Aston Villa (A) - 9th April - 530 KO.

  • 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...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

sport is not a science - because it is not governed by immutable natural laws, just humans with all of their will, skill, physique, vagaries and failings. A lot of science is used for training and diet, but beyond that it is incalculable because the only thing that performs in the sport are human beings (no cars, aircraft, rackets or man made devices.) You clearly can't distinguish the difference, so thinking this tosh (to me) is meaningful makes you happy. As you so rightly say - if it makes you happy then enjoy it, but please don't try to prove there's any genuine science behind it.

The two leagues look the same - no shit sherlock, the numbers are an expression of past events, not harbingers of future events.

Turning the beauty of seeing this sport being performed by the finest skilled human athletes, being converted into meaningless statistics to try to makes things look scientific just sucks the joy and wonder out of watching amazing humans do amazing things.
Of course it's a science, just as any other sport is. Science has innumerable variables to contend with, which is why chaos theory is part of the scientific catalogue.

Coaching is a science, or do you think the way the likes of City and Liverpool play is because Pep and Klopp just bought a shitload of players and told them to "run araaaand a bit?"

There is science within the game, from the tactical setup, to the patterns of play, to the laws of the game. All systems put in place as a result of experimentation to achieve a desired end.

A rainbow is science, the aurora borealis is science, it doesn't detract from their beauty, just as the science doesn't detract from the beauty and diversity of the game.

You might not like or accept this, but that doesn't give you license to demean those that do.
 
Of course it's a science, just as any other sport is. Science has innumerable variables to contend with, which is why chaos theory is part of the scientific catalogue.

Coaching is a science, or do you think the way the likes of City and Liverpool play is because Pep and Klopp just bought a shitload of players and told them to "run araaaand a bit?"

There is science within the game, from the tactical setup, to the patterns of play, to the laws of the game. All systems put in place as a result of experimentation to achieve a desired end.

A rainbow is science, the aurora borealis is science, it doesn't detract from their beauty, just as the science doesn't detract from the beauty and diversity of the game.

You might not like or accept this, but that doesn't give you license to demean those that do.
Well, you go ahead and believe that then.
It's your choice, but I'm sorry, I don't share your definition.
And I did say that there were aspects of science in the support of the game, but men kicking footballs is a sport and there are no laws, constants or replicable science based facts in an issue of personal skill and human endeavour. Otherwise every game would play out the same, there would be no losses to inferior teams and the scientific laws would dominate the human fallibility that we all possess.
 
I think xg does an interesting job of showing the variability of a low-scoring sport while correlating to long term outcomes. But I don't think individual game variance is particularly meaningful as it always varies.
 
Whenever xG comes up there will always be a group of people who tell you it is totally meaningless despite the fact EVERY TOP FOOTBALL CLUB will utilise xG in some way or another. Tuchel, Klopp, Guardiola and numerous other elite managers have talked about it before, all of these clubs spent lots of money on statistical analysis and xG is a part of that.

Is it the be all to end all? No. It's just a way of measuring something. God knows why people get so uppity about it because it's new(ish).
And as with most stats on its own its rubbish and its better to look at trends rather than individual games.

Significantly more Goals above xG in a game is not weird over 20 maybe.
 

Dr Rocktopus

🎃🦇🎃🦇🎃
Of course it's a science, just as any other sport is. Science has innumerable variables to contend with, which is why chaos theory is part of the scientific catalogue.

Coaching is a science, or do you think the way the likes of City and Liverpool play is because Pep and Klopp just bought a shitload of players and told them to "run araaaand a bit?"

There is science within the game, from the tactical setup, to the patterns of play, to the laws of the game. All systems put in place as a result of experimentation to achieve a desired end.

A rainbow is science, the aurora borealis is science, it doesn't detract from their beauty, just as the science doesn't detract from the beauty and diversity of the game.

You might not like or accept this, but that doesn't give you license to demean those that do.
It's not a science though is it. At best it's informed guesswork.
 
And as with most stats on its own its rubbish and its better to look at trends rather than individual games.

Significantly more Goals above xG in a game is not weird over 20 maybe.

Absolutely. Other people have said it but it's not really indicative of anything over one game. Villa were behind for most of the match so had periods of sustained pressure where they generated a lot of xG .. had they scored one the dynamic probably changes.

It's a useful indicator of how creative a team has been over a longer period, and in that regard our xG has shot up since Conte took over.
 

Rocket

Supporter
Absolutely. Other people have said it but it's not really indicative of anything over one game. Villa were behind for most of the match so had periods of sustained pressure where they generated a lot of xG .. had they scored one the dynamic probably changes.

It's a useful indicator of how creative a team has been over a longer period, and in that regard our xG has shot up since Conte took over.
And whaddya know we've scored more goals too. And had more chances. I notice that when I watch the games. AND look, we're going up the actual table as a result! COYS.
 
And whaddya know we've scored more goals too. And had more chances. I notice that when I watch the games. AND look, we're going up the actual table as a result! COYS.

Nobody said that the eye test wasn't also useful! Almost any top manager will use statistical analysis AND their eyes to gather data.

But xG has been used in the past to pretty accurately predict when a team will fall off. When United had a period of going significantly over xG for example. It's just one metric and is used by clubs to analyse their chance creation.
 
Nobody said that the eye test wasn't also useful! Almost any top manager will use statistical analysis AND their eyes to gather data.

But xG has been used in the past to pretty accurately predict when a team will fall off. When United had a period of going significantly over xG for example. It's just one metric and is used by clubs to analyse their chance creation.
The problem is that there is always an element that see this as an "either, or" scenario.

Observation and experimentation are the fundamentals of science, which is why ALL data is relevant.

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp.
 
Think I saw on QI once that science is always around 50% wrong.

So it's either the 'x' bit or the 'G' bit.

I go with the 'x' bit cos it should be 'e'. It's not spelt 'xpected' after all.
 

Mrs Perryman

Supporter
I'm a Cockney Malteser 👑
"Not accounting for dumb/bad luck" or the fluctuations of players' mindset or form throughout a game is what makes it flawed...
and, dare I say it, misses half the point of why we love football.... It ISNT perfect, mistakes are. Made, and THAT'S the beauty of it... You CAN'T, nor should you be able to predict it...

It's trying to take guesswork, opinion and surprise out of the game altogether...

Xg is just a glorified video game stat generator....
Players aren't machines...

Had it been around back then, Xg wouldn't have accounted for Gerrard's slip v Chelsea, or Mendes' dissallowed goal at Old Trafford... Or Trippiers' o.g v Chelsea...
or countless other slips, brainfarts and gaffes down the years that have won or lost titles, let alone games!

At best, it's an after the event 'Woulda Coulda Shoulda' gaming app that becomes infuriating when you look back at 'what you COULD have won!

Bloody X-Box gaming generation ruining REAL football!

Football is the game it is because of ALL ITS IMPERFECTIONS!
Jennifer Lopez Reaction GIF by NBC World Of Dance
 
Think I saw on QI once that science is always around 50% wrong.

So it's either the 'x' bit or the 'G' bit.

I go with the 'x' bit cos it should be 'e'. It's not spelt 'xpected' after all.
Seems about right.
Predictions from "experts" 90+% wrong hence massive profits for bookies.
And massive problems caused by politicians believing predictions.
 
It's not a science though is it. At best it's informed guesswork.
Again, a good point. The thrust of my argument is that sport is not a science, it's an expression of human endeavour and skill overcoming or mastering aspects of physical expression. This stat is a fabricated expression of numbers trying to explain something that isn't predictable because of the myriad of impossible to predict variables.
Science is about the understanding of hard core facts and constants that make it possible to predict outcomes and events through a knowledge of fixed natural constants and predetermined scientific facts.
What next, ballet dancing as a science?
The beauty of the game is watching amazingly skilled humans doing things that us mortals have tried and failed, not watching a bunch of scientists crunching numbers to reach a result.

Villa had a higher xG than us and all they had to offer were crunching tackles, because we had a factor that science can't replicate or predict - innovative human will, skill, effort and endurance.
It's why football is beautiful, because it's the closest thing to god's that humans can produce.

Same as rugby
Tennis
Athletics
Lacrosse
Etc, etc
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom