Match Thread [FT] Rangers 4 (Lammers 10'; Danilo 78'; Sima 84'; Dowell 90') - 0 Livingston

[Gonzo79 15,292]

Imagine we get an Xg of 4.9 in Geneva but don't score.  

 

[Rousseau 10,603]

1 minute ago, Gonzo79 said:

Imagine we get an Xg of 4.9 in Geneva but don't score.  

 

Erm... I'd be happy* with that...

 

*Providing we get through

 

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,751]

49 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

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. 

Apologies for snide comments. Just trying to lighten the thread up slightly.

[CammyF 8,079]

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

Imagine we get an Xg of 4.9 in Geneva but don't score.  

 

It'll be same reaction if we get an XG of 0.02 and sneak through on a deflected shot that was heading for the corner flag 🙂

[MacK1950 2,376]

Low blocks i.e. packed defence I presume,xG still confused what it means, there again I still think in yards/feet/inches and also pounds/ounces so will take me a long time still to absorb all the"NEW TO ME" jargon.🙄

[Rousseau 10,603]

 

13 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

Low blocks i.e. packed defence I presume,xG still confused what it means, there again I still think in yards/feet/inches and also pounds/ounces so will take me a long time still to absorb all the"NEW TO ME" jargon.🙄

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.

[CammyF 8,079]

Just now, Rousseau said:

 

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.

Serious question, is it used in any other sport (tennis, rugby etc)? 

[Rousseau 10,603]

10 minutes ago, CammyF said:

Serious question, is it used in any other sport (tennis, rugby etc)? 

'xG' is specifically for football as far as I know. 

 

Probability models could be replicated anywhere, though. I could be wrong. 

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

26 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

'xG' is specifically for football as far as I know. 

 

Probability models could be replicated anywhere, though. I could be wrong. 

Was all this xG data you have described so well above compiled by one company? If so, why? It must have been an absolutely massive data dump. It clearly isn’t monetised if it’s readily available for all games, and I’m assuming there must be some sort of AI bot keeping track of all games going on at all times in order to produce real time xG updates?

 

Still can’t get my head round it. Take the Lammers absolute sitter v Servette in first half. That should have an xG of 1 because it should be scored every single goddam time, but clearly he didn’t score, so next time  a player has the exact same chance the xG will be below 1 because Lammers missed his, so a striker scoring that sitter looks to have outdone his xG but in reality he has just scored an absolute sitter so shouldn’t have his stats enhanced as a result of another player having a howler? Agreed?

[MacK1950 2,376]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

 

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.

Thanks for that I'm away for a headache tablet now😀