Rousseau 11,609 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 9 hours ago, Tannochsidebear said: 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. You're not grasping the mathematics of probability. Of course it will vary from match to match; it's not a big enough data set. xG is only useful over the medium to long term, which is why when using player xG, I take season data, not one-off games. That's true for goals scored, too: teams can score 8-9 goals in a single game, but that won't continue over every match in a season. I post single match shot maps and xG, like above, because I think it illustrates where shots are taken from and gives a general idea of the quality of the chances we've created. I don't draw any hard conclusions from it. All you're saying is your internal xG model is better than the mathematicians at Opta. If that's what you believe, then fair enough. I'm not going to argue with you. The Opta model has Dessers on 12.52 xG for the season. You seem to have him on 9 in the last 3 games alone. So he should be on about 54 goals from the 18 full matches he's played (1,674 mins) in the league? He has scored 12 goals. By all means keep calling it bollocks, but its accuracy is self-evident. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 6,068 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 48 minutes ago, Rousseau said: The Opta model has Dessers on 12.52 xG for the season. You seem to have him on 9 in the last 3 games alone. So he should be on about 54 goals from the 18 full matches he's played (1,674 mins) in the league? He has scored 12 goals. By all means keep calling it bollocks, but its accuracy is self-evident. While I disagree with the assertion that Dessers should have had 9 over the past 2 games, to suggest that Dessers xG is only 12 for the season seems crazy given the numerous chances he's had throughout. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 11,609 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 57 minutes ago, Bluedell said: While I disagree with the assertion that Dessers should have had 9 over the past 2 games, to suggest that Dessers xG is only 12 for the season seems crazy given the numerous chances he's had throughout. In my head, I also think he has been incredibly wasteful. But, I also think he has scored unbelievable goals (e.g. Dundee Utd) and missed absolute sitters. It's a perfect example of how our perceptions are not entirely accurate. The 12.52 xG is only in the league. So he is still under-performing. It's much worse in Europe: 3 goals from an xG of 5.33. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannochsidebear 2,511 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 14 hours ago, Rousseau said: You're not grasping the mathematics of probability. Of course it will vary from match to match; it's not a big enough data set. xG is only useful over the medium to long term, which is why when using player xG, I take season data, not one-off games. That's true for goals scored, too: teams can score 8-9 goals in a single game, but that won't continue over every match in a season. I post single match shot maps and xG, like above, because I think it illustrates where shots are taken from and gives a general idea of the quality of the chances we've created. I don't draw any hard conclusions from it. All you're saying is your internal xG model is better than the mathematicians at Opta. If that's what you believe, then fair enough. I'm not going to argue with you. The Opta model has Dessers on 12.52 xG for the season. You seem to have him on 9 in the last 3 games alone. So he should be on about 54 goals from the 18 full matches he's played (1,674 mins) in the league? He has scored 12 goals. By all means keep calling it bollocks, but its accuracy is self-evident. He could easily have had 9 in just the last 2 games, not 3, but instead has 1. It’s not an internal xG model I prefer it’s trusting your own eyes instead of nonsensical stats. If you would rather believe that Dessers should only be on 12 goals for the season because Opta say so, and that he is giving us value for a £5M price tag and a massive wage then you keep defending stattoland. All the while we will end up trophyless and miles behind a dreadful bheasts side due partly to the amount of chances he has missed in big games all season long, for the second year running. Single match shot maps are interesting to see where we are shooting from, but they don’t count the great chances he has where instead of shooting he tries to cut back into trouble, which he seems to do more regularly than any striker I’ve ever seen. Do Opta even count those as chances because incredibly the striker chose not to shoot but just to get tackled instead? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 11,609 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 14 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said: He could easily have had 9 in just the last 2 games, not 3, but instead has 1. It’s not an internal xG model I prefer it’s trusting your own eyes instead of nonsensical stats. If you would rather believe that Dessers should only be on 12 goals for the season because Opta say so, and that he is giving us value for a £5M price tag and a massive wage then you keep defending stattoland. All the while we will end up trophyless and miles behind a dreadful bheasts side due partly to the amount of chances he has missed in big games all season long, for the second year running. Single match shot maps are interesting to see where we are shooting from, but they don’t count the great chances he has where instead of shooting he tries to cut back into trouble, which he seems to do more regularly than any striker I’ve ever seen. Do Opta even count those as chances because incredibly the striker chose not to shoot but just to get tackled instead? Your arrogance is staggering. I'll leave you to it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CammyF 9,291 Posted April 8 Share Posted April 8 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Tannochsidebear said: He could easily have had 9 in just the last 2 games, not 3, but instead has 1. It’s not an internal xG model I prefer it’s trusting your own eyes instead of nonsensical stats. If you would rather believe that Dessers should only be on 12 goals for the season because Opta say so, and that he is giving us value for a £5M price tag and a massive wage then you keep defending stattoland. All the while we will end up trophyless and miles behind a dreadful bheasts side due partly to the amount of chances he has missed in big games all season long, for the second year running. Single match shot maps are interesting to see where we are shooting from, but they don’t count the great chances he has where instead of shooting he tries to cut back into trouble, which he seems to do more regularly than any striker I’ve ever seen. Do Opta even count those as chances because incredibly the striker chose not to shoot but just to get tackled instead? So we've lost the league in the last 2 season due to Dessers XG, his price tag and his wages? How do you explain the other titles and cups we've lost pre-Dessers? *Try answering without mentioning Tav. PS - I never derailed this thread - a big boy done it and ran away. Honest. Edited April 8 by CammyF 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devil's advocaat 1,815 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 We can't be blaming Dessers for our ills this season, that would be silly in the extreme. He only gets it as a striker is the focal point of a team (as is the keeper, and he's getting it anaw), and him missing chances is what we remember in the immediate aftermath of games. We don't recall the ball being given away in midfield, defenders playing opposition onside, poor team selections etc.... I've criticised Tav in the past, but only when I feel it's been merited. Alongside the buy and sell type players we desire, we need Tavs, bought for a pittance, loyal and a great servant to the club. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 3,164 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 On 08/04/2025 at 08:19, Rousseau said: You're not grasping the mathematics of probability. Of course it will vary from match to match; it's not a big enough data set. xG is only useful over the medium to long term, which is why when using player xG, I take season data, not one-off games. That's true for goals scored, too: teams can score 8-9 goals in a single game, but that won't continue over every match in a season. I post single match shot maps and xG, like above, because I think it illustrates where shots are taken from and gives a general idea of the quality of the chances we've created. I don't draw any hard conclusions from it. All you're saying is your internal xG model is better than the mathematicians at Opta. If that's what you believe, then fair enough. I'm not going to argue with you. The Opta model has Dessers on 12.52 xG for the season. You seem to have him on 9 in the last 3 games alone. So he should be on about 54 goals from the 18 full matches he's played (1,674 mins) in the league? He has scored 12 goals. By all means keep calling it bollocks, but its accuracy is self-evident. See the stat above of 12.52 for Dessers. Is that based on studying Dessers performances/chances alone, or does it take in other centre forwards as a comparison or what? What I'm trying to understand is if another striker was our centre forward would their XG be different or is 12.52 XG what's expected of a Rangers number 9 based on our play/chances created etc? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 11,609 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 1 hour ago, JohnMc said: See the stat above of 12.52 for Dessers. Is that based on studying Dessers performances/chances alone, or does it take in other centre forwards as a comparison or what? What I'm trying to understand is if another striker was our centre forward would their XG be different or is 12.52 XG what's expected of a Rangers number 9 based on our play/chances created etc? All players. Otherwise it's meaningless. It's comparing millions of shots. xG measures the quality of a chance by calculating the likelihood that it will be scored by using information on millions of similar shots in the past. If you were to hypothetically put Fran Sandaza in the exact same position that Dessers was in, it would still be 12.52 xG. Because, historically, that's the result of millions of shots in the past. Sandaza was rubbish, so he'd score, say, 6 goals or fewer from that xG of 12.52. That difference would suggest he was rubbish - or really unlucky. If you were to substitute in Haaland or Ronaldo, they might score, say, 18 plus goals from that 12.52 xG. That difference would suggest they are good strikers. Haaland's first season at City saw him score 36 goals from an xG of 28.76, which is unbelievable. Subsequent seasons - which I think would align with most people's view - he hasn't quite been as clinical, he's hitting his xG quite closely. Obviously he's getting lots of chances, so he'll have a higher xG and he'll get more goals. The key thing is how they compare. I would expect a Rangers striker to hit their xG. I would also expect a Rangers striker to get lots of chances, so higher xG and high goals. However, our team is not creating good chances (hence the low xG), and few of them, at the moment. Dessers averages under 4 shots a game, which is not a lot, really. With Dessers, it feels like he misses good chances and scores more difficult ones. This link has more information, if you're interested: https://theanalyst.com/2023/08/what-is-expected-goals-xg 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott7 6,663 Posted April 9 Share Posted April 9 McCoist missed a good few but scored more than enough. It would be informative if his stats were available for comparison with CD along with those of Maxie Murray, another who missed plenty but scored a lot. Also interesting would be the stats of the craftsmen goal scorers, Brand and Forrest and possibly Jelavić too. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.