West Ham Vs Tottenham Hotspur - Sun 21st Feb, 12noon KO - Live on Sky.

[hiatus]

We were 1st in the table a couple months ago and a segment of the fanbase was still being critical. Obviously things are not good right now and I've said I wanted him to go.

I just find it extremely hypocritical for some to say Jose is the divisive one when the moment he joined the club, they were the ones who refused to give him a chance and were creating a division in the fanbase.

Some were critical because the results were not lining up with the performances. There were pretty glaring red flags that needed to be sorted.

That stretch of results we got against Burnley, Brighton and West Brom masked a lot of issues that subsequently came up again and again against Palace, Fulham, Leciester, Wolves, at Brighton: the overreliance on Son and Kane not only to score all of the goals but also converting minimal chances at an unsustainably high rate.

As soon as we started regressing in terms of conversion rate and put more pressure on our defense to hold one goal leads we collapsed. There was no viable plan B. Instead of taking action after the Palace result, Jose dug in and kept doing the same thing over and over and over which has led us to where we are now: 9th place, a 57 point pace, six points off 4th if we win our game in hand.

This team has never been a "good" Jose team. There hasn't been a good Jose team since before Pep and Klopp were in the Premier League. And he clearly hasn't adjusted his philosophy enough to complete with how the majority of teams are playing.

 

[Raiders]

Some were critical because the results were not lining up with the performances. There were pretty glaring red flags that needed to be sorted.

That stretch of results we got against Burnley, Brighton and West Brom masked a lot of issues that subsequently came up again and again against Palace, Fulham, Leciester, Wolves, at Brighton: the overreliance on Son and Kane not only to score all of the goals but also converting minimal chances at an unsustainably high rate.

As soon as we started regressing in terms of conversion rate and put more pressure on our defense to hold one goal leads we collapsed. There was no viable plan B. Instead of taking action after the Palace result, Jose dug in and kept doing the same thing over and over and over which has led us to where we are now: 9th place, a 57 point pace, six points off 4th if we win our game in hand.

This team has never been a "good" Jose team. There hasn't been a good Jose team since before Pep and Klopp were in the Premier League. And he clearly hasn't adjusted his philosophy enough to complete with how the majority of teams are playing.

One thing that was noted by everyone on here (cynically or mockingly) is that our Xg was not lining up with the results. A sign that we were overachieving during that period.

 

[Nikesh]

Yes, both must been tumbling over themselves to join. Get real, reset needed. No CL money, no stadium revenue (football and other). We should have a look at the Reading manager and see what players he can locate in the lower leagues

Bollocks. That bald bastard upstairs can fucking spend some of his bonus on players or the other bald billionaire bastard owner can spend some money

 

[hiatus]

The off-ball movement is atrocious. Our forwards are a bunch of bumbling nitwits at the best of times, but this is exacerbated by the tepid, incoherent chaos that goes on behind them - damningly, the same can be said of the defence - ahead of them. Which says it all.

We have no off-ball movement. There are no attacking patterns. It's remarkable how static our attack is. People shit on Dele but at least he was making runs in behind the defense. Players just have no idea what to do in the final third with or without the ball. We reset the ball with the CBs but there is nothing to reset, it's just pointless recycling at that point.

 

[Dr Rocktopus]

One thing that was noted by everyone on here (cynically or mockingly) is that our Xg was not lining up with the results. A sign that we were overachieving during that period.

Still don't see the relevance of XG. Some random opinion of what constitutes a clear chance.

It's mostly subjective.

 

[hiatus]

Still don't see the relevance of XG. Some random opinion of what constitutes a clear chance.

It's mostly subjective.

It's based on millions of attempts by tens of thousands of footballers in dozens of top flight leagues over more than 10 years.

It's basically the polar opposite of subjective.

 

[Raiders]

Still don't see the relevance of XG. Some random opinion of what constitutes a clear chance.

It's mostly subjective.

Is it an opinion?

 

[Dr Rocktopus]

It's based on millions of attempts by tens of thousands of footballers in dozens of top flight leagues over more than 10 years.

It's basically the polar opposite of subjective.

If you say so.

Sounds like millions of subjective interpretations.

 

[OldBoy68]

It's based on millions of attempts by tens of thousands of footballers in dozens of top flight leagues over more than 10 years.

It's basically the polar opposite of subjective.

And yet the meaning of the number is the polar opposite of objective.

 

[hiatus]

If you say so.

Sounds like millions of subjective interpretations.

Does a shot end up in the back of the net or not is the most basic objective observation possible in football.

 

[LEGO Boy]

I do not want to see the Chuckle Brothers at the back ever again. It's bad enough when one plays but as a pair it's calamity. Terrible managerial decision.

 

[Dr Rocktopus]

Is it an opinion?

Yes.

'Obvious' is an opinion. Doesn't exactly factor in mentality, atmosphere, speed, form, or chance.

Not everything can be measured visually.

 

[hiatus]

And yet the meaning of the number is the polar opposite of objective.

0.1 xG means 1/10 shots from that spot go in given all measurable variables at play. It's not meant to account for player quality, only the average result, which is why some players can outperform their xG over time (Kane, for instance).

I don't understand how anyone thinks this is subjective. This is like arguing that 1+1 isn't 2.

 

[Dr Rocktopus]

Does a shot end up in the back of the net or not is the most basic objective observation possible in football.

See my post above.

XG is a load of utterly rancid wank.

 

[Raiders]

Yes.

'Obvious' is an opinion. Doesn't exactly factor in mentality, atmosphere, speed, form, or chance.

Not everything can be measured visually.

I thought it is just if the probability of scoring is >0.50

 

[Dr Rocktopus]

I thought it is just if the probability of scoring is >0.50

Which is absolutely subjective.

 

[OldBoy68]

0.1 xG means 1/10 shots from that spot go in given all measurable variables at play. It's not meant to account for player quality, only the average result, which is why some players can outperform their xG over time (Kane, for instance).

I don't understand how anyone thinks this is subjective. This is like arguing that 1+1 isn't 2.

Because the xG rarely reflects the result. That's why. What was our xG vs. Spam today?

 

[hiatus]

Yes.

'Obvious' is an opinion. Doesn't exactly factor in mentality, atmosphere, speed, form, or chance.

Not everything can be measured visually.

Expected goals, not "for sure this is going to be the outcome of this action" goals.

It's why it's a very good predictor of team performance over a long period of time.

 

[Dr Rocktopus]

Expected goals, not "for sure this is going to be the outcome of this action" goals.

It's why it's a very good predictor of team performance over a long period of time.

It isn't. It's a load of utter bollocks that completely fails to account for the multiple variables.

 

[hiatus]

Because the xG rarely reflects the result. That's why. What was our xG vs. Spam today?

xG isn't designed to predict single match outcomes, it's designed to show the likelihood of scoring each individual shot. In aggregate over several matches, it is one of the most reliable indicators of long-term form available.

If you flip a coin and get heads twice, it doesn't mean that the odds that you'd get tails 1/2 times was wrong - you just happened to get heads twice.