No easy games in this league but this certainly isn't one to fear. 

 

 

That's pretty much how I see it. They have a handful of experienced pros who - whilst I wouldn't have them at Rovers - have decent ability and if their tails are up after the weekend could cause us some problems.

But if we're being honest, we should be looking at their injury list and performance vs Rotherham and be licking our lips. Huge opportunity for four wins out of four. 

[arbitro]

16 minutes ago, JoeH said:

Every club in the UK uses xG within performance and recruitment analysis.

But not many fans do when analysing a match - that was my point. They use their eyes and football knowledge to form an opinion.

[bigbrandjohn]

“And now for something completely different 🦶”

Great quote from Travis on team briefings with JDT
 

“I think it helps, in meetings previously you could maybe doze off if you were a little tired. You never know if he will ask you a question so everyone is focusing and that's good."

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, arbitro said:

But not many fans do when analysing a match - that was my point. They use their eyes and football knowledge to form an opinion.

Yeah that's fair

[WacoRover]

The U.S. fan point of view:

Major League Baseball also uses lots of stats that are more useful to scouts, admin, etc, than to Joe Sixpack. 

ERA & BA- there’s a reason they’ve both been around over 120 years. good measure of performance, and a simple gauge to judge players. I also like WHIP for pitchers. 

[JacknOry]

Kinky

[oldjamfan1]

17 minutes ago, bigbrandjohn said:

“And now for something completely different 🦶”

Great quote from Travis on team briefings with JDT
 

“I think it helps, in meetings previously you could maybe doze off if you were a little tired. You never know if he will ask you a question so everyone is focusing and that's good."

Good to hear! We want everyone on their toes and on their mettle. 

[1864roverite]

2 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Why is that particularly relevant? We lost to West Brom at home and Swansea away last season, but with many different players and a different manager. The guy who scored the winner last season has left. There isn't some sort of strange curse at the Madejski, it's coincidence.

They are one of the worst sides in the league, have loads of players out including Joao and Meite and have the worst keeper in the Championship and the worst manager. We have won all 3 games. I don't get why anyone would take a draw.

 

I think it is pretty obvious WHY! after the game on Sunday the players wont just be the normal tired after a weekend game, they will be absolutely knackered after the heat sapping weather at Ewood, that is the reason why I would happily take a point! Whether they are the worst team, with a worse manager or not THEY still beat a Rovers team last season that should have wiped the floor with them, we didnt if you remember as we lost the game!

[bluebruce]

On 14/08/2022 at 22:40, superniko said:

Their keeper (on loan from Boro ironically) made Pears look like Gordon Banks at the weekend. Hopefully we see a similar level performance on Wednesday 

Wow, yeh that's a horror show...doubt he plays that badly again though