I don't want to jinx it, but he's like Eriksen with tackles. I appreciate Chris's work in the past, but I'm really glad we've got someone who just might be better playing regularly now.
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
The thing about pointless stats are they don't tie in with actual eyesight.
Pukki had one chance in the first half from 12 yards out, centre of the goal, in behind Alderweireld that he put wide.
If that isn't a good chance, nothing is. Sometimes you don't need keech stats, just go with your eyes and what actually happened.
True. Watching the match tonight it was hard to believe there were so many league positions separating us. At times they popped the ball around better than we did. Btw their number 14 - Cantwell looked very decent
We had so much possession in the final 3rd but rarely played a quick ball to get behind defences.
It wasnt that long ago when we used to beat (decent) teams by 4 or more goals.
I wouldn't be opposed if they left Pukki and Aarons behind (on a loan and purchase respectively!).
Glad we got the win. For me that was never a penalty, and I'm not even sure there was actual contact? It's too bad that Hugo didn't get a bit more on it after he was so close to the save.
I though GLC looked great and he seems to really be settling in. The defense is a little shaky at times and of course that's concerning, bit hopefully we can get that sorted.
I don't know who the colour commentator was on my feed here (Bill who used to play for Fulham is all I could gather), but fuck that guy. He seemingly had nothing good to say about Spurs or our players and toe that just doesn't belong in commentary unless you have a Spurs supporter there to balance it off.
Glad we got the win. For me that was never a penalty, and I'm not even sure there was actual contact? It's too bad that Hugo didn't get a bit more on it after he was so close to the save.
I though GLC looked great and he seems to really be settling in. The defense is a little shaky at times and of course that's concerning, bit hopefully we can get that sorted.
I don't know who the colour commentator was on my feed here (Bill who used to play for Fulham is all I could gather), but fuck that guy. He seemingly had nothing good to say about Spurs or our players and toe that just doesn't belong in commentary unless you have a Spurs supporter there to balance it off.
Pukki is intelligent and a handful, but not an out and out finisher. We would need a good finisher alongside him and we don't have that
It’s not a good chance, he was 17 yards out through defenders. xG on that shot was 0.05. All but two of Spurs shots had a higher chance of a goal than that Pukki strike. Highest xG Norwich had all night was 0.11 - Spurs had 5 shots of equal or higher xG than that.
Tottenham produced more and better quality shots than Norwich consistently throughout the night. This was the statistically best defensive performance (non-penalty) since the last Norwich game when they had no shots in the second half, and the second best since Mou took over.
His movement is good, he twice created good chances for himself and once for Rupp, but his finishing is woeful.
He was goalside of the defenders with only the keeper to beat. A good striker takes those chances all day long. Perhaps the quality of player affects the xGA, or perhaps xGA is the new money spinner designed to bedazzle while bullshitting.
Perhaps xGA will merge with LBGTQ+ for a real telling stat...
I can't believe that even MOTD has fallen into the trap of giving the total xG of each side as part of their stats. They're lending legitmacy to the completely false idea that xG "decides" who "deserved" to win a match (it doesn't, it can't, and it's not presently intended to).
It's important to understand how limited current xG models actually are. Two shots from 12 yards central on a player's strong foot will have the same xG regardless of whether they had to curl it top bins around 3 defenders or just pass it past a poorly positioned goalkeeper one-on-one.
Over a sufficient number of shots (i.e. a long series of games), xG will eventually start to resemble the training datasets (law of large numbers, or as most people understand it in a sense: "luck evens out over a long period of time"). Only then does comparing a player or a team's actual performance to their expected performance make sense from a logically/mathematically/inferentially valid perspective.
Nothing I'm saying is controversial. The people who work on xG models would be the first to agree with me, along with any statistician you can find who understands xG conceptually. The problem is that the eggheads who develop the models and program the algorithms work for large football stats businesses whose sales departments will sell whatever stats a client wants. Salespeople don't care if they're selling data to be misused out of context: it's not their job to care, and that's for the few of them who even understand what it is they're really selling.
xG is a terrible blight on football -- at least as it's currently used since seeping into the mainstream. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful achievement from a mathematical/algorithmic perspective (and it would've been an intractable problem up until the last, maybe, 20 years), but the way it's being used is definitely not.
If you lack a strong grasp on university-level statistics (which few people can be reasonably expected to acquire), the only "safe" way to use xG without probably being wrong is to apply it to a long series of games (e.g. a player's performance at the end of a whole season). Otherwise, for an individual game, trust your own eyes! They're probably more accurate than xG!
I thought that from Norwich's shots, overall, they were unlucky not to score at least one from open play (how many times did they blaze it just past the post?). Spurs' xG, on the other hand, illustrates major problems with the metric: Son's goal alone will have had an xG of about 0.7 (I don't have access to my usual database to get the exact number right now but I've seen enough shots and their xGs). The important thing about Son's goal, though, is that the chance of a deflection like that occurring and falling to him the way it did was so low as to give the goal a somewhat farcical quality. As usual, the xG from this game can't be used to justify or defend its outcome -- and, for me at least, the game was much, much closer than its xG differential (just imagine Kane on the end of all of Norwich's chances..).
Sorry for the long post about a tangential matter but I see people becoming more and more reliant on these E(x) stats. Trust your eyes!
It's important to understand how limited current xG models actually are. Two shots from 12 yards central on a player's strong foot will have the same xG regardless of whether they had to curl it top bins around 3 defenders or just pass it past a poorly positioned goalkeeper one-on-one.
Over a sufficient number of shots (i.e. a long series of games), xG will eventually start to resemble the training datasets (law of large numbers, or as most people understand it in a sense: "luck evens out over a long period of time"). Only then does comparing a player or a team's actual performance to their expected performance make sense from a logically/mathematically/inferentially valid perspective.
Nothing I'm saying is controversial. The people who work on xG models would be the first to agree with me, along with any statistician you can find who understands xG conceptually. The problem is that the eggheads who develop the models and program the algorithms work for large football stats businesses whose sales departments will sell whatever stats a client wants. Salespeople don't care if they're selling data to be misused out of context: it's not their job to care, and that's for the few of them who even understand what it is they're really selling.
xG is a terrible blight on football -- at least as it's currently used since seeping into the mainstream. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful achievement from a mathematical/algorithmic perspective (and it would've been an intractable problem up until the last, maybe, 20 years), but the way it's being used is definitely not.
If you lack a strong grasp on university-level statistics (which few people can be reasonably expected to acquire), the only "safe" way to use xG without probably being wrong is to apply it to a long series of games (e.g. a player's performance at the end of a whole season). Otherwise, for an individual game, trust your own eyes! They're probably more accurate than xG!
I thought that from Norwich's shots, overall, they were unlucky not to score at least one from open play (how many times did they blaze it just past the post?). Spurs' xG, on the other hand, illustrates major problems with the metric: Son's goal alone will have had an xG of about 0.7 (I don't have access to my usual database to get the exact number right now but I've seen enough shots and their xGs). The important thing about Son's goal, though, is that the chance of a deflection like that occurring and falling to him the way it did was so low as to give the goal a somewhat farcical quality. As usual, the xG from this game can't be used to justify or defend its outcome -- and, for me at least, the game was much, much closer than its xG differential (just imagine Kane on the end of all of Norwich's chances..).
Sorry for the long post about a tangential matter but I see people becoming more and more reliant on these E(x) stats. Trust your eyes!
Last edited:
Great post
Sums up my feelings to a tee
While I am bemused by most of these players , I am even more bemused as to how we have ended up with such little depth in such key areas , it’s woeful planning and squad progression , almost like we have wanted this to happen
Baffling
Got to wondering tonight if old Paxton ST holders went to the South stand. To avoid the away fans. That standing area is so quiet. Wall of noise. Don’t make me laugh.
Paxton super quiet. Some guy tutted at my yid army shout early on. With my dad so on my best behaviour after that...... another day probably would have kept it up just to piss him off.
Had some new guy next to me with Sport Billy style pockets with food - didn’t stop eating . And didn’t stop his running commentary. Did my head in tbh. Arrived 745. Left 85mins on the clock. Just as we won a corner! Still left exactly as planned!
Plus side there were 2women and their young kids in front who were genuinely involved, excited and stayed till the very end clapping off the players. 2 future diehards being bought up there. Even clapped along to McNamaras band. Always a good sign.
3 points and a COYS night.
Still love you spurs. Even though you are a bit shit.
Yeah, he used to say Gazzanea...
Funnily enough, I started my own post about xG before you posted this, and it dovetails very nicely. You're completely right IMO and this is a good tl;dr version of my point.
I cracked a wry smile. I'm a wordy cunt, mate. But I hope my longer explanation will be useful for anyone interested in xG and its huge shortcomings.To summarise - XG is shit.
#tothepoint
I did like your original post - I was having a cheeky laugh.
I am liking Lo Celso more and more.
So, right now we aren’t bad but we aren’t great either #captainobvious
It seems like there is not a serious tactical plan at times, or the players have been given too many options. Our tippy-tap always seems to fall short, our counter is not as aggressive as it should be, and we seem to be long balling it more and more. We have bright spots though with bursts of creativity. When the fullbacks pull off their crosses we are simply dangerous.
it’s tough to watch but it isn’t hopeless. #ringingendorsement
COYS
So, right now we aren’t bad but we aren’t great either #captainobvious
It seems like there is not a serious tactical plan at times, or the players have been given too many options. Our tippy-tap always seems to fall short, our counter is not as aggressive as it should be, and we seem to be long balling it more and more. We have bright spots though with bursts of creativity. When the fullbacks pull off their crosses we are simply dangerous.
it’s tough to watch but it isn’t hopeless. #ringingendorsement
COYS
Halle-fucking- lujah
Precisely what I've been saying since he was needlessly dismissed