Creativity & Chance Conversion

[jayramfootball]

Lies, damn lies and statistics.
They could be totally misleading, like possession stats. If you have 70% possession passing backwards and sideways and the opponent lies in wait ( w/only 30% control) but pounces on some of your passing mistakes and scores two, whereas you come up w/ nothing.
Or , you take 20 rubbish shots at the goal and waste all of them whereas the opponent takes three w/ precision and scores two.
An outsider who hasn't seen the game sees the stats and thinks, hmmm, our team made 20 attempts; we must be the unluckiest dog in town.

Indeed.
Taking 20 rubbish shots is rubbish - that is exactly what the numbers say for us. Poor attempts from half chances and the few good chances we are creating we're not scoring those either).

Lets take our 5-0 loss to City as an example.

Rodri scored from a chance with an xG of 0.02
Gundegan with a header with an xG of 0.14.

Laporte also scored from a chance with an xG of 0.1

That's 3 goals for City from their half chances.
Many other goals scored this season from chances with an xG of around 0.1 or less.

None for us, because we are unable to finish effectively despite creating a lot of these half chances.
Then there are our big chances we have created - 3 of them - we scored 1.

The data is very accurately reflecting what is being seen on the pitch.

[Power n Glory]

The goal probably counted as 3 chances

We had the volume. The final xG score is an accumulation of all the shots tallied up to give us the 2.69 score. All the 0.1, 0.14, 0.04 shot at up if you dominate with shots. We did dominate but just need to create better chances.

Almost correct.
Yes, this season the quality of our chances created ranks 19th in the league, the volume of chances ranks 6th.
Even though the quality is ranked low, we have created a lot and over the season would have been expected to score 4-5 goals but have scored 1.
That is the worst ratio in the league of expected goals to actual goals - i.e. our shooting is shit as well as the quality (on average) of the chances we are creating.

But Jay you are confirming all we are doing is creating a lot of shit chances, how can we expect to score goals if wre are creating shit chances. I get the probability, 1 in 10, but I also need to point out that you could also reasonably expect that you will never score from a shit chance - so scoring just 1 goal is a very plausible result and not in any way a criticism of the finishing.

I'm sure there is also a probability for how many times a you'd score if attempting to shoot from a goal kick or corners. Lol. It's just not a wise strategy to adapt to win.

I don't get this line of thinking when taking about football. It's like that cold calling sales pitch where they say if you make x amount of cold calls a day you should generate two or three solid sales leads. Football doesn't work like that. We're talking about luck and not strategy or tactics. Close to hoof and hope football. Just manage 30 odd shots and you're bound to score a few. All consideration for skill goes out of the window.

The whole point of xG is to try and measure quality chances being created and strikers who outperform their xG and do the near impossible often with low xG opportunities. That's the funny thing about this. The season we won the FA Cup we were super efficient and killing off chances with few shots on goal.

[jayramfootball]

The goal probably counted as 3 chances

We had the volume. The final xG score is an accumulation of all the shots tallied up to give us the 2.69 score. All the 0.1, 0.14, 0.04 shot at up if you dominate with shots. We did dominate but just need to create better chances.

Almost correct.
Yes, this season the quality of our chances created ranks 19th in the league, the volume of chances ranks 6th.
Even though the quality is ranked low, we have created a lot and over the season would have been expected to score 4-5 goals but have scored 1.
That is the worst ratio in the league of expected goals to actual goals - i.e. our shooting is shit as well as the quality (on average) of the chances we are creating.

But Jay you are confirming all we are doing is creating a lot of shit chances, how can we expect to score goals if wre are creating shit chances. I get the probability, 1 in 10, but I also need to point out that you could also reasonably expect that you will never score from a shit chance - so scoring just 1 goal is a very plausible result and not in any way a criticism of the finishing.

I'm sure there is also a probability for how many times a you'd score if attempting to shoot from a goal kick or corners. Lol. It's just not a wise strategy to adapt to win.

I don't get this line of thinking when taking about football. It's like that cold calling sales pitch where they say if you make x amount of cold calls a day you should generate two or three solid sales leads. Football doesn't work like that. We're talking about luck and not strategy or tactics. Close to hoof and hope football. Just manage 30 odd shots and you're bound to score a few. All consideration for skill goes out of the window.

The whole point of xG is to try and measure quality chances being created and strikers who outperform their xG and do the near impossible often with low xG opportunities. That's the funny thing about this. The season we won the FA Cup we were super efficient and killing off chances with few shots on goal.

Erm, yes.
So our strikers our players are underperforming their xG.
So far we should have scored 4-5 goals based on the chances provided and we've scored 1.
I agree with you on the whole point of xG and that is exactly how it is being used here. To measure the quality of the chances and how our players are finishing them - finishing or missing great chances and outperforming/underperforming the average with half chances.

So now we go back to what the data is saying, which is irrefutable.
We create a lot of chances, but we're not good at creating quality chances. With all the chances we've had we should have scored 4-5 goals just by the historical average conversion rates, but we haven't finished well enough and have only scored 1.

This thread will remain just the data and what it is saying - though it's not lost on me the people have flooded in to object.
The data will be updated every week and will give the truest season wide picture of our creativity as a team and our finishing.

Every single chance we make, score, or miss can be looked at individually and collectively. Totally transparent and not polluted by subjective or agenda-driven bias - regardless of one's position about the team.

[theHotHead]

I am watching the match on the Arsenal website. 18 mins in, 7 "chances"/shots, every single one fookin shite, I wouldn't even call them 1 out of 10 chances. literally any shot or header I have counted thus far because I don't see how I will get to 30 by the end of the game. Hopefully I have over-counted but in any case I will see the quality of the chances created. Auba's speculative long range effort trying to catch the keeper off guard is included in my 7 too, no way on earth that would be expected to be scored 1 out of 10 times.

[jayramfootball]

I am watching the match on the Arsenal website. 18 mins in, 7 "chances"/shots, every single one fookin shite, I wouldn't even call them 1 out of 10 chances. literally any shot or header I have counted thus far because I don't see how I will get to 30 by the end of the game. Hopefully I have over-counted but in any case I will see the quality of the chances created. Auba's speculative long range effort trying to catch the keeper off guard is included in my 7 too, no way on earth that would be expected to be scored 1 out of 10 times.

You are correct - that shot was assessed as a 3% chance, 1 in 33 times. Perfectly reasonable data as it is for all 30 shots on goal against Norwich.
The data is perfectly solid HH and is used quite extensively.

Your experience of watching up to 18 minutes is spelled out very nicely in the data - good confirmation

[Ach]

I am watching the match on the Arsenal website. 18 mins in, 7 "chances"/shots, every single one fookin shite, I wouldn't even call them 1 out of 10 chances. literally any shot or header I have counted thus far because I don't see how I will get to 30 by the end of the game. Hopefully I have over-counted but in any case I will see the quality of the chances created. Auba's speculative long range effort trying to catch the keeper off guard is included in my 7 too, no way on earth that would be expected to be scored 1 out of 10 times.

Was at the game. Barely created anything.

Lot of sideways passes though

[jayramfootball]

I am watching the match on the Arsenal website. 18 mins in, 7 "chances"/shots, every single one fookin shite, I wouldn't even call them 1 out of 10 chances. literally any shot or header I have counted thus far because I don't see how I will get to 30 by the end of the game. Hopefully I have over-counted but in any case I will see the quality of the chances created. Auba's speculative long range effort trying to catch the keeper off guard is included in my 7 too, no way on earth that would be expected to be scored 1 out of 10 times.

Was at the game. Barely created anything.

Lot of sideways passes though

You've already been caught out as pretending to have been at the game.
Stop, lol.

[theHotHead]

OK, half time, 10 chances/efforts so far, the best 2 being Tomi's volley and Odegaard's long ball to Auba who then tried to lob it over the keeper. Neither of them were good chances, but chances nonetheless. All other 8 chances were fookin shite, I wouldn't even call them chances, the Pepe free kick ... not a great chance.

To call any of those 8 chances 1 out of 10 chances would be utter madness. Now, if thats the quality of the second half chances and, for us to get to 30 attempts there needs to be double what I have seen so far, these so called 30 attempts overall have been utter rubbish and you could in no way blame the profligacy of the strikers.

[theHotHead]

They have Jeremy Aliadiare co-commenting, its taking all of my will power not to switch this thing off, he is awful.

[jayramfootball]

OK, half time, 10 chances/efforts so far, the best 2 being Tomi's volley and Odegaard's long ball to Auba who then tried to lob it over the keeper. Neither of them were good chances, but chances nonetheless. All other 8 chances were fookin shite, I wouldn't even call them chances, the Pepe free kick ... not a great chance.

To call any of those 8 chances 1 out of 10 chances would be utter madness. Now, if thats the quality of the second half chances and, for us to get to 30 attempts there needs to be double what I have seen so far, these so called 30 attempts overall have been utter rubbish and you could in no way blame the profligacy of the strikers.

Again - the data working perfectly.

Auba's chance from Odegaards long ball was offside so not rated at all and not counted in the 30 chances.
Tomi's shot rated at 0.04.

[Power n Glory]

They have Jeremy Aliadiare co-commenting, its taking all of my will power not to switch this thing off, he is awful.

Lol. I was wondering who it was because they mentioned playing with Edu. At first I thought it was Senderos.

[theHotHead]

65 mins in, 21 efforts, the goal took 3 efforts and an earlier passage of play took 3 as well, which obviously skews the numbers. From those 21 efforts 1 was a goal, 3 were rebounds and the 2 efforts in the first half, so 15 efforts have been absolute dog poo and 3 were rebounds.

[Power n Glory]

65 mins in, 21 efforts, the goal took 3 efforts and an earlier passage of play took 3 as well, which obviously skews the numbers. From those 21 efforts 1 was a goal, 3 were rebounds and the 2 efforts in the first half, so 15 efforts have been absolute dog poo and 3 were rebounds.

The last 10 mins were some of the best chances but overall it wasn't great.

[jayramfootball]

65 mins in, 21 efforts, the goal took 3 efforts and an earlier passage of play took 3 as well, which obviously skews the numbers. From those 21 efforts 1 was a goal, 3 were rebounds and the 2 efforts in the first half, so 15 efforts have been absolute dog poo and 3 were rebounds.

There were 30 chances in the game HH.
Doesn't need you to confirm it.

Skysports
https://www.skysports.com/football/arsenal-vs-norwich-city/stats/446318

BBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58436972

Whoscored
https://www.whoscored.com/Matches/1549569/MatchReport/England-Premier-League-2021-2022-Arsenal-Norwich

All of them state 30 shots.
Every source says the same thing.
It was the most shots on goal we had in over a decade I think.

Good/decent chances : 4
2 for Auba - 1 he scored, 1 he missed (4:35 in video)
1 for Pepe (3:05 in video)
1 for ESR.(5:00 in video)



26 others not good chances.

xG around 2.7.
All very fair.

Everything you are saying - apart from your disagreement with Sky , BBC and Whoscored and every other site that we had 30 shots - is confirming exactly what the data is saying. As I said, the data is what it is.

As for 'dog poo' efforts, I assume you mean chances... but the fact is those chances regularly hit the back of the net. Every week we'll see them go in. We saw another one tonight. a 0.02 xG chance smashed in by Townsend for Everton. Funnily enough, they go in just about the same percentage as the xG predicts - well not funnily enough really - that is the whole method of xG to assess chance situations and use similar situations to actually work out how often they go in from historical situations.

[theHotHead]

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.