Aston Villa v Tottenham Hotspur - Sunday 10th March

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score
TravellerOfBoth said:
The last 24 hours has really made me realise just how far people have gone down the rabbit hole of xG. It is a useful stat to look at a sides performance over a prolonged period of games and really should only be analysed in combination with other metrics. However for some it seems to have replaced the actual watching of the football itself in regards to how they interpret the game.

I saw on a youtube vid earlier two lads discussing the game and the words "Game of two halves", "It was all Villa in the first half", "Villa could have been 1 or 2 up at half time" and "4-0 flattered Spurs". All this coming from the sole fact that the xG was Villa 1.2 - 2.2 Spurs. However, surely anyone who watched the game would know that this is not how the game felt.
Click to expand...
Given that they were the home team and were in possession of the ball for less than a third of the playing time (in the first half) then whoever generated that crock of shit was either pissed or Tom Hanks.
And that's the issue, it's not a statistic it's a made up metric based on someone's opinion .
It's accuracy is exposed by the fact that in the entire game they had one shot on target ( that if Vicario had suddenly been abducted by aliens - might have gone in!)
 
TravellerOfBoth said:
The last 24 hours has really made me realise just how far people have gone down the rabbit hole of xG. It is a useful stat to look at a sides performance over a prolonged period of games and really should only be analysed in combination with other metrics. However for some it seems to have replaced the actual watching of the football itself in regards to how they interpret the game.

I saw on a youtube vid earlier two lads discussing the game and the words "Game of two halves", "It was all Villa in the first half", "Villa could have been 1 or 2 up at half time" and "4-0 flattered Spurs". All this coming from the sole fact that the xG was Villa 1.2 - 2.2 Spurs. However, surely anyone who watched the game would know that this is not how the game felt.
Click to expand...

Like all statistic tools they get misinterpreted in general use.

xG only counts when shots were taken, which over a season makes it fairer since you have shoot to score sometime.

However in a single game you can rack up 10 attacks where your last pass before a tap in was off which will net a 0 in xG, but anyone watching can see that on another day you would score 10 instead.
 
Homburg said:
Like all statistic tools they get misinterpreted in general use.

xG only counts when shots were taken, which over a season makes it fairer since you have shoot to score sometime.

However in a single game you can rack up 10 attacks where your last pass before a tap in was off which will net a 0 in xG, but anyone watching can see that on another day you would score 10 instead.
Click to expand...
So it's bollocks then.
It's a fabricated metric that's more closely aligned to wild arsed guesswork than fact.

I'm guessing that it's probably invented by betting companies to encourage people to piss their money away.
 
Matt1882 said:
PEH is more positive with the ball than people give him credit for.
Ask any Dane what they think of him for the national team.
Suspect a lot of opinion of him is based on watching him play for Mourinho and Conte alongside Winks. He looked good when Bentancur came, and the got injured and it was back to Winks.
Click to expand...
I think he looks very good this season off the bench. Very professional too. If he could just kick those individual errors
 
Ionman34 said:
Don't agree mate. No one has been attacked for a different opinion, their reasoning has been argued.

As you say, this is a forum for sharing opinion, but it's also a place where said opinions can be questioned and argued with.

When a high quantity of posters disagree with that opinion, it's not bullying to argue against it. Why the fuck this keeps getting raised I don't know.

If you want to offer an opinion that goes against the grain, be prepared to have it questioned by multiple people.

You're entitled to an opinion, you're NOT entitled to an unchallenged one.
Click to expand...
Absolutely no problem with opinions been questioned. Theres not enough that in the real world imo. I agree with you.
But you know as well as i do that people get called melts for it. I noticed it sat when some people werent happy with first half because of lack of threat upfront. Then we win people come on asking where are all the melts gone etc. etc.
Im not saying theres not melts here. Far from it but a lot of it is people looking to vent or let off steam etc.
 
Mick Cooper said:
Given that they were the home team and were in possession of the ball for less than a third of the playing time (in the first half) then whoever generated that crock of shit was either pissed or Tom Hanks.
And that's the issue, it's not a statistic it's a made up metric based on someone's opinion .
It's accuracy is exposed by the fact that in the entire game they had one shot on target ( that if Vicario had suddenly been abducted by aliens - might have gone in!)
Click to expand...
Hahaha!

Having followed this club for almost 45 years, that scenario isn't totally unrealistic!
 
Mick Cooper said:
So it's bollocks then.
It's a fabricated metric that's more closely aligned to wild arsed guesswork than fact.

I'm guessing that it's probably invented by betting companies to encourage people to piss their money away.
Click to expand...
It's like most statistics, not designed to be used in small samples.
 
Percy Clay said:
I'm just a simple old man and don't really know as much about this football thing as a lot of you learned contributors.

In my ignorance, I thought, in the first half, we were moving the defensive set up of the opposition around the field, pulling them this way and that, sapping their energy, putting pressure on their emotional ability to concentrate. Stupidly, I thought they were visibly wilting after about 40 minutes and I was, silly me, confident that the foundations had been laid for the collapse of their defensive walls in the second half. Obviously, it was just coincidence that they did, in fact, collapse in the second half.

I'll try and be more attentive to what's actually happening in future.
Click to expand...

People disagreed but I saw the same vs Palace too, albeit in a slightly different way because they played in a different way.
 
TravellerOfBoth said:
The last 24 hours has really made me realise just how far people have gone down the rabbit hole of xG. It is a useful stat to look at a sides performance over a prolonged period of games and really should only be analysed in combination with other metrics. However for some it seems to have replaced the actual watching of the football itself in regards to how they interpret the game.

I saw on a youtube vid earlier two lads discussing the game and the words "Game of two halves", "It was all Villa in the first half", "Villa could have been 1 or 2 up at half time" and "4-0 flattered Spurs". All this coming from the sole fact that the xG was Villa 1.2 - 2.2 Spurs. However, surely anyone who watched the game would know that this is not how the game felt.
Click to expand...

Homburg said:
Like all statistic tools they get misinterpreted in general use.

xG only counts when shots were taken, which over a season makes it fairer since you have shoot to score sometime.

However in a single game you can rack up 10 attacks where your last pass before a tap in was off which will net a 0 in xG, but anyone watching can see that on another day you would score 10 instead.
Click to expand...

To counter this, xG, IMO, is a much better stat than shots on target.
Any daisy cutter that the keeper can pick up whilst holding a water bottle gets counted as a shot on target. If a team hasn't had any of those, but they hit the bar 3 times and the top of the net twice, they're ridiculed for "not even having a shot on target"
Whereas the oppo might have one solitary daisy cutter and somehow are praised for that.
 
The difference between the first half’s of the last 2 matches is that againstPalace we were at home, expected to win but just seemed to have no clue as to how to penetrate and just kept on passing it. Against Villa we were away and not expected to win and although there was no end product there was crosses and balls played through that could just have opened them up. There was more enterprise. Now the way the opposition played had something to do with that but it is how we play that matters and the first half Villa performance was acceptable.
 
Shadydan said:
And still I have no idea how Villa managed accumulate 1.15xg, I remember Vicario making 1 save from a corner but that's it?
Click to expand...

It definitely flatters them. There XG seemed to come from 3 events. The Cash chance around 30, the Digne header on 45 and then the first save Vicario has to make on 85 minutes when smothers close range - which was there first shot on target.

Other systems gave us a higher XG, which made more sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom