Reminds me of the "Watch out Wengers about" song to the tune of Beadles about.
-
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
View: https://x.com/xGPhilosophy/status/1760423133264183612?s=20
Really terrible performance. The Prem in Europe this season is really looking looking at a wobble unless City do their thing.
The flaws of xg right there, that double chance that Galeno missed in the first half went down as 0.4 & 0.4 meaning their 1s half xg was around 0.8, if he scored it from the first shot then their first half xg would have been around 0.4 and their total would have been around 0.8 for the match or something like that.
Big miss by Dennum for Toulouse v Benfica.
Great keeping Restes
Lovely finish by Wahi for Lens.
Brilliant by Suazo, how the fuck has Speirings missed that.
Toulouse incredibly unlucky to go out. Unlucky to lose the away game, have battered Benfica tonight but just lacked final third quality and a bit of luck.
Flawed logic. The 2nd chance counts as 0.4 of the previous 0.4, not an addition to it. So basically the entire sequence had an xG of 0.56, not 0.8.
Giminez looks a player for feyenoord. Strong boy. Has a we bit of everything about him. Scored with an instinctive finish and has just split the defence with a Kane like pass that should’ve been 2-0. Also puts himself about.
Pellegrini finish is brilliant. Some game this. 1-1
Considering Porto's xg flew up considerably from 0 to 0.8 on the 22nd minute when those chances came about, I don't think so
Then whoever has made the graph has made a pig's ear out of it. Because the 2nd chance doesn't happen if the first goes in. And since the 1st has only a 40% chance of going in, then the calculation starts from 40% for the 2nd chance, not from 100%.Considering Porto's xg flew up considerably from 0 to 0.8 on the 22nd minute when those chances came about, I don't think so
For all of this , I'm taking for granted the fact that each chance had a 40% rate of success. Maybe the first one had a higher xG.
Roma and Feyenoord really hate each other. This has turned into quite a rivalry after 3 years of playing one another.
It's literally from Opta Analyst mate.
Unless you can tell me where they magically got the rest of their xg from last night, how did they accumulate such a high amount when they had so little chances?
Then the first chance had more than a 0.4 xG. It could've been at around 0.65-0.7.
My point still stands though, if he had taken his first chance then Porto would have accumulated less xg overall.
Considering Porto's xg flew up considerably from 0 to 0.8 on the 22nd minute when those chances came about, I don't think so
The point of XG isn't to tell a story or narrative,. it's literally just applying mathematical probability to football chances based on a number of criteria.
As such, it's not the job of XG compilers to make calculations based on what might have happened (ie the first chance scores) but on what actually does happen. And you can call this "a flaw" but it isn't, it's just a mathematical representation of what actually happened - and it's up to anyone using XG to contextualise it. Every subsequent event could/would be potentially be effected by what might have happened in a previous event.