Crystal Palace v. Tottenham Hotspur - Sunday, December 13, 2:15 PM GMT

[Fattynomates]

A title winning side cannot afford to slip up many times, even in a crap season. We've just reduced our headroom for any kind of errors or bad luck.

Same goes for Chelsea and Liverpool surely? I dont get how Liverpool are serious contenders with the shocking away record yet we are not? And how Chelsea are “miles” ahead of us yet they lost to Everton , or is it now Leicester and Southampton who are the real title contenders?

 

[Deleted member 15314]

Same goes for Chelsea and Liverpool surely? I dont get how Liverpool are serious contenders with the shocking away record yet we are not? And how Chelsea are “miles” ahead of us yet they lost to Everton , or is it now Leicester and Southampton who are the real title contenders?

It applies to all teams aspiring to win the title, the point is that it's a recurring theme, and it has to stop. So far we've been good enough against Newcastle, West Ham and Palace to get the job done but became too passive and allowed luck and circumstances to cost us.

Sooner or later one of Chelsea/Liverpool/Leicester wil go on a run and this trend of falling asleep against weaker opposition will see us trailing the league leaders.

 

[1966]

I think the xG is sarcasm as we’ve been taking the piss lately - ironic that in the game where we had all the best chances, we only score the one.

Sarcastic or not, I buy it. But there's a big problem with people misinterpreting xG and just not really knowing how and why the models work. I don't blame them - you need a university-level understanding of computational statistics to fully grasp every aspect of xG - but it sure does confuse the arguments. I've posted about the methods and limitations of xG extensively here in the past but it's hard to give a uni lecture in a forum post, especially one that's understandable and that anyone actually cares about.

 

[TheSpurEst]

Despite everything else that happened yesterday. And all the things we fell short in... yesterday we dropped points because we did not have this ruthless finishing in place that has helped us this season so very much. We had like 3-4 good chances - Kane header, Ndomele close range shot, Dier header from set piece and I think there was one more I cant point out ... but we put 0 of them away. We got a valuable goal from Kane long range effort but if we'd even had capitalized on one of those chances, we would have still ended up with all 3.

But to those who come and say things like "oh, but Pool also lost points, how are they not bottling it" - very different thing. For two seasons in a row, they have won very big trophy. They KNOW they have what it takes. They have unshakable belief to their ability and mentality. While Spurs has come up 2nd best for 12 years. This is massive difference.

Yesterday was a tough result. We had a chance to put additional 2p between us and ManU, ManC, Pool and 3 between us and Chelscum and Woolwich. But we did not and this freaking hurts me. We all know that there will be setbacks in the season... most likely game where we will lose to bottom 5 team or smth. For that we need some buffers and yesterday we failed to create this buffer.

 

[1882]

Considering we won against City and Arse, drew away at Chelsea and now Palace, you could argue that those 8 points could have come from likelier sources (had we drawn against City or Arse - which would be feasible - yet won yesterday, you wouldn't be at all surprised.
It's only because it was Palace that hurts... but come on, they're having a half decent season themselves... unlike Fulham or Burnley!!!!!

Our 25 points at this stage of the season is more than decent... I know we have probably our toughest game coming up... but they need to win to go above us, we 'only' need to draw to stay there... small differences!

 

[sammyspurs]

It applies to all teams aspiring to win the title, the point is that it's a recurring theme, and it has to stop. So far we've been good enough against Newcastle, West Ham and Palace to get the job done but became too passive and allowed luck and circumstances to cost us.

Sooner or later one of Chelsea/Liverpool/Leicester wil go on a run and this trend of falling asleep against weaker opposition will see us trailing the league leaders.

So basically your argument is our rivals can be as shit as they want, and drop as many points to shit teams as they want, because apparently they will go and win 12 on the spin at some point ?

Do you lot even hear yourselves?

It’s like a forum of Jamie Redknapps

 

[Airfixx]

Sarcastic or not, I buy it. But there's a big problem with people misinterpreting xG and just not really knowing how and why the models work. I don't blame them - you need a university-level understanding of computational statistics to fully grasp every aspect of xG - but it sure does confuse the arguments. I've posted about the methods and limitations of xG extensively here in the past but it's hard to give a uni lecture in a forum post, especially one that's understandable and that anyone actually cares about.

Since I posted on the matter somewhere above; I've seen actual stats for our game now and CP actually have the better XG stats.... Pretty ludicrous when you used the 'eye test'

1.5 vs 1.1

Their chances were all extremely low % to my mind, yet we had their keeper seriously earn his paycheck yesterday.

 

[1966]

Since I posted on the matter somewhere above; I've seen actual stats for our game now and CP actually have better XG stats.... Pretty ludicrous one you used the 'eye test'

1.5 vs 1.1

Their chances were all extremly loow % to my mind yet we had their keeper seriously earn his paycheck yesterday.

That's interesting. I wasn't specifically thinking about the CP game when I posted the message you quoted but still.. Hm. I actually don't find those numbers especially shocking. Gun to my head, I would've predicted a pretty even xG with maybe Palace leading slightly. They had some headed chances from set pieces that will have had relatively high xG.

(One of the key points is that xG models still aren't anywhere near advanced enough to approximate a human opining "hm, the attacker had a few inches of height on his defender but he leapt a little early so it would've been very hard for him to get down over the ball in time". A header from six yards central will almost always be high xG.)

One of the points I've made repeatedly and with particular fervour in my xG-posting is that it's a terrible metric of who "should" have won any single game. The sample size of shots in a typical match is nowhere near big enough to overcome the error inherent in an incomplete, many-variate model like xG. Plus, of course, it's similar to the argument about possession (though not as directly, obviously true): if you play well, you don't need a particularly high xG. Finally, even as a big advocate of xG, I still recommend people use their eyes as the ultimate acid test. And I always will: even as an ex-computer scientist, I don't want to live in a world where people defer to algorithms (even if we're rapidly and almost inexorably heading in that direction anyway).

All I'll say on the xG debate as it pertains to Spurs is that yes, if you look at the xG data and then apply stats and probability principles and a little inductive logic, the obvious conclusion is that Spurs have been a bit "lucky" to score so many goals and that it's unlikely that they can continue scoring at the same rate for the rest of the season without some adjustment. Perhaps this has something to do with Jose becoming, seemingly, even more defensive, I don't know (I mean, football clubs have departments of expert statisticians and so on analysing every aspect of the game, so it's not implausible). Having said that, Leicester bucked the odds and won the league against all reasonable predictions, so I'm absolutely not saying that it's impossible.

 

[1966]

Liverpool sucking even harder dick has sure helped this team get off the hook for sucking moderate dick yesterday

 

[White Van Jan]

Unnecessary free kick for their equaliser. Aurier's had a very good last few games since giving away a silly one v Spam, but the one on Zaha was another.

 

[Nabil Bentaleb]

The xG bollocks is the new trend of football hipsters. Ball on the fucking net is all that matters

 

[Harrykane9]

we could of won the game 4-1. inspired keeper, we move on

 

[1882]

The xG bollocks is the new trend of football hipsters. Ball on the fucking net is all that matters

Then surely it's over and would count as a miss?!!

I'm not a fan of xG either to be fair... besides, had Ben Davies' cross/shot gone in, it would have resulted in a goal of ridiculously unlikely probability.... yet Harry Kane's header (that was saved) would have been more likely... neither resulted in goals... yet one would have 'earned' a slightly higher xG rating (if I've got that right??)
Unless they start awarding '2 goals' for every 40 yard screamer, or only 1/2 a goal's worth for every open net tap in. the statistic is fairly redundant!

 

[PhillyHotspur]

United / City Draw. Liverpool draw vs Fulham. Woolwich battered by Burnley. In the end, not a bad weekend for Spurs.

 

[bus-conductor]

Since I posted on the matter somewhere above; I've seen actual stats for our game now and CP actually have better XG stats.... Pretty ludicrous one you used the 'eye test'

1.5 vs 1.1

Their chances were all extremly loow % to my mind yet we had their keeper seriously earn his paycheck yesterday.

That’s not quite how it works though. Because we turn a low percentage chance into something that makes the keeper do something spectacular, it doesn’t alter the statistical probability of the chance.

So their goal is a tap in from a yard out, very high xg that our keeper doesn't get near saving (because he's busy fumbling around in thin air having just dropped the fucking ball) the wonder save from Dier's free kick has a teeny tiny X/G because of the inherently much h smaller probability of scoring a free kick from 25 yards etc etc.

In a nutshell, Great players (Kane, Son eg) doing great things is kind of helping us buck probability (Just look at Son's goal v Arse) whilst some shit finishing at the other end is helping us as well.

It's not impossible to buck those trends to the extent we have for the first 12 games for a sustained period, it happens occasionally, but generally you would expect us to adjust more toward the median, or get better and make those xg numbers better and adjust results accordingly.

Obviously as the fella says above, with most statistical metrics, the bigger the sample the more reliable/valid the outcome, but as a general guide (taken with context of the who's and how's etc) they are still a pretty good indices (probably the best right now) of figuring out without bias the quality/quantity of chances in individual games. And a great example is your (and most of our) perspectives of that game Sunday based around their keeper making 3/4 great saves and ours making maybe 1 ? The truth is, if Kane was heading a couple of their chances, or Son was shooting instead of Zaha/Eze they probably score or force fantastic saves.

 

[Airfixx]

That’s not quite how it works though. Because we turn a low percentage chance into something that makes the keeper do something spectacular, it doesn’t alter the statistical probability of the chance.

So their goal is a tap in from a yard out, very high xg that our keeper doesn't get near saving (because he's busy fumbling around in thin air having just dropped the fucking ball) the wonder save from Dier's free kick has a teeny tiny X/G because of the inherently much h smaller probability of scoring a free kick from 25 yards etc etc.

In a nutshell, Great players (Kane, Son eg) doing great things is kind of helping us buck probability (Just look at Son's goal v Arse) whilst some shit finishing at the other end is helping us as well.

It's not impossible to buck those trends to the extent we have for the first 12 games for a sustained period, it happens occasionally, but generally you would expect us to adjust more toward the median, or get better and make those xg numbers better and adjust results accordingly.

Obviously as the fella says above, with most statistical metrics, the bigger the sample the more reliable/valid the outcome, but as a general guide (taken with context of the who's and how's etc) they are still a pretty good indices (probably the best right now) of figuring out without bias the quality/quantity of chances in individual games. And a great example is your (and most of our) perspectives of that game Sunday based around their keeper making 3/4 great saves and ours making maybe 1 ? The truth is, if Kane was heading a couple of their chances, or Son was shooting instead of Zaha/Eze they probably score or force fantastic saves.

Point was that I don't think XG works; at least in the way that it commonly gets presented.

 

[bus-conductor]

Point was that I don't think XG works; at least in the way that it commonly gets presented.

Why? How is it commonly presented?

 

[Airfixx]

Why? How is it commonly presented?

That essentially more XG = should have won.

 

[bus-conductor]

That essentially more XG = should have won.

Statistically speaking, that is how it works, and kind of how football works, ie more/better chances = more likely to win.

But is with all data/metrics it can always be contextualised.

And what you can say is, it’s not subject to bias or external influences (like keepers balletic saves etc).

You and I would probably both Would have said that we had the better chances yesterday, but the reality is we probably didn’t they just looked better because our shots were better and that their keeper made fancier saves.

 

[Airfixx]

Statistically speaking, that is how it works, and kind of how football works, ie more/better chances = more likely to win.

But is with all data/metrics it can always be contextualised.

And what you can say is, it’s not subject to bias or external influences (like keepers balletic saves etc).

You and I would probably both Would have said that we had the better chances yesterday, but the reality is we probably didn’t they just looked better because our shots were better and that their keeper made fancier saves.

No disrespect, Blakey but this an old tired debate so I'll be brief...

We've all seen teams bang their proverbial heads against the wall, accumulate good XG and at the same time be of no overt bother to the defending team. Bottom line for me is if our shots were "better" and we made their keeper work harder we were simply more dangerous.