Creativity & Chance Conversion

Arsenal news and interviews
Discuss anything Arsenal related, players, tactics etc.

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:29 am

Power n Glory wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:But Jay, if we take the Norwich game in isolation, its not our finishing that prevented us from scoring more goals (ESR chance aside), it was the quality of the chances we created that was the problem.


It was a combination.
ESR chance, Auba chance and Pepe chance (blocked on the line) - you'd expect 1 goal from those three chances ( in fact the xG combined for all 3 was about 1). We missed them all.
Then all the other chances - based on league averages a goal would result about 2-3% of the time so you'd expect 35-40 of those types of efforts to yield a goal.
Then the actual goal, which obviously had a very high xG.
That is why the xG came out at 2.7.

Now, if you refer back to a previous post I have already stated that we're only 4 games in, so the numbers can not be reflective of individual players yet and even for the whole team we only have a small data set.
For example, that ESR chance - we can forgive him. It's one chance and can easily be missed. If over the season, however, he has 10 of those types of chance and misses ALL of them, we'll be saying (rightly) that he has finished poorly this season.

That is why this data will be updated each week. The picture becomes more and more solid as more data is added, but as of now, 4 games in ... we are creating lots of chances (6th in the league), but not very good ones (19th in the league on average) and our finishing is the worst in the league.

No Jay, I agree you could reasonably expect 1 goal from ESR/Pepe/Auba chances most definitely but I disagree that you would expect a goal from the other chances, they were poor low quality chances, they never looked like being goals.

I agree with PnG, of we continue to create such poor quality chances in high numbers, we will struggle to score any goals!!


Those other lower percentage chances lead to goals game after game, year after year. Lower percentage, yes, but goals nonetheless.

Already pointed out 6 goals scored from low percentage chances by just 3 teams.
If I looked at every team I bet I would find that the difference between the goals scored from low quality and high quality chances was not that big.

No they don't Jay, they typically never amount to a goal, all you have done is show us some exceptions to the rule, you can always find an exception but, for the most part, for the vast majority of the so-called chances we created against Norwich, they don't amount to goals.

Lets do the analysis PNG has asked for, lets look at the percentage of 0.1xG chances that actually end up being goals. In fact, surely we can take this a step further, can't we look at each team's xG and match up actual goals to expected and see on how many occasions a team scored more than their expected goals. That will give us an idea of how many unexpected goals have been scored, right?!

My guess is there will be hardly any instances of that if any.


I am doing just that, so lets start with Man Utd

Image

11 goals , 4 of which have been scored with an xG of <0.1 AND nearly 70% of all their chances being <0.1 quality.

I am doing this for every team and I suspect it's going to show a lot of goals scored from these low-quality chances.


Man Utd have not score 4 goals in one game from low xG chances. That’s the difference. You're looking at one Norwich game for us and saying we should have beaten them by 3 or 4 goals from mostly low xG chances.


No.
I said 2-3 goals is what we should have scored. xG was 2.7.

I am looking over the season.
Lets add us to the table

Image

Man Utd have had 43 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 4 goals from those low likelihood chances
We have had 48 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 0 goals from those low likelihood chances

This tells us pretty conclusively that Man Utd are simply better at finishing both good chances and low percentage chances than we are.
When every team is in this table we're going to see a lot of goals from low-quality chances, I suspect. Will be interesting to see which teams do better with those half-chances/low percentage chances.

You are also wrong about Utd even in 1 game. Against Leeds, 2 of their 5 goals came from low xG chances of less than 0.1 and 11 of their 16 shots we're with an xG of <0.1.
No one anywhere ever said that 4 goals in a game would come from purely low xG chances.
Last edited by jayramfootball on Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
jayramfootball
Arsène Wenger
Arsène Wenger
 
Posts: 13686
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby Power n Glory » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:39 am

jayramfootball wrote:
Power n Glory wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:But Jay, if we take the Norwich game in isolation, its not our finishing that prevented us from scoring more goals (ESR chance aside), it was the quality of the chances we created that was the problem.


It was a combination.
ESR chance, Auba chance and Pepe chance (blocked on the line) - you'd expect 1 goal from those three chances ( in fact the xG combined for all 3 was about 1). We missed them all.
Then all the other chances - based on league averages a goal would result about 2-3% of the time so you'd expect 35-40 of those types of efforts to yield a goal.
Then the actual goal, which obviously had a very high xG.
That is why the xG came out at 2.7.

Now, if you refer back to a previous post I have already stated that we're only 4 games in, so the numbers can not be reflective of individual players yet and even for the whole team we only have a small data set.
For example, that ESR chance - we can forgive him. It's one chance and can easily be missed. If over the season, however, he has 10 of those types of chance and misses ALL of them, we'll be saying (rightly) that he has finished poorly this season.

That is why this data will be updated each week. The picture becomes more and more solid as more data is added, but as of now, 4 games in ... we are creating lots of chances (6th in the league), but not very good ones (19th in the league on average) and our finishing is the worst in the league.

No Jay, I agree you could reasonably expect 1 goal from ESR/Pepe/Auba chances most definitely but I disagree that you would expect a goal from the other chances, they were poor low quality chances, they never looked like being goals.

I agree with PnG, of we continue to create such poor quality chances in high numbers, we will struggle to score any goals!!


Those other lower percentage chances lead to goals game after game, year after year. Lower percentage, yes, but goals nonetheless.

Already pointed out 6 goals scored from low percentage chances by just 3 teams.
If I looked at every team I bet I would find that the difference between the goals scored from low quality and high quality chances was not that big.

No they don't Jay, they typically never amount to a goal, all you have done is show us some exceptions to the rule, you can always find an exception but, for the most part, for the vast majority of the so-called chances we created against Norwich, they don't amount to goals.

Lets do the analysis PNG has asked for, lets look at the percentage of 0.1xG chances that actually end up being goals. In fact, surely we can take this a step further, can't we look at each team's xG and match up actual goals to expected and see on how many occasions a team scored more than their expected goals. That will give us an idea of how many unexpected goals have been scored, right?!

My guess is there will be hardly any instances of that if any.


I am doing just that, so lets start with Man Utd

Image

11 goals , 4 of which have been scored with an xG of <0.1 AND nearly 70% of all their chances being <0.1 quality.

I am doing this for every team and I suspect it's going to show a lot of goals scored from these low-quality chances.


Man Utd have not score 4 goals in one game from low xG chances. That’s the difference. You're looking at one Norwich game for us and saying we should have beaten them by 3 or 4 goals from mostly low xG chances.


No.
I said 2-3 goals is what we should have scored. xG was 2.7.

I am looking over the season.
Lets add us to the table

Image

Man Utd have had 43 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 4 goals from those low likelihood chances
We have had 48 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 0 goals from those low likelihood chances

When every team is in this table we're going to see a lot of goals from low-quality chances, I suspect.

You are also wrong about Utd even in 1 game. Against Leeds, 2 of their 5 goals came from low xG chances of less than 0.1 and 11 of their 16 shots we're with an xG of <0.1.
No one anywhere ever said that 4 goals in a game would come from purely low xG chances.


It's a rarity. An exception and not the rule..

Again, let's entertain what your saying. If true then address this point.


Ok. Let's go with it.

So what does that tell you about Arsenal? You're not addressing the elephant in the room. Link it with all you have said about the manager, players and transfer strategy. If the data is the data, everything the manager is doing in regards to strategy and transfers can't be right, can it? How does Arteta fix this issue going forward if it's a case of poor finishing? Is it back to waiting for another transfer window?
User avatar
Power n Glory
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6315
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:41 am

Power n Glory wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
Power n Glory wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
theHotHead wrote:But Jay, if we take the Norwich game in isolation, its not our finishing that prevented us from scoring more goals (ESR chance aside), it was the quality of the chances we created that was the problem.


It was a combination.
ESR chance, Auba chance and Pepe chance (blocked on the line) - you'd expect 1 goal from those three chances ( in fact the xG combined for all 3 was about 1). We missed them all.
Then all the other chances - based on league averages a goal would result about 2-3% of the time so you'd expect 35-40 of those types of efforts to yield a goal.
Then the actual goal, which obviously had a very high xG.
That is why the xG came out at 2.7.

Now, if you refer back to a previous post I have already stated that we're only 4 games in, so the numbers can not be reflective of individual players yet and even for the whole team we only have a small data set.
For example, that ESR chance - we can forgive him. It's one chance and can easily be missed. If over the season, however, he has 10 of those types of chance and misses ALL of them, we'll be saying (rightly) that he has finished poorly this season.

That is why this data will be updated each week. The picture becomes more and more solid as more data is added, but as of now, 4 games in ... we are creating lots of chances (6th in the league), but not very good ones (19th in the league on average) and our finishing is the worst in the league.

No Jay, I agree you could reasonably expect 1 goal from ESR/Pepe/Auba chances most definitely but I disagree that you would expect a goal from the other chances, they were poor low quality chances, they never looked like being goals.

I agree with PnG, of we continue to create such poor quality chances in high numbers, we will struggle to score any goals!!


Those other lower percentage chances lead to goals game after game, year after year. Lower percentage, yes, but goals nonetheless.

Already pointed out 6 goals scored from low percentage chances by just 3 teams.
If I looked at every team I bet I would find that the difference between the goals scored from low quality and high quality chances was not that big.

No they don't Jay, they typically never amount to a goal, all you have done is show us some exceptions to the rule, you can always find an exception but, for the most part, for the vast majority of the so-called chances we created against Norwich, they don't amount to goals.

Lets do the analysis PNG has asked for, lets look at the percentage of 0.1xG chances that actually end up being goals. In fact, surely we can take this a step further, can't we look at each team's xG and match up actual goals to expected and see on how many occasions a team scored more than their expected goals. That will give us an idea of how many unexpected goals have been scored, right?!

My guess is there will be hardly any instances of that if any.


I am doing just that, so lets start with Man Utd

Image

11 goals , 4 of which have been scored with an xG of <0.1 AND nearly 70% of all their chances being <0.1 quality.

I am doing this for every team and I suspect it's going to show a lot of goals scored from these low-quality chances.


Man Utd have not score 4 goals in one game from low xG chances. That’s the difference. You're looking at one Norwich game for us and saying we should have beaten them by 3 or 4 goals from mostly low xG chances.


No.
I said 2-3 goals is what we should have scored. xG was 2.7.

I am looking over the season.
Lets add us to the table

Image

Man Utd have had 43 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 4 goals from those low likelihood chances
We have had 48 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 0 goals from those low likelihood chances

When every team is in this table we're going to see a lot of goals from low-quality chances, I suspect.

You are also wrong about Utd even in 1 game. Against Leeds, 2 of their 5 goals came from low xG chances of less than 0.1 and 11 of their 16 shots we're with an xG of <0.1.
No one anywhere ever said that 4 goals in a game would come from purely low xG chances.


It's a rarity. An exception and not the rule..

Again, let's entertain what your saying. If true then address this point.


Ok. Let's go with it.

So what does that tell you about Arsenal? You're not addressing the elephant in the room. Link it with all you have said about the manager, players and transfer strategy. If the data is the data, everything the manager is doing in regards to strategy and transfers can't be right, can it? How does Arteta fix this issue going forward if it's a case of poor finishing? Is it back to waiting for another transfer window?


We'll see how rare it is when I have completed the table.
We can address the clear and obvious issues that the data shows for Arsenal when I have completed the table with all teams to get a sense of how we compare.
Image
jayramfootball
Arsène Wenger
Arsène Wenger
 
Posts: 13686
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby Power n Glory » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:48 am

What's the point in gathering the data and comparing if you fail to come up with a theory and talk about the tactical side? It's a pointless exercise if you refuse to engage with those arguments. The data should eventually draw a conclusion and either way you're stumped on the answer.
User avatar
Power n Glory
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6315
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:53 am

Power n Glory wrote:What's the point in gathering the data and comparing if you fail to come up with a theory and talk about the tactical side? It's a pointless exercise if you refuse to engage with those arguments. The data should eventually draw a conclusion and either way you're stumped on the answer.


We can talk about that when the data is in.

Added Villa... and a total for all teams so far (Utd, Arsenal, Villa)
Image

We've created more chances than Villa, both good chances and not so good chances. They have 5 goals, we have 1.
Image
jayramfootball
Arsène Wenger
Arsène Wenger
 
Posts: 13686
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:06 pm

Cheslea added

Image

3 goals from lower percentage chances.

So far, 4 teams in we have 10 goals scored from chances with <0.1xG...38.5% of all goals for those 4 teams.
Min of 3 for the other 3 teams - none for us.
Last edited by jayramfootball on Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
jayramfootball
Arsène Wenger
Arsène Wenger
 
Posts: 13686
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby Power n Glory » Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:10 pm

jayramfootball wrote:
Power n Glory wrote:What's the point in gathering the data and comparing if you fail to come up with a theory and talk about the tactical side? It's a pointless exercise if you refuse to engage with those arguments. The data should eventually draw a conclusion and either way you're stumped on the answer.


We can talk about that when the data is in.

Added Villa... and a total for all teams so far (Utd, Arsenal, Villa)
Image

We've created more chances than Villa, both good chances and not so good chances. They have 5 goals, we have 1.


If it helps you understand better, keep going but the conclusion is pretty simple and one everyone has already said before regarding the recruitment, players and manager.
User avatar
Power n Glory
Dennis Bergkamp
Dennis Bergkamp
 
Posts: 6315
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2018 6:02 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:27 pm

Power n Glory wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:
Power n Glory wrote:What's the point in gathering the data and comparing if you fail to come up with a theory and talk about the tactical side? It's a pointless exercise if you refuse to engage with those arguments. The data should eventually draw a conclusion and either way you're stumped on the answer.


We can talk about that when the data is in.

Added Villa... and a total for all teams so far (Utd, Arsenal, Villa)
Image

We've created more chances than Villa, both good chances and not so good chances. They have 5 goals, we have 1.


If it helps you understand better, keep going but the conclusion is pretty simple and one everyone has already said before regarding the recruitment, players and manager.


I already did understand ( I already knew that a high volume of lesser chances yields goals in football. (You know that simply from watching the games). This exercise is to conclusively prove and put to bed the claim that low-quality chances do not yield goals and to underline the fact that quality chance creation is not the only issue we face (in fact, I would say it is the lesser of two big issues, the other being our finishing).
Image
jayramfootball
Arsène Wenger
Arsène Wenger
 
Posts: 13686
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby theHotHead » Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:33 pm

jayramfootball wrote:No.
I said 2-3 goals is what we should have scored. xG was 2.7.

I am looking over the season.
Lets add us to the table

Image

Man Utd have had 43 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 4 goals from those low likelihood chances
We have had 48 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 0 goals from those low likelihood chances

This tells us pretty conclusively that Man Utd are simply better at finishing both good chances and low percentage chances than we are.
When every team is in this table we're going to see a lot of goals from low-quality chances, I suspect. Will be interesting to see which teams do better with those half-chances/low percentage chances.

You are also wrong about Utd even in 1 game. Against Leeds, 2 of their 5 goals came from low xG chances of less than 0.1 and 11 of their 16 shots we're with an xG of <0.1.
No one anywhere ever said that 4 goals in a game would come from purely low xG chances.

Great work so far Jay, please carry on, will be interesting to see what the complete table looks like, we can perhaps find correlations between so called lesser clubs and their efficiency converting low rating chances compared to the big boys.

But a glaring issue with your comment
This tells us pretty conclusively that Man Utd are simply better at finishing both good chances and low percentage chances than we are.
I think is very misleading, who is to say that Man U scored those low chance goals because of goalkeeping errors, or poor opposing team performance, or a defensive lapse in that game by the team. Ozim point this out before, there are a plethora of reasons why a low chance goal can be scored that are not due to the quality of the strike, it could be a scuffed dribbler that bounced over the keepers arms and went in, that doesn't mean Man U are better than us at converting low quality chances, that assumption should not be made.
User avatar
theHotHead
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 12215
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby theHotHead » Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:38 pm

I think the data so far simply proves the ineffectiveness of Arteta's system and tactics, thats where this is heading. If we are so poor it MUST mean the manager is getting it wrong and this is sometihng that many of us have been saying for months now !
User avatar
theHotHead
Poster Of The Month
Poster Of The Month
 
Posts: 12215
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:44 am
Location: Norf Landon

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:40 pm

theHotHead wrote:
jayramfootball wrote:No.
I said 2-3 goals is what we should have scored. xG was 2.7.

I am looking over the season.
Lets add us to the table

Image

Man Utd have had 43 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 4 goals from those low likelihood chances
We have had 48 shots with an xG of <0.1 this season and have scored 0 goals from those low likelihood chances

This tells us pretty conclusively that Man Utd are simply better at finishing both good chances and low percentage chances than we are.
When every team is in this table we're going to see a lot of goals from low-quality chances, I suspect. Will be interesting to see which teams do better with those half-chances/low percentage chances.

You are also wrong about Utd even in 1 game. Against Leeds, 2 of their 5 goals came from low xG chances of less than 0.1 and 11 of their 16 shots we're with an xG of <0.1.
No one anywhere ever said that 4 goals in a game would come from purely low xG chances.

Great work so far Jay, please carry on, will be interesting to see what the complete table looks like, we can perhaps find correlations between so called lesser clubs and their efficiency converting low rating chances compared to the big boys.

But a glaring issue with your comment
This tells us pretty conclusively that Man Utd are simply better at finishing both good chances and low percentage chances than we are.
I think is very misleading, who is to say that Man U scored those low chance goals because of goalkeeping errors, or poor opposing team performance, or a defensive lapse in that game by the team. Ozim point this out before, there are a plethora of reasons why a low chance goal can be scored that are not due to the quality of the strike, it could be a scuffed dribbler that bounced over the keepers arms and went in, that doesn't mean Man U are better than us at converting low quality chances, that assumption should not be made.


XG takes into account the positioning of the defender and the keeper, but it does not account for a goalkeeping howler, of course. Then again we can look up any chance.
The idea that a club will benefit over a season from error after error leading to low xG chances being scored is unreasonable to assume. It's a lazy argument taking outliers/exceptions as an easy way out from facing what the data shows. You can also take the same exceptions for high-quality chances - who was it that said every goal is the result of an error...
Having said that, it is another valid reason why after 4 games we can only see where we are now and not conclude - for that reason I will retract the word 'conclusively' in assessing our finishing ability or indeed our ability to create.
When we get more data we'll see better, but the pointers are pretty damning right now on our ability to score not just low percentage chances but also those chances with a >=0.1 xG compared to other teams.
Image
jayramfootball
Arsène Wenger
Arsène Wenger
 
Posts: 13686
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:14 pm

Here is the full table:

Image

What does it say:

- The majority of every teams chances are low quality - overall in the league 75% of all chances are <0.1xG - but the better teams have a much better ratio of >=0.1xG to <0.1xG. (look at Liverpool, Utd, Chelsea for example).
- 28 goals have been scored across the league from shots that have an xG of <0.1
- This is 26.9% of all goals
- 8 teams in the league have created more chances >=0.1 xG than we have : Utd, Chelsea, WHU, Crystal Palace, City, Everton, Wolves, Liverpool
- The conversion rate for a chance with an xG of >= 0.1 is 28.8% on average, but our conversion rate is 9.1%.
- The conversion rate for a chance with an xG of < 0.1 is 3.5% on average, ours is 0% (along with Newcastle, Burney, Norwich, Wolves, Soton) - so only 6 of the 20 teams have not scored from chances with an xG of < 0.1
- Only Wolves, Liverpool & Man City have more low-quality chances than we do so far this season (that is good and bad)
- 81.4% of the chances we create are low quality (less than 0.1xG) - third-worst ratio in the league behind Watford and Aston Villa. (when watching a game this will be why the perception will exist that we don't create better chances, because the vast majority we do create are not good chances)

Our conversion of chances, whether >=0.1 xG or <0.1xG, comparatively this year to the rest of the league is poor.
We also need to create more chances with a >=0.1xG. Being 9th on this metric is not good enough.
No surprise that 9 of the 28 goals (nearly a third) from xG's of <0.1 have come from the top 4 teams: City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Man Utd. mention should go to Utd, Spurs, Chelsea, Everton and Villa - their conversion rate of those lesser chances is very good so far.

Also for some small satisfaction.
We've created more chances - good and not so good - than Spurs. They are creatively worse than we are.
They got some lucky results early but they are shite at creating chances - and not much better at finishing the better chances than we are.

Hopefully we can put to bed the singular focus on creating chances - we have 2 issues to solve. Our quality chance creation and our finishing.
Image
jayramfootball
Arsène Wenger
Arsène Wenger
 
Posts: 13686
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby Santi » Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:16 pm

Good work Jay. Obviously the quality of opposition will have an impact as well, so as you say it's not a conclusive picture yet but it's still useful metrics to review.

Are you planning to keep it updated for everyone or just for us? Will be quite a task either way but fair play if you can keep it going.
Image
User avatar
Santi
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 40348
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:11 am

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby jayramfootball » Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:20 pm

Santi wrote:Good work Jay. Obviously the quality of opposition will have an impact as well, so as you say it's not a conclusive picture yet but it's still useful metrics to review.

Are you planning to keep it updated for everyone or just for us? Will be quite a task either way but fair play if you can keep it going.


I'll keep it updated through the season - maybe not every week, more like every 2 or 3 weeks.
TBH, it'll take 10 or so games before a more stable picture is seen.

...and yes, the opposition is key... it's why I think we're probably underrepresented in higher quality chances at the moment. City was almost not existent for us attacking wise.
Last edited by jayramfootball on Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
jayramfootball
Arsène Wenger
Arsène Wenger
 
Posts: 13686
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:58 pm

Re: Creativity & Chance Conversion

Postby Santi » Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:21 pm

jayramfootball wrote:
Santi wrote:Good work Jay. Obviously the quality of opposition will have an impact as well, so as you say it's not a conclusive picture yet but it's still useful metrics to review.

Are you planning to keep it updated for everyone or just for us? Will be quite a task either way but fair play if you can keep it going.


I'll keep it updated through the season - maybe not every week, more like every 2 or 3 weeks.
TBH, it'll take 10 or so games before a more stable picture is seen.


Nice one. Agreed, about a third of the season should be enough to really confirm any trends.
Image
User avatar
Santi
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 40348
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 3:11 am

PreviousNext

Return to Arsenal Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests