Match Thread [FT] Rangers 0 - 2 Hibernian

[Tannochsidebear 2,503]

3 hours ago, Rousseau said:

This is a good example of my problem with xG. Dessers had 4 really good chances on Saturday that most people watching would have said he should have scored maybe 7 times out of ten, so each should have an xG of around 0.70 and yet the total xG combined is only 1.05 and looks like we created nothing. We created better chances than Hibs did (3 chances 2 goals) but we have Dessers and Hibs dont. 

[Rousseau 11,564]

3 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said:

This is a good example of my problem with xG. Dessers had 4 really good chances on Saturday that most people watching would have said he should have scored maybe 7 times out of ten, so each should have an xG of around 0.70 and yet the total xG combined is only 1.05 and looks like we created nothing. We created better chances than Hibs did (3 chances 2 goals) but we have Dessers and Hibs dont. 

That's your opinion, though. We'll all have a different opinion of whether a player should have scored or not. 

 

This xG model tells you how many past players have actually scored from that type of shot - taking into account numerous variables of hundreds of thousands of shots. It's pretty accurate. 

 

A penalty has an xG of 0.79. Were Dessers' chances similar to a penalty? A free shot, centre of goal with no defenders around him?

 

Dessers has an xG of 12.26 this season in the league.  He has scored 12. 

 

Haaland has an xG of 21.40 this season in the league. He has scored 21.

 

Can you beat that? Have you watched more than hundreds of thousands of shots? Are you able to take into account 20 plus variables? 

[CammyF 9,252]

Rangers get beat and the usual suspects are to blame. Amazed Tav hasn't been blamed yet. 

[Scott7 6,637]

1 hour ago, Bluedell said:

As for giving the youth a chance, it's very dangerous at this point. if our losing streak continues, they would get associated with it and it could damage their careers. I understand the concept but it would be far better for them to be introduced into a winning team.

Which is the reason “youth” and “development” and Rangers are incompatible.

[der Berliner 4,119]

5 hours ago, Bluedell said:

We tried a different formation in the first half in Dundee and look what happened.

 

As for giving the youth a chance, it's very dangerous at this point. if our losing streak continues, they would get associated with it and it could damage their careers. I understand the concept but it would be far better for them to be introduced into a winning team.

We played a 5 at the back and two DMs away to Dundee. Not Bilbao, Leipzig or some high profile non-stop attacking side. We essentially reduced our "attacking" threat of last Saturday down by another player or two at Dundee, which allowed them to come at us. They wanted to win that game, much like Hibs. We marginally upped that to our usual 4-2-3-1 (if I consider Barron the DM in a 4-3-3), but played a striker out of position, while the wingbacks were not attacking like they meant to be. Tav was somewhere in the middle, Jefte hardly receiving the ball at all. We had plenty of possession because our defenders played triangles with the midfielders and vice versa. There was no pace and hardly any penetration.

 

That is no different from what we have seen for weeks, months, if not years.

 

Just a general observation.

 

After 30 mins, the game backed for a back-3, one DM, 4 midfielders (two wingers included), and a couple of strikers. So we'd have a goal scoring threat. Instead, we were down to the usual hopeful, bit part show that Hibs (like many others) can easily counter.

[der Berliner 4,119]

4 hours ago, CammyF said:

Rangers get beat and the usual suspects are to blame. Amazed Tav hasn't been blamed yet. 

Read the game thread up there again. Tav was not helping in any way, but leaving the slot where he does the most damage far too often.

[CammyF 9,252]

11 minutes ago, der Berliner said:

Read the game thread up there again. Tav was not helping in any way, but leaving the slot where he does the most damage far too often.

A winner - acht well, it was short odds on who'd reply.

 

I thought both goals were Borna's fault.......

[der Berliner 4,119]

1 hour ago, CammyF said:

A winner - acht well, it was short odds on who'd reply.

 

I thought both goals were Borna's fault.......

.... only a wee reminder of your ailing eye-sight. That is: you missed the anguish about Tav during the match.

[onevision 1,631]

8 hours ago, compo said:

What annoys me is the league was over some time ago so why not experiment different formation different tactics give the boys their chance to stake a claim 

When second place is secure is the time to experiment with staff and formations

[Tannochsidebear 2,503]

8 hours ago, Rousseau said:

That's your opinion, though. We'll all have a different opinion of whether a player should have scored or not. 

 

This xG model tells you how many past players have actually scored from that type of shot - taking into account numerous variables of hundreds of thousands of shots. It's pretty accurate. 

 

A penalty has an xG of 0.79. Were Dessers' chances similar to a penalty? A free shot, centre of goal with no defenders around him?

 

Dessers has an xG of 12.26 this season in the league.  He has scored 12. 

 

Haaland has an xG of 21.40 this season in the league. He has scored 21.

 

Can you beat that? Have you watched more than hundreds of thousands of shots? Are you able to take into account 20 plus variables? 

I understand the stats behind it but I disagree with it almost entirely. There are not thousands of chances at Ibrox playing for Rangers for a £5M striker to compare against. I dispute the chances being compared to his actually being similar. If a centre half finds himself through on goal like that and fails to hit the target then fans sigh but are not surprised. A striker on hot form scores those chances. Also, a chance falling to a striker in the final minute of a 4-0 win is not the same as a chance at 0-0 after 10 minutes. But they are treated the same by stattos and both are counted the same for xG. Of course they are not similar, it’s ridiculous to suggest they are. This computerisation of football to spew meaningless stats out just to make talking points is abhorrent and totally unnecessary. I trust my eyes to tell me if when a Rangers striker is through on goal if it is a good chance, a great chance or not much of a chance. Dessers had 4 really good chances on Saturday, and didn’t even force a save from the keeper on any of them. These misses now make other strikers similar misses look ordinary because they will be counted in someone else’s xG comparison. For xG to say we should only have got 1 goal out of 15 chances is just making the stats look ridiculous. Anyone in attendance would tell you Dessers should have had a hat-trick to go along with his double hat-trick from Dundee, but instead we have xG telling us he is performing just as expected. Absolute bollocks to that. I appreciate you love the stats side of the game Rousseau, and they make interesting analysis at times, but I find more and more they paint a picture that is totally alien to the game it refers to. The wee passing wheels and average positional stuff is interesting because it is based on facts, xG is not based on facts. It compares apples and oranges and tells us they are both bananas.