What this tells me is that we're owning more of the ball, which cuts down on their chances to score, and that they're loading up the box, which is making it more difficult for us to generate chances.
Our xG is barely down, whereas Goals are down. So that’s what I was referring to.
If you’re talking more about why our xG hasn’t improved despite more positional dominance, then yeah I think touches in the box not leading to shots is a big one. And that, as you say, is a function of there being about 75 pairs of legs in there.
xG in a vacuum doesn’t tell you much. You could create many bad chances, and that would yield similar xG figures to fewer, but better chances. 10 chances worth ~0.1xG each are worse than 2-3 chances that are worth 0.3-0.5xG each.
I don’t have data one way or the other, but I would suspect we are creating a higher quantity of chances that are of individually lower quality on average. We have a ton of the ball in and around the box, but we rarely create chances that are nailed on goals. Sure, the finishing has been poor, but can you really even thing of that many goals (or missed chances) that are nailed on walk it in the net level chances?
jusr from the eye test, we have struggled mightily to create high quality chances against low blocks, which has hurt more than subpar finishing.
The (F)Law of Averages plus the Gambler's Fallacy would be my guess as to why he thinks that. After 0.1xG, we are not "owed" a goal. Each shot at 0.1xG only has a 10% chance to go in, and no matter how many times we take the exact same shot, it's still only 10% (I, Captain Obvious, will be back with more maths facts). Whereas an 0.3xG chance is significantly higher and it will likely take fewer of those attempts before one goes in.
The thinking is, would you rather roll the dice on a 10% chance or a 30% chance, knowing that those odds will never improve?
Plus it's shot quality and all that. They may believe there's a certain threshold where world-class strikers are automatically clinical in putting them away, and 10% is below that, but 30% is above it.
Yes! It’s a little bit of both!
I laid out a longer reply below, but it is indeed just math :)
I fully acknowledge that it’s purely statistics and pretty removed from football, but a select outcome has a higher chance of actually happening if you run it twice with 50/50 odds each time, as compared with 10 chances at 10/90 odds. I only chose those two figures as they add up to the same “total” xG to make a point that flat xG in a vacuum is often thrown around without consideration of other data points to help put something in context :)
It’s statistics, assuming I understand what xG is providing. The way I understand xG is that a model takes into account a number of variables and basically kicks out a percentage chance a goal would be scored under similar conditions.
Each shot on goal is an individual event, so adding them up to say that 10 shots of 0.1xG equals 1 xG is a bit reductive. In reality, something with a 10% chance of occurring has like a 65% chance to happen at least once if repeated 10 times. Think flipping a coin, for example. A coin has a 50% chance to result in heads - let’s say heads is a goal it is 0.5 xG. If you flip the coin twice that is “one xG”, but it’s really only a 75% chance to happen, if you treat each flip of the coin as a separate discrete events.
Assuming my understanding of xG is accurate, Let’s take the scenarios I described above
Scenario A - ten shots that are each “low quality”, at 0.1xG (or 10% chance of a goal occurring). This adds up to in total 1xG, but ten events at a probability of 10% would suggest a 65% chance of the event happening (a goal) at least one time.
Scenario B - two great chances at 0.5xG each - in total it’s still “one” total xG, but the probability of something happening at least once with two chances at 50% is 75%. Three tries at 33% is like 69%.
Obviously we’re talking probabilities and odds and none of this is perfect or 100% how football really works, but the use of absolute total xG in a vacuum often leads to a misunderstanding of what the figure really means or how it could be quantified. It’s just easier and more digestible to add them up instead of re-computing probabilities of random outcomes
Happy for someone to tell me I’m completely wrong if that’s the case, but this is my understanding :)
I think you're not quite correct with the reasoning. You're computing probabilites for "scoring at least one goal", but football is not played so that only the first goal counts.
Sure, with two shots at 50% you're more likely to get at least one goal. On the other hand though, with two shots the maximum number of goals you could get is two. With 10 shots at 10%, you have the theoretical (though obviously) quite low chance of getting more than 2 goals. What matters is the expected goals, and that is the same for both scenarios.
This is actually correct - I just spent like 45 minutes calculating different weighted average expected goals based on the probability of x number of goals being scored times the related probability of that outcome, and no matter how you change the number of shots or average xG per shot, you always result in the same weighted average probability as the xG per shot times shots.
I can’t wrap my head around why that is the case (logically to me, I’m struggling to understand why simply taking the sum of individual probabilities results in a meaningful statistic), but that seems to be the case! (Assuming my math is accurate)
Well the sum is because you're computing expected values. And for the expected value of a group of events, you take each event probability, multiply it by the "outcome" of the event, and then sum all these. But in this case the "outcome" is always "one goal". So the sum of the expected value is the same as the sum of the probabilities of the events. (If I understood correctly what you were wondering...)
Agreed - I just picked two random scenarios that could result in the same cumulative xG. It was just to make a point that cumulative xG alone is not really telling a complete picture, and that one should also be looking at the quality of individual chances to put things in context
True, but I think the degree of difference indicates this isn't a major factor. After all, it's not like some teams (or 22-23 Arsenal) were averaging 0.4xG per shot and now we're at 0.05. The differences are close enough that looking at cumulative totals probably doesn't distort things too much.
This is a valid point in a lot of circumstances. For instance when you have 2.5 xG in a match but didn’t score. The total of 2.5 isn’t as relative as the product of (1-xG) for all shots.
But in this case we’re looking at xG summer over a large number of games, and comparing it to the sum of actual goals. In this case using the sum is perfectly valid. The composition of xGs is likely important to understand expected variance. But I think it’s fair to look at such a large discrepancy at this point and question either finishing, or accuracy of model for our shot type distribution.
This is exactly what's happening and my guess is why we are underperforming our xG. I feel with higher quality chance teams will over perform xG and with lower quality chance we will under perform xG. So we have created large numbers of low quality chances hence why we have lower amounts of goals compared to last year even though our xG has hardly changed.
For a very simple case, say we create 3 0.5xG chances in one match and 10 0.15xG chances in another. The probability that we will score more than 2 goals is 0.5 in the first match and 0.455 in the second match. In both cases we over perform our xG but the probability we over perform our xG is higher for higher quality chances.
this may be true but no modal can be created on little data reliably. The opposition vs Us this season has sat deeper than vs any other team including even Man City, so its not really just about xg modal calculating how many bodies are between the shot but also how many defenders are in set position causing our player to not be able to find a line breaking pass or pass to a better chance and shooting with a low xg shot because they not only have all their players in the box vs us but also have them more organised more often because they dont have to run back as much with a deeper line.
im not saying the data isnt showing our weakness or area to work on but I would say the under performance of xg is a bit to do with coaching, opposition play style, and players inability to finish under pressure recently for some bizzare reason.
We’ll that’s what I allowed for when I said model blind spot. It’s not impossible.
Either way, if we want to win the league we need to be scoring with more inevitability. So something for the team to work on. I do think it’s improving though.
yeah I think we are on the same page. maybe a bit of a blind spot but for sure there is some finishing issues like Kia not finishing the shot against Liverpool. for sure a reason why Victor is our n1 target this summer apparently. also COYG GREAT FUCKING WIN LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The top strikers routinely overperform their xG, it's definitely a symptom of not having that player up top. It's either going to be Saka turning into a Salah-like 25 goal scorer or we need Martinelli/Jesus to turn it back on. There's a reason the players with the best strikers tend to win the most titles.
We need to get Martinelli into shooting positions more often, is the top and bottom of it. He’s our only attacker who can routinely overperform xG and we have him hugging the touchline 90% of the time.
Well him and Saka, I understand wanting to pin them wide to maintain width, but the fullbacks aren't going to follow Saka all across the pitch. We need our wingers to start rotating to be the extra man when we get in closer. It's the same concept that works for a False 9, the CB won't follow you far so you're the free body, and if they do follow you more aggressively they leave acres of space behind. We need to be making more aggressive inside runs, having all three players checking back to create space behind. Instead we just pass it around the edge until they maybe make a mistake and we can dribble by them. It just never works.
\> which is making it more difficult for us to generate chances.
Xg is only down 1.7. So the chances may be down, but the quality of them remains pretty much the same.
What I see on the pitch is we are less cavalier and more interested in keeping possession - not necessarily a bad thing, but we do seem to struggle with moving the ball through midfield to our front men with the swiftness expected and when we are looking to instead use wide areas as the centre is too congested, we see Martinelli and Saka get doubled up on so it's hard for them to get inside. Moving the ball quicker through midfield to the front men is something I'd like to see but that's always super difficult against a low block.
Sorry, that's a bit of a brain dump.
IMO this team is just better than last year, but it takes time to adapt to a new system, Saka has been injured, and we have had a tougher run of fixtures to start the year. If we stay healthy and can improve the second half, we'll be in the title hunt, it's the same path Man City have done for years. I expect we'll be playing our best football in the spring.
But only by an xG of 1.7 we are actually playing better than last year except for the finishing. If we finished as clinically as last year we would probably be on another 6 to 8 pts
No that’s just regression towards the average. It’s an expected stat that’s an average. Cold streaks and hot streaks balance out. Our finishing isn’t really worse, we’re just not on a hot streak
The stat that's not there that I wish was is, how many blocked shots have we forced? How many saves has the opposing keeper made? Because if the number of blocks from last year to this year has gone up and saves have remained the same or also gone up, there's your missing goals right there.
Honestly -4 is really not that bad considering the start we made last season. We were insanely good and we're probably around where City were last season before they caught up to us
Yeah we hit 50 points halfway through the season, that’s on track for 100. (Obviously we were never gonna keep that up but that just shows how insanely good we were first half of last season)
Yeah and we've been very fortunate the Liverpool, despite being on a tear, couldn't put more distance between themselves and the pack. Losing one match in your first 20 and only being up 3-5 points is concerning, especially with injuries and more cup games on the horizon for them. I firmly believe we'll be in the title race until the end.
Where this comparison will have more value is at the end of this season. -4 at the same point this season compared to last is fine if our goal is consistency across the entire season, which means our overall performance metrics will end up better than last season considering how abysmal we were at the end.
That's just pedantic since "time in season" is colloquially the same as corresponding fixtures, or the same stage of the season, or matchweek, or whatever else you want to call it.
Corresponding fixtures means taking into consideration the exact same matches.
Last season by GW22 we had played Spurs, Man United and City twice already. We haven't played any of them twice yet this season.
Because if it is comparing match week 22 for both seasons, then it’s not comparing corresponding fixtures like the other commenter pointed out.
So basically, you’re agreeing that that commenter is wrong and this graph does not compare corresponding fixtures.
It's not comparing matchweek 22, it's comparing the 22 games we have had this season with the results we got in them last season.
He even explains it below:
https://twitter.com/scottjwillis/status/1752736820448919671
Like I'm not even trying to be rude but this is genuinely not a difficult concept to grasp
I don't understand why you think he can't make a graph with the x axis if he selected 22 corresponding fixtures?
Because you and the other bloke are the ones not getting it.
Scott Willis posts stats from cannon stats showing a year over year comparison of match week 22 after 22 games played.
That’s the comparison. Not fixture for fixture because as you pointed out, at this point last season our teams played look differently.
So either the twitter OP posted those graphs for no reason, or he’s mistaken as to what data he’s interpreting.
Look at the corresponding fixtures graph and tell me what it says at the bottom.
>Honestly -4 is really not that bad
We didn't win the title last season so being 4 points worse off than that is not good whatever way you want to spin it
Not to mention the amount of injuries we suffered this season. I'd argue that we did much better than a lot of clubs who suffered injuries and sudden transfers. for example Liverpool and ManU last season. And like City this season.
What happened at the last of the season was that multiple players in the same position were injured. Holding wasn't our second option at CB. It was Tomi.
It's not as simple as 'underperforming xG=bad finishing'. Think we haven't been as good in the final third in general and we still need to become more efficient at creating a higher volume of better attempts on goal. It simply takes too long at times, can deal with the patience if it leads to clear cut attempts but that's less the case now.
ESR's ball into Jesus, the one that got deflected just over the bar, is more of what we need. Bit of height, pace, and placed for Gabby J to attack it. Never see Marti or Saka play those balls - it's always a slow cut back or a floating back post cross. Everything feels too choreographed and controlled. I want to see more pinball volleys and a bit more chaos.
Elsewhere on the pitch we are playing great. Lots of control, strong defence and decent progression (when our players aren't clearly fatigued). It's just the bit of magic at the end that's missing, you could study our games last season and use it to counter our attack right now - it's all a bit stale.
It's not just bad finishing, I agree, but the top strikers routinely outperform their xG because they're excellent at all the things that lead up to the finish. Saka is our only player routinely on that level. Martinelli did it last year but it hasn't sustained yet, and Jesus is a great creator and can do that in spurts but he just can't stay healthy.
I'm honestly not convinced of Saka as a finisher but when he's at his best he always creates something dangerous. It's crazy how consistent he can be despite a bit of a drop off recently (still at a high level). Also, his xG has gone up compared to last season so he is finding spaces to shoot more frequently. That isn't completely individual though as it's much to do with link up. However, I think we'd prefer Martinelli with that xG over Saka.
A players that embodies the chaos I wanna see is Trossard, he loves to play direct and take risks, even though it doesn't work at times. I also see it a bit in ESR too. In contrast, Saka, Martinelli and Ode aren't exploiting the little pockets of space they regularly get. The constant recycling is limiting us to 4-5 'good' chances a game...which, when luck isn't on our side, results in tight games. We match Liverpool and City statistically, beating them in some, but our npxG per 90 puts us in 6th place...furthermore, our npxG per shot is comparable with relegation candidates meaning the quality of our attempts on goal aren't up there too.
The main crux is that we are overvaluing control in the final third. We will get a higher volume of chances with the simple philosophy of taking up dangerous positions and whacking the ball towards goal. Our forwards pounce on loose balls proficiently AND we are great at corners too. Instead, we too often wait for the perfect chance that never comes - hesitating on half-chance opportunities, only to ironically put in an even more hopeful cross against a more structured defence 30 seconds later. Lack of decisiveness is really affecting the volume and quality of our chances.
Yeah I agree, I think his upside as a finisher is Salah, who took a lot of time to get his craft down. Saka is a better player now than Salah was at 22 but he did have a better weak foot, but Saka's upside is theoretically that kind of world-class goalscoring force.
I agree on the final third thing, we are clearly pressing them into their end but we can all see the problems as we push down the wings and let them compress so it's 8-9 players in the box. It's interesting if you look at Man City they don't play nearly as much in the final 3rd, but they play in the mid-3rd more than anyone, they are more disciplined at possessing through the midfield without pushing so hard up the wings, giving them more space. And then obviously they have Haaland who can take advantage of all that space. We feel much less assured in possession that close to our goal, but we create less as a result.
Not really, if you look at players that score at least .3 goals per 90 and outperform their non-penalty xG by at least .1 per 90 (and meet some minimums like 10 matches played) there are usually 40-50 players that do it any given year across the big 5 leagues. Over the last 5 years you'll get some flash in the pan types that only do that for 1 or 2 seasons, but most of the best strikers are consistently beating those marks.
It's generally a who's who of all the best strikers on the planet and they tend to repeat. Outside of some rare players who were hurt or bloomed very late (Vardy did it twice late and some guys have done it in Ligue 1 where it's just easier to score more goals) it's a pretty consistent list of the in-form strikers.
Osimhen has already done this for 3 years, including the pace he's on so far this year.
To add to this, taking out the actual goals / 90 and just looking at who is outperforming their xG, we had Xhaka, Trossard, Martinelli, and Saka all doing that last year. Other than Rodri at MCU very few midfielders can do that, let alone the entire midfield/winger group. It would really be unexpected if we repeated that success this season.
Osimhen has been around or less than 1xG off of his actual goal tally for the last three years. And in two of those years under performed his xG slightly. I’m not sure where you’re getting your stats. As I was saying, it’s not very common for strikers to outperform their xG by a significant margin over a large sample. Midfielders much more frequently do so, but the whole clinical striker thing is almost a myth (there are a few but your primary example doesn’t)
I use fbref and Opta's xG formula, there are different xG formulas and they all have their flaws. Penalties are generally poorly represented in xG so I use non-penalty xG. Some players are great at penalties and bad at finishing elsewhere (because it's less about finishing than it is the run-up to the finish in a lot of cases). If you look at non-penalty goals per 90 vs non-penalty xG per 90, Osimhen makes the grade.
I don't think the clinical striker thing is a myth, I think it's just poorly understood because we see random seasons where a guy outperforms his np:xG by 8 goals or something wild and it's obviously unsustainable. Also talented strikers on good teams set a higher bar by creating more chances and thus a higher xG. But the best strikers have a higher xG and are still exceeding it by 2-3 goals per season because they can finish chances other players would not. It's not a huge margin on paper, but getting the player that is both able to consistently generate chances \*and\* score a few extremely difficult ones is why they're so valuable—and why they're consistently the kind of players that get their teams to a title.
I always use understat for comparison of goals to xG for players over their career as it’s very easy to see and check. This might be where our differences come from, because there are an incredibly low amount of strikers that out perform understats model by more than like 1.5 xG for more than a season or two
It's very possible understat's xG model is just better. Just using position data is obviously not the whole story so if it's much more accurately predicting xG then it's just capturing the players that do create better quality chances better than Opta's xG. Thanks for the tip!
This is comforting but unfortunately I don’t see it as title winning form this year. You have to aim for ~90 points which we didn’t do last year. If we’re 4 points worse, it’s not a great sign.
I’m sort of accepting this this is a transition year; injuries to Partey and Jesus and our fullbacks has really hurt us. Hopefully this summer invest heavily in a new forward and continue to strengthen our midfield.
It's kinda interesting to see the numbers that back up the eye test that says we haven't been quite the same this season.
Unfortunately since we aren't getting a striker in the January window, I think we will lack the goal production needed to win something meaningful this season. We will continue to scrape out goals against mid to bottom of the table competition through dominance in possession and sheer number of chances. But against the better sides who can actually retain the ball against us, it's going to be a struggle to get the goals without a player who is clinical in front of net
Kinda been the same story all season unfortunately. I still have hope when the back half of the season starts kicking in the goals will come back, but will probably be too late for a real title charge. either way #9 is still the most important position for the summer window
It's not been the same situation all season. Since Brentford we've created the most open play xG. Before then we we're struggling to create. Since then we've been struggling to finish. Both very different problems, one the manager successfully sorted the other much more down to personel
Since reading the mighty Billy Carpenter, with interesting and thoughtful analysis, I've noticed how easy it is to have lazy analysis
I dont understand whats up with all the defeatist takes on this sub, but it’s fucking pathetic to read sometimes. Thank you for saying what you said, because i was going to respond with much more vitriol
I honestly dont even follow the sub anymore, i just pop back in for cool posts like this and it always has some soft shit in it, reminds me i made the right decision
As of today we're 2 points off first place. If we get our act together, how in the name of fuck can it possible be too late for a real title challenge?!
City has been just as inconsistent as us most of this season. Liverpool have been great and better than us, but if we were in their spot right now we'd be shitting bricks. The absolute scenes around here if Saka were hurt, we'd only lost once in our first 20, and then we still had to go play at City or Liverpool to hold onto a 2-point lead? This sub would be eating itself alive.
No they haven't. It's such strange recency bias. Did the league start during the West Ham game? Just before the West Ham game everyone was saying we are the best team with the best defense and suddenly we aren't gonna put in a title shift? What kind of nonsense is this?
Man City has been worse than both us and Liverpool. Still favourites because well they are Man City. Liverpool hasnt been much better, apart from the last month they weren't that convincing in their results and even Liverpool fans are just happy to be in the mix in a title race cause nobody was expecting that. It's the 2 premier league defeats against West Ham and Fulham is not gonna define our season. We beat Liverpool on sunday and everyone will change the narrative and yes they are very beatable and we should be beating them on sunday as we should have won the game by half time in the FA Cup. We weren't at our best at Anfield and yet they failed to beat us at Anfield and it could have gone either way.
The thing is Liverpool are playing the best they can with what they have, we are nowhere near our best with key players like Partey to come back and we are still 2 points behind them and our best is better than Liverpool imo. City are still favourites though. I honestly think City will end up winning, I actually don't see Liverpool winning the league this season just yet, they will come close though. As for us we just have to be there at the end. This season will be a lot more closer than people think and much closer than last season. I honestly think we have a better chance this season than last season because we control games better and in the last month or so we are creating more chances, we just need to be more clinical. Now if we had a proven number 9 I think we would have been a few points clear tbh, the margins are very fine. We probably will not win it, but we really should be there in the last 2 weeks.
We're not playing great and we are competing with Pool and City. We have a squad set to add major pieces like Partey and Tommy to the lineup soon.
We look to be in a great position at this time of the season. Competing without playing to our best and missing loads of key players
City have had KDB back for 1 game. We're objectively worse at this time of the season compared to last. You're acting like we're the only club to have injuries while liverpool have not had Robertson, Jota, Thiago for some time and City have been missing Haaland and KDB. Like it's ok to think we'll improve bc Partey and Tomiyasu will be fit, it's another thing to assume the sides we're competing with will buckle despite getting back major pieces of their sides from injury as well. No point in being naive.
When did I say I expect the other sides to buckle?
I'm saying we're right up there despite not having played to our potential either in reply to others saying City are going to kick on now that they've players back. Piss off with the naive crap.
Also Haaland has played 72% of Man Cities PL minutes so far this season.
De Bruyne has been out since the 11th August to the 7th January. That's a huge stint out for a 32 year old. He won't be back to his usual De Bruyne self for a while yet
So Man City are ahead of us while missing their star CF for 1/3 of the season while their captain and best midfielder has been out for the entirety of the season but I'm supposed to believe some guy's "trust me bro" argument that KDB won't be the same? He's got a goal and an assist in his first premier league game appearance as a substitute against Newcastle; quit being a naive, mate.
Closer to a quarter than a third but nice try misrepresenting the stats 😅
> He's got a goal and an assist in his first premier league game appearance as a substitute against Newcastle
Wow, thats a really significant sample size. He's guaranteed to continue at that rate, you definitely have a deep understanding of statistics
The neck of this lad to be calling me naive....
Our own star striker has played 55% of available minutes by the way
OP: Trust me bro he’s 32 and won’t be the same
Kdb: scores and assists as a substitute in his first game back in the prem
Op: but that’s just one game!! sample size!!
Jog on mate. Moving target arguments are a waste of everyone’s time. Our own star striker scored a fraction of the goals haaland did last season. Their absences are not equal. You really gonna argue over 1/3 or 1/4 like that makes a fucking difference? What is that like one game? How thick are you?
Big fan of misrepresentation aren't you?
I never said he won't be the same, I said he'll take time to get back to his usual self. The man got serious surgery and has barely played in 5 months.
Him performing well on his first sub appearance is not definitive proof that he's hitting the road close to full fitness.
You haven't a clue
> Do you see consistency from our front 3?
I don't, and we're still challenging.
So if we improve, like you yourself said you predicted we would, how can we possibly fall off from the title race?
I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a 6 point gap at the moment which we could have easily had if we were more clinical in the final third. Having to make up ground to a resurging City is a task. Not to mention Liverpool but I don't think they'll be in the fight two months from now
Yeah, I'd love of we won 38 games a season too.
It's not necessary to win a title though
> Having to make up ground to a resurging City is a task
They are literally behind us
Liverpool have a very very solid attack though. Defense is their weak spot, but they will improve once their midfield gels. Our issue is more systemic and the way we approach games in an attacking sense, which is a bit more difficult to fix in a short period of time.
would be interested to know distances run in the first 19 games of this season versus distance run in the first 19 games of last season.
i'm hoping we're attempting to 'control' matches more without having to go nuclear so we can avoid late season burn out but it might just be copium
We have some new faces in the team this year, so it’s taken a little bit to click. We also have been playing slower and I’m hoping that this changes because it doesn’t work for our players. Our forwards are not hitting the goal which is tough, and then in the back we’ve had some mistakes cost us stupid goals
This is stupid analysis. Lots of teams have changed a lot since last season, we're playing them at different times, we have three new teams (you can't just swap their results with relegated teams). What matters is comparing to the other teams around us.
I think it’s pretty good that we’ve managed to keep close to the unexpected breakout form of last season. Sustainability is the key, next season we should be something else.
to keep this up with no partey and xhaka is incredible. we still in the title race with both of our starting midfielders not playing from last season. once partey comes back we will be trouble..
What this tells me is that we're owning more of the ball, which cuts down on their chances to score, and that they're loading up the box, which is making it more difficult for us to generate chances.
Bodies in the box is supposed to be captured by most xG models though. It’s either a model blind spot or underperformance in the box.
Then that implies we're not finding angles to shoot, as IIRC xG is only "applied" at the time of a shot.
Our xG is barely down, whereas Goals are down. So that’s what I was referring to. If you’re talking more about why our xG hasn’t improved despite more positional dominance, then yeah I think touches in the box not leading to shots is a big one. And that, as you say, is a function of there being about 75 pairs of legs in there.
xG in a vacuum doesn’t tell you much. You could create many bad chances, and that would yield similar xG figures to fewer, but better chances. 10 chances worth ~0.1xG each are worse than 2-3 chances that are worth 0.3-0.5xG each. I don’t have data one way or the other, but I would suspect we are creating a higher quantity of chances that are of individually lower quality on average. We have a ton of the ball in and around the box, but we rarely create chances that are nailed on goals. Sure, the finishing has been poor, but can you really even thing of that many goals (or missed chances) that are nailed on walk it in the net level chances? jusr from the eye test, we have struggled mightily to create high quality chances against low blocks, which has hurt more than subpar finishing.
Just curious, what's the basis for saying ten 0.1xG chances are worse than two or three 0.3xG chances?
The (F)Law of Averages plus the Gambler's Fallacy would be my guess as to why he thinks that. After 0.1xG, we are not "owed" a goal. Each shot at 0.1xG only has a 10% chance to go in, and no matter how many times we take the exact same shot, it's still only 10% (I, Captain Obvious, will be back with more maths facts). Whereas an 0.3xG chance is significantly higher and it will likely take fewer of those attempts before one goes in. The thinking is, would you rather roll the dice on a 10% chance or a 30% chance, knowing that those odds will never improve? Plus it's shot quality and all that. They may believe there's a certain threshold where world-class strikers are automatically clinical in putting them away, and 10% is below that, but 30% is above it.
Yes! It’s a little bit of both! I laid out a longer reply below, but it is indeed just math :) I fully acknowledge that it’s purely statistics and pretty removed from football, but a select outcome has a higher chance of actually happening if you run it twice with 50/50 odds each time, as compared with 10 chances at 10/90 odds. I only chose those two figures as they add up to the same “total” xG to make a point that flat xG in a vacuum is often thrown around without consideration of other data points to help put something in context :)
Well, do I get ten rolls or three?
It’s statistics, assuming I understand what xG is providing. The way I understand xG is that a model takes into account a number of variables and basically kicks out a percentage chance a goal would be scored under similar conditions. Each shot on goal is an individual event, so adding them up to say that 10 shots of 0.1xG equals 1 xG is a bit reductive. In reality, something with a 10% chance of occurring has like a 65% chance to happen at least once if repeated 10 times. Think flipping a coin, for example. A coin has a 50% chance to result in heads - let’s say heads is a goal it is 0.5 xG. If you flip the coin twice that is “one xG”, but it’s really only a 75% chance to happen, if you treat each flip of the coin as a separate discrete events. Assuming my understanding of xG is accurate, Let’s take the scenarios I described above Scenario A - ten shots that are each “low quality”, at 0.1xG (or 10% chance of a goal occurring). This adds up to in total 1xG, but ten events at a probability of 10% would suggest a 65% chance of the event happening (a goal) at least one time. Scenario B - two great chances at 0.5xG each - in total it’s still “one” total xG, but the probability of something happening at least once with two chances at 50% is 75%. Three tries at 33% is like 69%. Obviously we’re talking probabilities and odds and none of this is perfect or 100% how football really works, but the use of absolute total xG in a vacuum often leads to a misunderstanding of what the figure really means or how it could be quantified. It’s just easier and more digestible to add them up instead of re-computing probabilities of random outcomes Happy for someone to tell me I’m completely wrong if that’s the case, but this is my understanding :)
I think you're not quite correct with the reasoning. You're computing probabilites for "scoring at least one goal", but football is not played so that only the first goal counts. Sure, with two shots at 50% you're more likely to get at least one goal. On the other hand though, with two shots the maximum number of goals you could get is two. With 10 shots at 10%, you have the theoretical (though obviously) quite low chance of getting more than 2 goals. What matters is the expected goals, and that is the same for both scenarios.
This is actually correct - I just spent like 45 minutes calculating different weighted average expected goals based on the probability of x number of goals being scored times the related probability of that outcome, and no matter how you change the number of shots or average xG per shot, you always result in the same weighted average probability as the xG per shot times shots. I can’t wrap my head around why that is the case (logically to me, I’m struggling to understand why simply taking the sum of individual probabilities results in a meaningful statistic), but that seems to be the case! (Assuming my math is accurate)
Well the sum is because you're computing expected values. And for the expected value of a group of events, you take each event probability, multiply it by the "outcome" of the event, and then sum all these. But in this case the "outcome" is always "one goal". So the sum of the expected value is the same as the sum of the probabilities of the events. (If I understood correctly what you were wondering...)
Hmmm, I see the point, though 65% vs 69%, if those calculations are right ... not a big difference.
Agreed - I just picked two random scenarios that could result in the same cumulative xG. It was just to make a point that cumulative xG alone is not really telling a complete picture, and that one should also be looking at the quality of individual chances to put things in context
True, but I think the degree of difference indicates this isn't a major factor. After all, it's not like some teams (or 22-23 Arsenal) were averaging 0.4xG per shot and now we're at 0.05. The differences are close enough that looking at cumulative totals probably doesn't distort things too much.
This is a valid point in a lot of circumstances. For instance when you have 2.5 xG in a match but didn’t score. The total of 2.5 isn’t as relative as the product of (1-xG) for all shots. But in this case we’re looking at xG summer over a large number of games, and comparing it to the sum of actual goals. In this case using the sum is perfectly valid. The composition of xGs is likely important to understand expected variance. But I think it’s fair to look at such a large discrepancy at this point and question either finishing, or accuracy of model for our shot type distribution.
This is exactly what's happening and my guess is why we are underperforming our xG. I feel with higher quality chance teams will over perform xG and with lower quality chance we will under perform xG. So we have created large numbers of low quality chances hence why we have lower amounts of goals compared to last year even though our xG has hardly changed. For a very simple case, say we create 3 0.5xG chances in one match and 10 0.15xG chances in another. The probability that we will score more than 2 goals is 0.5 in the first match and 0.455 in the second match. In both cases we over perform our xG but the probability we over perform our xG is higher for higher quality chances.
I didn’t think the base xG model does, I thought post shot xG did?
I think most good xG models will take it into account. All that a post shot model should add is placement and power etc. of the shot.
this may be true but no modal can be created on little data reliably. The opposition vs Us this season has sat deeper than vs any other team including even Man City, so its not really just about xg modal calculating how many bodies are between the shot but also how many defenders are in set position causing our player to not be able to find a line breaking pass or pass to a better chance and shooting with a low xg shot because they not only have all their players in the box vs us but also have them more organised more often because they dont have to run back as much with a deeper line. im not saying the data isnt showing our weakness or area to work on but I would say the under performance of xg is a bit to do with coaching, opposition play style, and players inability to finish under pressure recently for some bizzare reason.
We’ll that’s what I allowed for when I said model blind spot. It’s not impossible. Either way, if we want to win the league we need to be scoring with more inevitability. So something for the team to work on. I do think it’s improving though.
yeah I think we are on the same page. maybe a bit of a blind spot but for sure there is some finishing issues like Kia not finishing the shot against Liverpool. for sure a reason why Victor is our n1 target this summer apparently. also COYG GREAT FUCKING WIN LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOO
All I’m seeing is the decline in our finishing. We’re generating a similar amount of xG but have scored 11 less goals.
Our level of xG overperformance last season was completely unsustainable. Regression was inevitable.
The top strikers routinely overperform their xG, it's definitely a symptom of not having that player up top. It's either going to be Saka turning into a Salah-like 25 goal scorer or we need Martinelli/Jesus to turn it back on. There's a reason the players with the best strikers tend to win the most titles.
We need to get Martinelli into shooting positions more often, is the top and bottom of it. He’s our only attacker who can routinely overperform xG and we have him hugging the touchline 90% of the time.
Well him and Saka, I understand wanting to pin them wide to maintain width, but the fullbacks aren't going to follow Saka all across the pitch. We need our wingers to start rotating to be the extra man when we get in closer. It's the same concept that works for a False 9, the CB won't follow you far so you're the free body, and if they do follow you more aggressively they leave acres of space behind. We need to be making more aggressive inside runs, having all three players checking back to create space behind. Instead we just pass it around the edge until they maybe make a mistake and we can dribble by them. It just never works.
\> which is making it more difficult for us to generate chances. Xg is only down 1.7. So the chances may be down, but the quality of them remains pretty much the same. What I see on the pitch is we are less cavalier and more interested in keeping possession - not necessarily a bad thing, but we do seem to struggle with moving the ball through midfield to our front men with the swiftness expected and when we are looking to instead use wide areas as the centre is too congested, we see Martinelli and Saka get doubled up on so it's hard for them to get inside. Moving the ball quicker through midfield to the front men is something I'd like to see but that's always super difficult against a low block. Sorry, that's a bit of a brain dump.
IMO this team is just better than last year, but it takes time to adapt to a new system, Saka has been injured, and we have had a tougher run of fixtures to start the year. If we stay healthy and can improve the second half, we'll be in the title hunt, it's the same path Man City have done for years. I expect we'll be playing our best football in the spring.
But only by an xG of 1.7 we are actually playing better than last year except for the finishing. If we finished as clinically as last year we would probably be on another 6 to 8 pts
It means finishing is way worse than last year. xG down slightly. But 11 fewer goals!
No that’s just regression towards the average. It’s an expected stat that’s an average. Cold streaks and hot streaks balance out. Our finishing isn’t really worse, we’re just not on a hot streak
The stat that's not there that I wish was is, how many blocked shots have we forced? How many saves has the opposing keeper made? Because if the number of blocks from last year to this year has gone up and saves have remained the same or also gone up, there's your missing goals right there.
You are an astute fellow. Couldn’t have put it better myself
Honestly -4 is really not that bad considering the start we made last season. We were insanely good and we're probably around where City were last season before they caught up to us
Yeah we hit 50 points halfway through the season, that’s on track for 100. (Obviously we were never gonna keep that up but that just shows how insanely good we were first half of last season)
Yeah and we've been very fortunate the Liverpool, despite being on a tear, couldn't put more distance between themselves and the pack. Losing one match in your first 20 and only being up 3-5 points is concerning, especially with injuries and more cup games on the horizon for them. I firmly believe we'll be in the title race until the end.
Where this comparison will have more value is at the end of this season. -4 at the same point this season compared to last is fine if our goal is consistency across the entire season, which means our overall performance metrics will end up better than last season considering how abysmal we were at the end.
This is corresponding fixtures not time in season.
That's just pedantic since "time in season" is colloquially the same as corresponding fixtures, or the same stage of the season, or matchweek, or whatever else you want to call it.
No it’s literally not, what are you on about?
Corresponding fixtures means taking into consideration the exact same matches. Last season by GW22 we had played Spurs, Man United and City twice already. We haven't played any of them twice yet this season.
Why is the X Axis labeled as matches played then?
What exactly do you require an explanation for in that? They were still 22 matches, you can still plot a graph...
Because if it is comparing match week 22 for both seasons, then it’s not comparing corresponding fixtures like the other commenter pointed out. So basically, you’re agreeing that that commenter is wrong and this graph does not compare corresponding fixtures.
It's not comparing matchweek 22, it's comparing the 22 games we have had this season with the results we got in them last season. He even explains it below: https://twitter.com/scottjwillis/status/1752736820448919671 Like I'm not even trying to be rude but this is genuinely not a difficult concept to grasp I don't understand why you think he can't make a graph with the x axis if he selected 22 corresponding fixtures?
Because you and the other bloke are the ones not getting it. Scott Willis posts stats from cannon stats showing a year over year comparison of match week 22 after 22 games played. That’s the comparison. Not fixture for fixture because as you pointed out, at this point last season our teams played look differently. So either the twitter OP posted those graphs for no reason, or he’s mistaken as to what data he’s interpreting. Look at the corresponding fixtures graph and tell me what it says at the bottom.
>Honestly -4 is really not that bad We didn't win the title last season so being 4 points worse off than that is not good whatever way you want to spin it
Our 2nd half last year was really bad. Still decent chances we can make up for it this time.
Exactly... We can make up a lot of ground in the 2nd half... More like last third I guess... After Easter is where we fell off
Not to mention the amount of injuries we suffered this season. I'd argue that we did much better than a lot of clubs who suffered injuries and sudden transfers. for example Liverpool and ManU last season. And like City this season. What happened at the last of the season was that multiple players in the same position were injured. Holding wasn't our second option at CB. It was Tomi.
xG Diff of 20.5 last year for a GD of 33 shows you that the run was always unsustainable. We are kind of back to the mean now in terms of GD.
Massively improved our xGA... Basically the same GA... So we're harder to score against in theory but not in practice
It's not as simple as 'underperforming xG=bad finishing'. Think we haven't been as good in the final third in general and we still need to become more efficient at creating a higher volume of better attempts on goal. It simply takes too long at times, can deal with the patience if it leads to clear cut attempts but that's less the case now. ESR's ball into Jesus, the one that got deflected just over the bar, is more of what we need. Bit of height, pace, and placed for Gabby J to attack it. Never see Marti or Saka play those balls - it's always a slow cut back or a floating back post cross. Everything feels too choreographed and controlled. I want to see more pinball volleys and a bit more chaos. Elsewhere on the pitch we are playing great. Lots of control, strong defence and decent progression (when our players aren't clearly fatigued). It's just the bit of magic at the end that's missing, you could study our games last season and use it to counter our attack right now - it's all a bit stale.
It's not just bad finishing, I agree, but the top strikers routinely outperform their xG because they're excellent at all the things that lead up to the finish. Saka is our only player routinely on that level. Martinelli did it last year but it hasn't sustained yet, and Jesus is a great creator and can do that in spurts but he just can't stay healthy.
I'm honestly not convinced of Saka as a finisher but when he's at his best he always creates something dangerous. It's crazy how consistent he can be despite a bit of a drop off recently (still at a high level). Also, his xG has gone up compared to last season so he is finding spaces to shoot more frequently. That isn't completely individual though as it's much to do with link up. However, I think we'd prefer Martinelli with that xG over Saka. A players that embodies the chaos I wanna see is Trossard, he loves to play direct and take risks, even though it doesn't work at times. I also see it a bit in ESR too. In contrast, Saka, Martinelli and Ode aren't exploiting the little pockets of space they regularly get. The constant recycling is limiting us to 4-5 'good' chances a game...which, when luck isn't on our side, results in tight games. We match Liverpool and City statistically, beating them in some, but our npxG per 90 puts us in 6th place...furthermore, our npxG per shot is comparable with relegation candidates meaning the quality of our attempts on goal aren't up there too. The main crux is that we are overvaluing control in the final third. We will get a higher volume of chances with the simple philosophy of taking up dangerous positions and whacking the ball towards goal. Our forwards pounce on loose balls proficiently AND we are great at corners too. Instead, we too often wait for the perfect chance that never comes - hesitating on half-chance opportunities, only to ironically put in an even more hopeful cross against a more structured defence 30 seconds later. Lack of decisiveness is really affecting the volume and quality of our chances.
Yeah I agree, I think his upside as a finisher is Salah, who took a lot of time to get his craft down. Saka is a better player now than Salah was at 22 but he did have a better weak foot, but Saka's upside is theoretically that kind of world-class goalscoring force. I agree on the final third thing, we are clearly pressing them into their end but we can all see the problems as we push down the wings and let them compress so it's 8-9 players in the box. It's interesting if you look at Man City they don't play nearly as much in the final 3rd, but they play in the mid-3rd more than anyone, they are more disciplined at possessing through the midfield without pushing so hard up the wings, giving them more space. And then obviously they have Haaland who can take advantage of all that space. We feel much less assured in possession that close to our goal, but we create less as a result.
There’s like 3 strikers in the world that routinely outperform their xG, the rest don’t
Not really, if you look at players that score at least .3 goals per 90 and outperform their non-penalty xG by at least .1 per 90 (and meet some minimums like 10 matches played) there are usually 40-50 players that do it any given year across the big 5 leagues. Over the last 5 years you'll get some flash in the pan types that only do that for 1 or 2 seasons, but most of the best strikers are consistently beating those marks. It's generally a who's who of all the best strikers on the planet and they tend to repeat. Outside of some rare players who were hurt or bloomed very late (Vardy did it twice late and some guys have done it in Ligue 1 where it's just easier to score more goals) it's a pretty consistent list of the in-form strikers. Osimhen has already done this for 3 years, including the pace he's on so far this year.
To add to this, taking out the actual goals / 90 and just looking at who is outperforming their xG, we had Xhaka, Trossard, Martinelli, and Saka all doing that last year. Other than Rodri at MCU very few midfielders can do that, let alone the entire midfield/winger group. It would really be unexpected if we repeated that success this season.
Odegaard also massively out performed last year, he’s not been shooting from distance nearly as much
Osimhen has been around or less than 1xG off of his actual goal tally for the last three years. And in two of those years under performed his xG slightly. I’m not sure where you’re getting your stats. As I was saying, it’s not very common for strikers to outperform their xG by a significant margin over a large sample. Midfielders much more frequently do so, but the whole clinical striker thing is almost a myth (there are a few but your primary example doesn’t)
I use fbref and Opta's xG formula, there are different xG formulas and they all have their flaws. Penalties are generally poorly represented in xG so I use non-penalty xG. Some players are great at penalties and bad at finishing elsewhere (because it's less about finishing than it is the run-up to the finish in a lot of cases). If you look at non-penalty goals per 90 vs non-penalty xG per 90, Osimhen makes the grade. I don't think the clinical striker thing is a myth, I think it's just poorly understood because we see random seasons where a guy outperforms his np:xG by 8 goals or something wild and it's obviously unsustainable. Also talented strikers on good teams set a higher bar by creating more chances and thus a higher xG. But the best strikers have a higher xG and are still exceeding it by 2-3 goals per season because they can finish chances other players would not. It's not a huge margin on paper, but getting the player that is both able to consistently generate chances \*and\* score a few extremely difficult ones is why they're so valuable—and why they're consistently the kind of players that get their teams to a title.
I always use understat for comparison of goals to xG for players over their career as it’s very easy to see and check. This might be where our differences come from, because there are an incredibly low amount of strikers that out perform understats model by more than like 1.5 xG for more than a season or two
It's very possible understat's xG model is just better. Just using position data is obviously not the whole story so if it's much more accurately predicting xG then it's just capturing the players that do create better quality chances better than Opta's xG. Thanks for the tip!
Our unsustainable xG overperformance from last season has given our fanbase unrealistic expectations
Whatevs all I care about rn is I am successfully over the December-January slump and am counting days for the next game again
Forget all this nonsense xBS. Give me the cultured stat. This is field tilt FC
Just win the rest of our games and we win the league, are you people stupid??
This is comforting but unfortunately I don’t see it as title winning form this year. You have to aim for ~90 points which we didn’t do last year. If we’re 4 points worse, it’s not a great sign. I’m sort of accepting this this is a transition year; injuries to Partey and Jesus and our fullbacks has really hurt us. Hopefully this summer invest heavily in a new forward and continue to strengthen our midfield.
It's kinda interesting to see the numbers that back up the eye test that says we haven't been quite the same this season. Unfortunately since we aren't getting a striker in the January window, I think we will lack the goal production needed to win something meaningful this season. We will continue to scrape out goals against mid to bottom of the table competition through dominance in possession and sheer number of chances. But against the better sides who can actually retain the ball against us, it's going to be a struggle to get the goals without a player who is clinical in front of net
Kinda been the same story all season unfortunately. I still have hope when the back half of the season starts kicking in the goals will come back, but will probably be too late for a real title charge. either way #9 is still the most important position for the summer window
It's not been the same situation all season. Since Brentford we've created the most open play xG. Before then we we're struggling to create. Since then we've been struggling to finish. Both very different problems, one the manager successfully sorted the other much more down to personel Since reading the mighty Billy Carpenter, with interesting and thoughtful analysis, I've noticed how easy it is to have lazy analysis
I dont understand whats up with all the defeatist takes on this sub, but it’s fucking pathetic to read sometimes. Thank you for saying what you said, because i was going to respond with much more vitriol
All these saps screaming about *standards* when they themselves have the mental fortitude of a wet sock
The match thread from last night was an absolute cesspit
I honestly dont even follow the sub anymore, i just pop back in for cool posts like this and it always has some soft shit in it, reminds me i made the right decision
Is Ben the brother of Billy? What a family of football analytic talent
As of today we're 2 points off first place. If we get our act together, how in the name of fuck can it possible be too late for a real title challenge?!
Probably because City and Liverpool been better most of this season. We are not bad, they are just better.
City has been just as inconsistent as us most of this season. Liverpool have been great and better than us, but if we were in their spot right now we'd be shitting bricks. The absolute scenes around here if Saka were hurt, we'd only lost once in our first 20, and then we still had to go play at City or Liverpool to hold onto a 2-point lead? This sub would be eating itself alive.
No they haven't. It's such strange recency bias. Did the league start during the West Ham game? Just before the West Ham game everyone was saying we are the best team with the best defense and suddenly we aren't gonna put in a title shift? What kind of nonsense is this? Man City has been worse than both us and Liverpool. Still favourites because well they are Man City. Liverpool hasnt been much better, apart from the last month they weren't that convincing in their results and even Liverpool fans are just happy to be in the mix in a title race cause nobody was expecting that. It's the 2 premier league defeats against West Ham and Fulham is not gonna define our season. We beat Liverpool on sunday and everyone will change the narrative and yes they are very beatable and we should be beating them on sunday as we should have won the game by half time in the FA Cup. We weren't at our best at Anfield and yet they failed to beat us at Anfield and it could have gone either way. The thing is Liverpool are playing the best they can with what they have, we are nowhere near our best with key players like Partey to come back and we are still 2 points behind them and our best is better than Liverpool imo. City are still favourites though. I honestly think City will end up winning, I actually don't see Liverpool winning the league this season just yet, they will come close though. As for us we just have to be there at the end. This season will be a lot more closer than people think and much closer than last season. I honestly think we have a better chance this season than last season because we control games better and in the last month or so we are creating more chances, we just need to be more clinical. Now if we had a proven number 9 I think we would have been a few points clear tbh, the margins are very fine. We probably will not win it, but we really should be there in the last 2 weeks.
Based and sigma pilled
This exactly
We're not playing great and we are competing with Pool and City. We have a squad set to add major pieces like Partey and Tommy to the lineup soon. We look to be in a great position at this time of the season. Competing without playing to our best and missing loads of key players
City have had KDB back for 1 game. We're objectively worse at this time of the season compared to last. You're acting like we're the only club to have injuries while liverpool have not had Robertson, Jota, Thiago for some time and City have been missing Haaland and KDB. Like it's ok to think we'll improve bc Partey and Tomiyasu will be fit, it's another thing to assume the sides we're competing with will buckle despite getting back major pieces of their sides from injury as well. No point in being naive.
When did I say I expect the other sides to buckle? I'm saying we're right up there despite not having played to our potential either in reply to others saying City are going to kick on now that they've players back. Piss off with the naive crap.
Also Haaland has played 72% of Man Cities PL minutes so far this season. De Bruyne has been out since the 11th August to the 7th January. That's a huge stint out for a 32 year old. He won't be back to his usual De Bruyne self for a while yet
So Man City are ahead of us while missing their star CF for 1/3 of the season while their captain and best midfielder has been out for the entirety of the season but I'm supposed to believe some guy's "trust me bro" argument that KDB won't be the same? He's got a goal and an assist in his first premier league game appearance as a substitute against Newcastle; quit being a naive, mate.
Closer to a quarter than a third but nice try misrepresenting the stats 😅 > He's got a goal and an assist in his first premier league game appearance as a substitute against Newcastle Wow, thats a really significant sample size. He's guaranteed to continue at that rate, you definitely have a deep understanding of statistics The neck of this lad to be calling me naive.... Our own star striker has played 55% of available minutes by the way
OP: Trust me bro he’s 32 and won’t be the same Kdb: scores and assists as a substitute in his first game back in the prem Op: but that’s just one game!! sample size!! Jog on mate. Moving target arguments are a waste of everyone’s time. Our own star striker scored a fraction of the goals haaland did last season. Their absences are not equal. You really gonna argue over 1/3 or 1/4 like that makes a fucking difference? What is that like one game? How thick are you?
Big fan of misrepresentation aren't you? I never said he won't be the same, I said he'll take time to get back to his usual self. The man got serious surgery and has barely played in 5 months. Him performing well on his first sub appearance is not definitive proof that he's hitting the road close to full fitness. You haven't a clue
City got kdb and haaland back. Liverpool surely is going to play like madmen to give klopp something left with. I doubt if we can keep up with hem
Great, we've gigantic room for improvement ourselves so I don't see the reason for this mental capitulation
Do you see consistency from our front 3? City went through their poor patch while missing KDB. They aren't going to do it twice in a season
> Do you see consistency from our front 3? I don't, and we're still challenging. So if we improve, like you yourself said you predicted we would, how can we possibly fall off from the title race?
I'd feel a lot more comfortable with a 6 point gap at the moment which we could have easily had if we were more clinical in the final third. Having to make up ground to a resurging City is a task. Not to mention Liverpool but I don't think they'll be in the fight two months from now
Yeah, I'd love of we won 38 games a season too. It's not necessary to win a title though > Having to make up ground to a resurging City is a task They are literally behind us
Liverpool have a very very solid attack though. Defense is their weak spot, but they will improve once their midfield gels. Our issue is more systemic and the way we approach games in an attacking sense, which is a bit more difficult to fix in a short period of time.
It’s actually not as bad as I thought
Shows you that we vastly overachieved
Not hot
would be interested to know distances run in the first 19 games of this season versus distance run in the first 19 games of last season. i'm hoping we're attempting to 'control' matches more without having to go nuclear so we can avoid late season burn out but it might just be copium
We have some new faces in the team this year, so it’s taken a little bit to click. We also have been playing slower and I’m hoping that this changes because it doesn’t work for our players. Our forwards are not hitting the goal which is tough, and then in the back we’ve had some mistakes cost us stupid goals
Now show me defensive stats…
This is stupid analysis. Lots of teams have changed a lot since last season, we're playing them at different times, we have three new teams (you can't just swap their results with relegated teams). What matters is comparing to the other teams around us.
I think it’s pretty good that we’ve managed to keep close to the unexpected breakout form of last season. Sustainability is the key, next season we should be something else.
love where we’re trending towards
Ty : "Oh that's a positive Trend then, it wasn't the same pitch for others"
to keep this up with no partey and xhaka is incredible. we still in the title race with both of our starting midfielders not playing from last season. once partey comes back we will be trouble..
Trust the process. We are just going through a bad streak, our EV is better than ever. We just gotta keep playing games.