If Gerrard didn’t watch the game and just looked at the xG instead he’d claim they won.
-
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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
I think he did anyway
Just because some people believe it's meaningful, doesn't mean to say it actually is.
Trying to turn football into a predictable science makes as much sense as trying to teach fish to whistle.
I'm guessing that Villas xG was higher than ours - because they took more shots at goal - and made our keeper save more shots than their keeper had to
If theirs was higher - it missed the bit that Villa had all of their efforts aimed at where the goalkeeper was - and all of ours were aimed at where theirs wasn't
IMO - that pretty much sums up it's value
Silly bollocks
Rudimentary suggests basic or primitive, when in fact, by football statistical standards XG is pretty sophisticated, derived from analysing hundreds of thousands of events to create reasonably good, objective probability models.
As I said, it’s not perfect, it definitely has inherent flaws (multi human interaction will always dictate that) and they will always be there.
It’s just a slightly more informative metric for gauging/assessing performance as it qualifies and quantifies chances instead of just counting (quantifying) them.
The point about it generally concurring with the league table was to support its viability. If it was producing vastly different ordering to the league itself you’d start to question how accurate it was as a metric. IE if XG was telling us Burnley should be top of the league, with Watford second, Everton 3rd, you’d start to think it must be deeply flawed.
For fans (well those that enjoy the analytical side) it’s just another, objective piece of info to discuss or support/counter arguments. Ie not just “who had the most shots” but who actually, using an unbiased, objective probability model, had the better chances etc.
For the football industry it’s used (along with all the usual other shit) to assess performance (see Tuchel above) of teams (ie you can see assess quality and quantity of chances a team is making and allowing the opposition - again from an unbiased, probability model) and individual's (using both XG and XA (which uses the same methodology to assess probability but applied to the guy creating the chance) in matches and over longer periods. Which are just additional tools useful for judging performance without bias, confirmation bias etc.
Of course our eyes will tell us some of this stuff, but our eyes sometimes lie (sometimes they completely bullshit us into thinking Sissoko was “good”) or don’t tell the whole truth, and also don’t always do the cumulative maths well.
Bottom line, if you don’t enjoy it, ignore it.
And because you don’t, doesn’t mean it isn’t.
Sport is a science. Or are you claiming to know more than the manager of the current CL winning team who is using XG science (see above). Counting goals is science. Managing fitness is science. Curling a ball round a wall is science.
Here’s the thing. I can enjoy the art, sport, poetry, physical qualities, human endeavour and flaws of football but also enjoy its science too.
Just because you don’t understand or accept science is part of football, doesn’t make it true, or that the science part can be an enjoyable aspect for some doesn’t mean you have to try and tell them it’s wrong.
Enjoy football how you want to and let others do the same.
Results CAN be misleading, but unfortunately, it's the result that counts...
Maybe they need to start awarding 'bonus points' for a decent xG rating, regardless of the result!
It's a
I know it’s far from perfect, and for us fans it’s fundamentally just a better performance probability metric than “shots” etc to chat about.
I can understand people not understanding it ot not digging it, don’t really get people getting all bent out of shape about though.
We are talking about football, not life or death. It’s just another facet of the conversation. Nobody’s trying automate or robotise the beautiful game.
Yes some of the opposition to it does seem silly and luddite-esque. It has sometimes throws up silly results owing to its constraints but I'd agree its by and large better than shots as a metric
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.
"Isn't it grand! Isn't it fine! Look at the cut, the style, the line!
The suit of clothes is all together
But all together it's all together
The most remarkable suit of clothes that I have ever seen.
These eyes of mine at once determined
The sleeves are velvet, the cape is ermine
The hose are blue and the doublet is a lovely shade of green.
Somebody send for the Queen."
Last edited:
Nothing luddite about it at all, just a large pile of disdain for its relevance beyond, mostly, stating the obvious. Not everything new is better, an opinion that comes from having seen too many latest greatest innovations and ideas that turn out to be forgettable nonsense.
I did, hence the word included.
Agree on the rest. I've backed Levy in the past, I've kinda sat on the fence the last couple of years, but I'll join the rank & file calling for his head if he fucks this Summer up.
I like xG. Whilst it's by no means perfect, it paints a better picture of how well you've performed up front than possession or shots taken, that some here seem to think are the telling metrics.
No statistic, in and of itself, tells you the story of how the match went, but combined they do give a fair reflection of how a team has performed.
Simply put, treat it as a piece of the puzzle rather than the entire puzzle.
One of very few clubs I’ve never minded. Clearly I was clueless.
Going to jot them down in my cunt book with the rest of them.
Going to jot them down in my cunt book with the rest of them.
It's not often I say this BC, but very well said.
Who organises their own wedding the same day spurs play?Missed this game because I was getting married yesterday, but what a fantastic wedding gift Spurs have given me. A 4 goal win and an Woolwich loss on the same day, absolutely magic. I knew they'd do it for me
Amateur.
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.