Rousseau

Straight out of @compo's rulebook: a firm handshake and get on with it.

Pretty much what we said before he signed. Does nothing, but will get shots away and score - although we're still waiting for those goals... 👀

I thought Sima was more of a wide man/inside forward. He seems to be quite good in duels. He has got pace. I wonder if he's be better developed into a pure #9?

Lammers and Danilo were the most creative, and hardest working defensively. Dessers had the most shots (2). (Proving what the stats said before he signed: does nothing, but he'll get shots away and score - although we're still waiting on him scoring more.) Sima was the best at duels won, both ground and aerial.

Sima Dessers Lammers Danilo Minutes played 61 Minutes played29 Minutes played29 Minutes played61 Goals0 Goals0 Goals0 Goals0 Assists0 Assists0 Assists0 Assists0 Total shots1 Total shots2 Total shots1 Total shots1 Accurate passes13/19 (68%) Accurate passes5/7 (71%) Accurate passes10/15 (67%) Accurate passes12/15 (80%) Chances created0 Chances created0 Chances created0 Chances created1 Expected goals (xG)0.02 Expected goals (xG)0.63 Expected goals (xG)0.03 Expected goals (xG)0.25 Attack Attack Attack Attack Shot accuracy0/1 (0%) Shot accuracy0/2 (0%) Shot accuracy1/1 (100%) Shot accuracy0/1 (0%) Touches33 Touches13 Touches30 Touches21 Successful dribbles1/2 (50%) Successful dribbles0/2 (0%) Successful dribbles1/2 (50%) Successful dribbles0/2 (0%) Dispossessed1 Dispossessed2 Dispossessed1 Dispossessed0 Passes into final third1 Passes into final third1 Defence Defence Defence Defence Tackles won1/1 (100%) Tackles won0 Tackles won1/2 (50%) Tackles won0 Recoveries1 Recoveries1 Recoveries3 Blocks1 Duels Duels Duels Duels Ground duels won2/4 (50%) Ground duels won0/5 (0%) Ground duels won5/10 (50%) Ground duels won0/2 (0%) Aerial duels won4/6 (67%) Aerial duels won0/3 (0%) Aerial duels won1/1 (100%) Aerial duels won1/2 (50%) Was fouled0 Was fouled0 Was fouled2 Was fouled0 Fouls committed0 Fouls committed1 Fouls committed2 Fouls committed0 Colour coded stats: 6 Colour coded stats: 2 Colour coded stats: 7 Colour coded stats: 6

What are your thoughts, folks?

We have a Maximum! Correct Result (1 pt): compo, Yorkie, Franc, SBG, GS, 26th, r_s and T-1000. Correct Number of Rangers Goals (1pt): Rousseau, compo, Yorkie, BEAR, Dado, GS, DJ and CammyF. FGS (2 pts): compo, BEAR, BSRT, Lenny, CammyF and FS. Correct Score (3 pts): compo, Yorkie and GS. compo gets the Maximum! Latest Standings:

He clearly hasn't read my numerous, numerous posts on the subject. Muppet...

They take into account over 35 contextual variables.

6 minutes late... I'll allow it.

Haaland would be more likely to outperform his xG because he is an elite striker. Sebo would be more likely to underperformed his xG because... Well. The quality of the chance needs to be the same for all players.

Man up, for f— "Good lady"? You're on your own...

I think only Jack is a true holding player. The other two are #8s with good attacking qualities.

And God said*, “Let there be xG,” and there was xG. God saw that the xG was good, and he separated the xG from the xGA. God called the xG “Goals For,” and the xGA he called “Goals Against.” And there was attack, and there was defence—the first chance. *Probably

I still think you're mistaken. They're only accurate if you include as many chances as possible. We can't pick and choose. It renders the metric meaningless.

What about, 'xG is the best thing since sliced bread'?

I've got the fear...

You're mistaken. You can't apply xG to players. Only the chance. And then once you start picking and choosing data to fit, it doesn't work.

That's my preferred team - albeit with Lammers for Sima, but you can MB wanting some pace on the counter.

Yes: he's been injured for the past two years!

This is mistaken. You can't just pick and chose. This makes a mockery of the stats: 'this lad took a shot, but it's in the Champions League so it's actually worth three shots...' I think the data analysts are in a better position than us to judge the value of the data and metrics.

I meant how many games have you watched to come to that judgement? I can guarantee the xG model has watched more games. Your judgement is subjective. The xG model objectively tells us how many times a player has scored a goal in that situation: 41%. We've both watched the same shot; you think it's a sitter, I think it's a little tricky. We're both using our own judgement. Are we both right? Both wrong? I'm revising my judgement after seeing such a high xG. There are many variables that cause a player to not score: they're shit, the 'keeper pulls off a worldie, doesn't connect properly, slips, etc, etc. It happens. In a perfect situation he'll score, but football is an imperfect game, played by flawed humans. He definately should score. The xG says so: its a high xG. A penalty, for comparison, is 0.79. Players should be scoring penalties, but they don't. That's just a fact. Like I said, I've seen players sky a shot from one yard out. It's inconceivable that they could miss, yet they did. It happens. They won't be including Sunday league football. Having a range of levels is beneficial, though. You need a spectrum of data to find the most accurate average. I disagree that it won't 'accurately reflect [...] chances at the [top] level', but even if we accept that, you'd just factor in a little tolerance. Even then it won't fluctuate wildly from the numbers, IMO.

It's just the quality of the chance. It's got nothing to do with the player or the defence. Like I've said before, if you give have Haaland and Sebo taking the same chance, one will score, one won't (Haaland ). The best players will score from low xG chances; that's why they are the best. The quality of the chance remains the same, though: on average and player in x position scores y% of the time.

I don't think it's either/or: they can both play further forward with AN Other playing deeper.

It was more of a general point. I didn't really mean we should play him there for this game - although I now realise it's in the Servette match thread...