Match Thread [FT] Rangers 0 - 2 Hibernian

[compo 7,873]

Footballs a simple game if a player has the ball gets a look at his opponents goal then he should have a shot what’s so difficult about that.

[Rousseau 11,634]

15 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

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.

That would be really interesting, alas! my data source doesn't go back that far. 

 

It's probably there somewhere - well, Jelavic and McCoist at least - but you'd need to pay for it and I'm cheap. 

[CammyF 9,313]

I'm sure I read somewhere that CD has a better goals per game or minute ratio than Morelos (that's an invite for @Rousseau to prove me wrong). 😀

 

All strikers miss chances, McCoist did, Hateley did, Boyd did, Kenny Miller did, but the 4 mentioned above played in "partnerships" rather than a lone striker. 

[Rousseau 11,634]

24 minutes ago, CammyF said:

I'm sure I read somewhere that CD has a better goals per game or minute ratio than Morelos (that's an invite for @Rousseau to prove me wrong). 😀

 

All strikers miss chances, McCoist did, Hateley did, Boyd did, Kenny Miller did, but the 4 mentioned above played in "partnerships" rather than a lone striker. 

If you are talking appearances, it's Morelos 0.46 goals per appearance vs Dessers' 0.45 goals per appearance. 

 

But I don't like that because a 2 minute spell is considered an appearance. 

 

Per 90, it's Morelos 0.56 goals per 90 mins vs Dessers' 0.65 goals per 90 mins. 

 

Dessers is the better goalscorer. 

[der Berliner 4,144]

Colak and Dessers were/are lethal enough, IMHO. What we need is more goals from elsewhere. As we can see this season, if that ain't happening (e.g. last season the captain added another two hatful of goals, not this season though), we toil. Cerny came in and provided hope. We don't learn, though. 

Edited April 9 by der Berliner

[JohnMc 3,174]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

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's 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

Thanks, that's really helpful. So our XG goes up if we create 'better' chances, not if we change centre forward? But a more clinical centre forward should score more goals? I don't have a problem accepting both those statements as true. 

 

So when someone says that Dessers misses a lot of chances it's true, it's just that they're not considered 'easy' chances by whoever compiles this data. 

My main criticism of Dessers earlier in the season was his work outside the box. I felt his hold-up play and link-up play was poor and so if he wasn't scoring he wasn't contributing anything. That side of his game has improved, his all round contribution is better now. 

[Rousseau 11,634]

1 hour ago, JohnMc said:

Thanks, that's really helpful. So our XG goes up if we create 'better' chances, not if we change centre forward? But a more clinical centre forward should score more goals? I don't have a problem accepting both those statements as true. 

 

So when someone says that Dessers misses a lot of chances it's true, it's just that they're not considered 'easy' chances by whoever compiles this data. 

My main criticism of Dessers earlier in the season was his work outside the box. I felt his hold-up play and link-up play was poor and so if he wasn't scoring he wasn't contributing anything. That side of his game has improved, his all round contribution is better now. 

Exactly, yes. It'll increase if we create 'better' chances, and more chances.

 

They're not considered 'easy' chances compared to the millions of similar shots on their database. 

 

To me it's a good barometer of how well the team is doing, in terms of creating chances. If our xG is generally high then there's a good chance of scoring more goals, and therefore winning. Conversely, when our xG was low under Beale I was concerned it didn't bode well. 

 

I may joke about deciding games on xG, but I'm not saying it is the be-all and end-all, just merely a good barometer of how well we create chances. 

 

Your criticism of Dessers aligns with mine. 

[Devil's advocaat 1,816]

The individuals contribution has to make a difference though, surely? Say Cerny crosses and Dessers goes back post instead of going across the defender, but the defender clears before it gets to him, or Raskin slides a pass through but Dessers knows he's gone too early, checks his run and it runs through to the keeper etc. None of those will be an expected goal, but had a striker made a better decision, both would have?.

[Rousseau 11,634]

3 minutes ago, Devil's advocaat said:

The individuals contribution has to make a difference though, surely? Say Cerny crosses and Dessers goes back post instead of going across the defender, but the defender clears before it gets to him, or Raskin slides a pass through but Dessers knows he's gone too early, checks his run and it runs through to the keeper etc. None of those will be an expected goal, but had a striker made a better decision, both would have?.

It only compares shots. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[Tannochsidebear 2,511]

13 hours ago, Rousseau said:

Your arrogance is staggering. 

 

I'll leave you to it. 

One thing I am not is arrogant, apologies if it comes over that way. Pretty sure im in the minority and sounding like a dinosaur for not buying into these new-fangled stats side of football discussions, but when there are such clear errors in the data they make a decent discussion point do they not? I dont mind xG as a discussion point, but it is being accepted as facts, when it is quite clearly not facts. 

 

13 hours ago, CammyF said:

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. 

Dont be ridiculous Cammy it doesnt say anything like that anywhere. What i do say is that Dessers misses a bucketful of chances regularly, and if he was more clinical, we might not be miles behind domestically. There was a suggestion that because he is matching this mythical xG that he is performing well for the team, which I disagree with.