Power n Glory wrote:jayramfootball wrote:Power n Glory wrote:jayramfootball wrote:theHotHead wrote:81 mins, 24 chances, 7 of which were not absolutely fookin shit chances, 3 of which were rebounds, one was the actual goal and there were 2 decent half chances from Saka. But again I stress, not a single big chance from any of that lot, not a single chance that I would expect a goal to be scored from.
At this point I can say we were crap vs Norwich, Ben White had a good game, anyone criticising Lokonga's performance is blind, Odegaard was meh, AMN needs to give up ambitions of being a CM, for e very good thing he does, he will do 2 absolutely dreadful things. Tomi looked quality, Ramsdale looked good, Pepe was in and out, Saka was in and out, Auba was Auba - not a great game but you felt he would do damage given a chance.
There were 30 shots on goal - you'll just have to rewatch it (
) as I am going to assume that all the major websites like Sky and BBC who also state there were 30 shots got it right).
4 good / decent chances listed above with video and time stamps.
26 speculative chances
You use the term 'expecting to score'. What does that mean???
You mean would NEVER expect to score? Would you NEVER expect ESR to have put his chance away, or Auba to NEVER score with his left foot with just the keeper to beat, or Pepe to NEVER score from 2 yards out instead of having his shot blocked???
Or do you mean - on percentages you would expect a miss more often than a goal?
Name one chance where the xG is not accurately reflected.
Your player assessment is similar to what I thought from being there.
Again, find a game from the weekend where a team has had a similar amount of shots on goals with a low xG ratings and scored? It's a rare thing.
Also, Norwich had 10 shots on goal with similar low 0.1 xG scores. Should they have scored a goal against us? The volume of shots argument doesn't make much sense
This data has already been provided for the whole season not just this weekend.
Example. The average quality of the chances created by Aston Villa this season is 0.09.
They have scored 5 goals.
3 of their 5 goals have xGs off 0.03, 0.06 and 0.09.
There are other teams in the table at the top of this thread.
Another example...
Liverpool have had a lot of lower quality chances like us. The average quality of their chances is less than 0.1.
They have scored with an xG chance of 0.03
There is another one of their goals with an xG of 0.14.
I can go on.
Obviously the accumulation of lower quality chances will eventually yield a goal. That's been football ever since it began. We've all heard the phrase
'keep shooting and one will eventually go in'Some players are just better at converting harder chances than others.At the moment our team, unlike Liverpool, Villa and others, have turned none of those difficult chances into goals
So yes, the volume of shots argument does make sense and can be tracked to show that lower quality chances do yield goals and some teams are better at converting them.
Whichever way you come at the data it pretty much always ends up reflecting reality.
As for Norwich, yes, if they had scored we could not have said they were lucky. They had enough chances to score, but you are wrong about their xG. It was 0.58, not 1.
So whether they scored or not was pretty 50/50 based on expectation from chances.
Again solid data.
Solid data but you're ignoring player quality and have a data analyst approach with some these quotes. Teams don't often score from multiple goals from these low xG chances, you have some examples below. It's usually the odd goal and not 3 or 4. But the beauty of football is that sometimes you get games where you get some high quality goals from low xG chances and that's a brilliant game to watch.
https://understat.com/match/16409https://understat.com/match/16399https://understat.com/match/16388https://understat.com/match/16402The other thing you have to address with all this data is what does that tell you about the team and manager? Have we got things right with our transfer strategy and not buying better attackers if we're not scoring enough of these low xG chances? Should we be playing this style if we're not converting chances but when Arteta first arrived we were taking less shots but creating higher quality chances and scoring 2 out of 3 attempts like this Liverpool game below? Look at the amount of shots Liverpool had in contrast?
https://understat.com/match/11993Or look at this Norwich game where we beat them 4-0 in Arteta's first season. One wonder goal from Cedric but the rest were higher xG chances finished.
https://understat.com/match/11953The data is solid but now you have to apply some of that to the team we have and playing to our strengths, not recreating a Man City lite.
I have already shown 6 goals scored by 3 teams this season from 'low quality chances', including 1 team where MOST of their goals have come from low quality chances.
I am going to provide a view of every PL goal scored this season and the associated quality of the chance.
I don't know what that will show yet, the data will just be the data.
IN terms of the where the team needs to go , it's pretty clear to me that we need to improve the cutting edge in terms of opening teams up to create better chances and also be more ruthless in front of goal.
Do we have the players - given what we had and what we've brought in? That remains to be seen in terms of build-up play that can more effectively break down defences. In terms of finishing - i.e. players that can finish better chances at a high rate, strike cleanly from distance and convert more of those half chances , I think we are short and probably need a couple of players.
That said, we're only 4 games in... the data needs to be measured over a longer period of time really. For example, Pepe has had a few half chances this season and missed them all, plus failed to convert his one good chance. He might bang in two goals from distance in the next game and then all of sudden he's back on track. It will be later in the season before we can conclude at the player level.
Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2021 6:04 am