Rousseau

Lower, definitely. More shots that are from outside the box won't help us much. I think @Gonzo79's point was to take a shot rather than passing when the situation arises, which we do tend to do, a lot.

About time. It's been too long.

Oh, no - we're getting pumped... #BadJuju

xG can also predict the long term success of a team. Ange's first season saw Celtic top the xG table - they were creating the most chances in the league - and many were rubbishing it because we were actually top at the time. All it was saying was that Celtic were creating more chances, which is more sustainable in terms of wins over the long term. We were creating fewer chances, and less likely to keep on winning. Over a match, a team with less xG can win, but over a season the team that can create consistently high xG will win the league. Eventually the actual table matched the xG table and they won the league. CammyF was waxing lyrical about our 4 goal win against Hearts a season or two back. I thought the performance was rubbish. Eventually that 4 goal win was shown to be an aberration; the performances went on being rubbish and the results eventually matched.

It's not subjective: they've added up all the times a player actually scored. It's an objective fact. It takes that, to suggest a probability of a player in the same position scoring in the future. They take hundreds of thousands of past shots, going back decades, from every conceivable position on the pitch. 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 scored 20% of the time. They take into account many more variables than just position on the pitch: 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. It's a lot more objective than someone's judgement. Compare how many games an xG model is based on (tens of thousands of matches, hundreds of thousands of shots, going back decades) compared to how many games you or I have watched in our lifetime. It's not even close. I could watch every single Rangers game in the league, so my judgement on whether a player has missed a sitter is based on 38 games a season. An xG model has covered every match of every single club in the league, and every club in the top 15 (and more) European leagues, going back decades. In that way it's objective. There's no subjectivity in it.

Thiago Silva is some player. Small, slow, not that strong, but his reading of the game is sublime.

Typical wee-team mentality: no style of play of their own so they resort to hammer throwing. My xG is through the roof, though...

Quite a good game. Couple of goals, couple chalked off and a couple brought out their handbags.

OK - you're verging on insulting now. I'll leave you to it.

I thought a tap-in was a shot from a couple of yards out, is it not? A side-footed (half-)volley from the penalty spot is not a tap-in, surely? Correct me if I'm wrong. That's what it would be: an interpretation. Two individuals could look at the same shot and have different views (score or not score). xG objectively tells you how many times someone has scored, from tens of thousands of past shots. I'd certainly trust that over someone's opinion. See - I still don't think you understand my point.

That's a stat.

All based on xG. It's the only objective way - otherwise it's just interpretation: you've just used 'tap-in' in a very loose way. I think I've had enough. You keep going back to an irrelevant Cifu goal, chances that happened when the floodgates opened - which is outwith the substance of my point - or going off on tangents. My point will always be: we didn't create enough against the low block. That's it. I'm not wrong. The stats back it up. Even the stats that you used (7 shots in the first half) back it up. Any evidence you think you've brought to the issue is not applicable, being either outwith the time period of my point or a disallowed goal. That's not to say it won't develop. I hope it will. In yesterday's game, against the low block, we did not create enough. I have my doubts that MB can find the solution, because he hasn't done in several years if you go back to Gerrard's time. But that's another point completely. I still hope for the best.

I'm surprised by the Chelsea back-three: they had played a back-four during the majority of pre-season, iirc.

A 50% conversion rate means an xG of 0.5?! They would have to be exceptional chances; almost tap-ins. That's fair - I did say we did actually create more than that. It was 7 in total during the first half. I don't think that's enough. They're certainly not high quality chances. It would be phenomenal if we scored 2 goals from 4 shots. It's just not consistently repeatable. We can't expect our players to score 1 goal from two shots - we don't have Messi or Ronaldo. The whole premise of my position is that we need to be able to consistently create a good amount of good quality chances against the low block.

My point was - and will continue to be - we did not create enough against the low block. Just because we created a flurry of chances when the game opened up is irrelevant. It's 'flattering' because for 80 minutes (74 minutes? Whenever the 2nd went in) the performance was p*sh. I mean, you say, '4 or 5 chances against the low block'; in 80 minutes?! Is that really good enough? It was more than that, but it's not enough. It is an issue because we need to create and score more against the low block. If we don't we're going nowhere.

That's a lot of 'should's. I'm only interested in what actually happened. There's only so many times I can say it: we did not create enough when facing a low block. That's the entirety of my point. Oh - we can disagree; that's fine. What's obtuse is you continuously missing my point.

I agree that Cifu is a stick-on. I'd personally have Cantwell as the #10: Danilo - Lammers Cantwell Raskin - Dowell - Cifu Barisic - Souttar - Goldson - Tavernier Butland Jack misses out, though.

This Brentford-Spurs game is surprisingly heated.

Servette 0 - 1 Rangers FGS Danilo

Servette vs Rangers

I think he should play as the #6, freeing up Raskin to move forward. I think I'm alone in that thought, though. @DMAA gave me a right good scolding...

Start delayed in the Brentford-Spurs game. There's no water getting into the stadium, which represents a health risk.

I had to rearrange my team after Kane left.

No I haven't: I mentioned them in the other post: 7 shots with an xG of 0.51. (Cifu's 'goal' is irrelevant; it was disallowed. And it was a set-piece.) I'm remembering all the chances we've created. It's not enough against the low block. I'm sorry, it's just a fact. Great build-up, great finish, but low quality chance. Are you really expecting Dowell to score a worldie every week? Again: it happens when Livinston opened up. We did well then - I'm not denying that - but we need to be better in the bread-and-butter moments; i.e. against the low block. You're being deliberately obtuse.