Rousseau

Yes, he scored a couple of goals in some games. It looks like he's a goal threat, but, for me, I just thought his energy in the final third could be useful.

What I like is the xG graphs. It's the xG for and xG against, for every match. The red line is xG against and the white is xG for. It's a bad image, but it shows that when Arteta took over in 2019/20, he increases the chances they create and reduces the chances they concede. If you go with the xG it's no surprise that they pushed City last year. I'd love to see something like this for Rangers, but I've yet to see it.

It is indeed mind-blowing. I don't know, to be honest. Surely it's just another small step up from gambling sites? They track a mind-blowing amount of stuff, too. If it's not done by AI, is soon will be. Edit: From the Opta site: 'Opta data is generated in real-time though a combination of human annotation, computer vision and AI modelling. Through this parallel human and computer fused process, we are able to generate more in-depth and detailed performance data than ever before.'

I would - mainly because I didn't want him in the first place. That's not the same as calling for him to be sacked, though, is it? I also said it would be harsh to sack MB. (And the '[Manager X]'s still available. Just Saying' posts are tongue in cheek.)

You're taking the piss...

I found Lammers' shot xG: 0.34. Dessers' tap-in had an xG of 0.88. (For a base line, a penalty is 0.79 xG.) You say he should be scoring, but you've surely seen players miss from closer. I've seen players sky it from pretty much under the bar! As to your last point about 'enhanced his stats'. xG just described the quality of the chance, based on past shots - it's not applied to the player. Obviously, better players (Haaland) will over-perform the xG, because they can take chances that others wouldn't. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if someone is consistently under-performing their xG, they're p*sh. I used xG to defend Lammers' goalscoring record: Three goals in a season is poor, but his xG was 5, or something. He's under-performing, but it's not atrocious. It's not as if he should be scoring 25 goals from those 5 chances - no one can do that.

There are several data modelling companies, Opta being one. Football clubs will pay for the service - which includes far more data than I get from my wee preferred App. (The App I use gets its data from Opta, so they must be paying for that.) It should? I don't think so. Even Sima's goal at the weekend was similar, I'd say, but easier to score than Lammers' chance. It has an xG of 0.41 (I think - I can't remember exactly off the top of my head). 41% of the time players score that. It's quite high. That's what the data tells us. Remember: it's based on tens of thousands of shots. You say, 'it should be scored every single goddam time', but how many games is that based on? Can you say that with absolute objectivity. I actually think it was a tricky chance because it comes at him quite fast, from behind. It's difficult to get your legs sorted for that type of pass.

It's interesting that you've got Raskin further forward, rather than as the 6 where he usually plays. Do you think he's better further forward? I do. Nobody seemed to agree with me, though.

4-2-3-1?! Why would you do this to me, TB? Why?!

They were very good, though. They surprised me. If they play like that every week they'll be fine.

Bugger...

'xG' is specifically for football as far as I know. Probability models could be replicated anywhere, though. I could be wrong.

Yes, low blocks are sitting deep. I've tried to explain xG above: They take hundreds of thousands of past shots, going back decades, from every conceivable position on the pitch, and check how many times a player actually scored. In practice, that means if a chance has 0.2xG, it should be scored 20% of the time, because out of those hundreds of thousands of past shots they've looked at, the player actually scored 20% of the time. They take into account many more variables than just position on the pitch, e.g.: - Type of Assist - Distance to the goal - Angle to the goal - Did the player strike it with his feet or was it a header? - In what passage of play did it happen? (e.g. open play, direct free-kick, corner kick, counter-attack) - Has the player just beaten an opponent? We do it in our heads all the time, using our judgement and past experience of watching games, when we say, 'that's a sitter - he has to score that'. The xG tells you how many times players in the past have actually scored from that position - and taking into account all the other variables. An xG measurement can be generated for both teams as a whole and individual players, giving an indication as to how well they should be performing in front of goal. Combining a player or team's xG ratings during the course of a season can give an approximation of how many goals a they should have scored. Not only can that be used to evaluate a particular performance, it can also be used in the projection of a future or long-term performance.

Erm... I'd be happy* with that... *Providing we get through

A solid defensive set-up a la Gerrard would be enough, I think, with some quick counters. Step forward Tamundo!

It should be put out of its misery tomorrow. Hopefully...

That's fair. I respect that. I agree with most of it myself. I just want to see more against a low block, but hopefully that comes when the team gels more. You don't need to make snide comments, though. I don't mind people disagreeing with me.

Liverpool now might come in for Glen Kamar— *Kamara rejects Liverpool for Leeds*

Jeez! Liverpool rejected by Caicedo (for Chelsea), and now rejected by Lavia (for Chelsea). It's quite funny. I wonder why? Wages? London?

Don't be stupid. If you can challenge my point, go ahead. I don't mind being corrected.

I don't think you do. You've just put words in my mouth and made ridiculous straw man arguments. I wasn't calling for the manager to be sacked. I did say I didnt want him appointed in the first place, but I'm willing to see him given a chance. (I did ask how many games a manager could lose on the bounce before being sacked, but it was a thought experiment.) I praised his game management: switching when Livingston opened up. That was great. Again - my issue is with our chance creation against the low block. If you can challenge that point, go ahead. I'm happy to hear it. Three of the goals we scored were when the game opened up (again, MB did well, there), which is irrelevant to my point about the low block. I've been pretty clear in the wording of my criticism. We only created 7 chances against the low block. I think we need to be creating more than that. Hopefully it comes when the team gels, as you say. I'm allowed to criticise things that I think need to be improved for us to be successful. No one has actually challenged my point, other than bringing up the flurry of goals when it wasn't a low block, and therefore irrelevant to my point.

I'm not sure about the validity of this, but:

If you dont know already (votes are open - you can click on the little man below each player to see who voted for them), I'll give you one guess as to who is trolling.

I've got tears in my eyes, here. dB doesn't have us in a 4-2-3-1.

You've not read my point, so you've made up a silly argument. I don't think we created enough against the low block. That's it; that's my whole point. I've then used the xG to prove we didn't create enough. The result was great. I'm happy with the result.