Everton 1-3 Wolves: The Verdict

[Deleted Cyber]

Anyone suggesting Pickford is a fucking madman. T-Rex arms is the most over-rated keeper I have seen in a VERY long time.

And gets beaten every other week from 25 yards.

 

[Alan]

I dunno, I've seen a bit of Digne at both Everton and a bit more at Roma, I've always thought he was pretty awful. Better than No-Legs Baines but not by much, IMO.

 

[Jinky]

On paper their team looks decent, but as I said after the game yesterday, they are very much a squad and club on the way down, where as we are a squad and club on our way up.

I'd have Siggy from their matchday squad and that's about it. Gomes, possibly.

The presenters on the USA stream I was watching yesterday were saying Jonny is the best left back in the Premier League behind Andy Robertson - which I thought was high praise indeed.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Canadian stream, you sacriligeous man.

He isn't far off. Mendy is obviously a huge talent but what good is that when you're always injured? Alonso is a better wing back in the right set up, pretty rank left back though. Rose has had his best days already and Davies is solid but limited. Shaw might never fulfil the potential he had, I would probably have Chilwell marginally ahead of Jonny, beyond that just no.

Two years ago we were playing Matt Doherty in his "stone overweight" days as a LB in a back four and his form became so poor that we parked George Saville there for a little bit. Now look. Scenes.

 

[Alan]

Holebas would be a pretty ideal wingback for us if he wasn't such an utterly insufferable cunt.

Kind of in the Alonso mold of "never play in a back four", though. I get the feeling that attacking fullbacks became almost too in vogue, and now you barely have any true fullbacks left at this level, it's mostly just wingers playing deep and haplessly trying their best to put in a tackle or two. See: Emerson, Masuaku, Doherty, Moreno, the aforementioned Holebas and Alonso, even younger lads like Vinagre. At least it feels that way.

 

[StuardoWulf]

What is xG and how is it worked out?

XG = expected goals

Worked out by rating the shots by success (historcal) of same position/type of chances.
these figures are made up for the purpose of example.

So a penalty would be 0.85 (85%) as 85 out of 100 are scored.
A header from 15 yards at a acute angle could be 0.02 (2%) as only 2 out of 100 are scored.

 

[Johnny75]

XG = expected goals

Worked out by rating the shots by success (historcal) of same position/type of chances.
these figures are made up for the purpose of example.

So a penalty would be 0.85 (85%) as 85 out of 100 are scored.
A header from 15 yards at a acute angle could be 0.02 (2%) as only 2 out of 100 are scored.

It is a crude measure by any standards as it isn't player specific, so you are never comparing like for like, you are always comparing only using half the variables (and I'm not sure the data sets would ever be that good for individual players). It is a start and I'm sure when it becomes more refined it will be a better metric but for now it's for the fans and media rather than a serious tool IMO.

 

[StuardoWulf]

It is a crude measure by any standards as it isn't player specific, so you are never comparing like for like, you are always comparing only using half the variables (and I'm not sure the data sets would ever be that good for individual players). It is a start and I'm sure when it becomes more refined it will be a better metric but for now it's for the fans and media rather than a serious tool IMO.

It means nothing really just a bit of a guide for those who need more than the scoreline to look at

 

[Pablowolf]

So I don't need to become an authority on it? Good stuff.

So, would a header from a certain spot, let's say the penalty spot in open play carry the same xG as a header from the same spot from a corner? One most likely from an attacking player whilst the latter could be from a defender or midfielder.

 

[Jinky]

So I don't need to become an authority on it? Good stuff.

So, would a header from a certain spot, let's say the penalty spot in open play carry the same xG as a header from the same spot from a corner? One most likely from an attacking player whilst the latter could be from a defender or midfielder.

All you need to know, is that it's a load of old bollocks.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The identity of the player doesn't come into it.

So assuming the cross comes in with the exact same pace, angle and trajectory, it's irrelevant whether it's Sergio Agüero or Gary Madine having the chance.

It's not bollocks at all Jinks, never had you down as a Luddite.

 

[Dinowolf]

All you need to know, is that it's a load of old bollocks.

+1

 

[darlowolf64]

Willy Boly giving his shirt to a kid after the game on Saturday

 

[Premier Quality]

Xg is a useful guide - I like it.

 

[Johnny75]

So I don't need to become an authority on it? Good stuff.

So, would a header from a certain spot, let's say the penalty spot in open play carry the same xG as a header from the same spot from a corner? One most likely from an attacking player whilst the latter could be from a defender or midfielder.

As DW says it's more broad brush rather than specific and I guess that's why I think it's more for the fans than any serious analysis as the exact same conditions just aren't replicable on any sizable sample.

It isn't a load of old bollocks though and there are Luddites and sycophants on both sides.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

As DW says it's more broad brush rather than specific and I guess that's why I think it's more for the fans than any serious analysis as the exact same conditions just aren't replicable on any sizable sample.

It isn't a load of old bollocks though and there are Luddites and sycophants on both sides.

It can be useful in some very loose analysis, as it's essentially a very broad survey, over periods you can identify teams who are punching well above or below their weight with goals compared to xG. Over a large sample you should be able to limit the variance from different opponents to some extent so you could use that to highlight teams who perform particularly badly or well in front of goal.

Not a great deal you'd be able to do with that analysis though in reality, you wouldn't want to be telling your defenders to relax against a poorly performing team because their strikers are shit anyway and if a team was overperforming, perhaps suggesting they possess one or more individuals capable of just bagging out of nowhere, then there's potentially not a great deal you can do about that either.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Not a great deal you'd be able to do with that analysis though in reality, you wouldn't want to be telling your defenders to relax against a poorly performing team because their strikers are shit anyway and if a team was overperforming, perhaps suggesting they possess one or more individuals capable of just bagging out of nowhere, then there's potentially not a great deal you can do about that either.

Internally you'd look at it as a reflection of your own team rather than using it to assess the weaknesses of others.

Like Reading should have realised that they couldn't carry on as they were under Stam, that was manifestly a total freak of a season. But they did carry on and nearly got relegated the year after.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Just adds an extra layer to stats to paint a slightly better picture.

Everton had more possession, shots, corners everything on Saturday but they never looked like scoring whereas we could have won 1-6.

We had a better xG and that gives you a better idea of how the game went that the other stats.

If a team loses 1-0 but their xG was high and the opposition 0.1, that gives you a good idea that it was a fluke win/ inspired keeping performance/ woeful finishing

 

[Norman Deeley]

Internally you'd look at it as a reflection of your own team rather than using it to assess the weaknesses of others.

Like Reading should have realised that they couldn't carry on as they were under Stam, that was manifestly a total freak of a season. But they did carry on and nearly got relegated the year after.

Agree with that. There's an awful lot of bollocks talked in football and one of the biggest load of bollocks (apart from Ince saying he could have done what OGS has done) is that luck/bad decisions even out over a season. They might do if a season was 500 games, but 38 or 46 games is, from a stats point of view, a very small sample size

 

[The Bear]

For me xG gives you a nice general idea of how many decent goal scoring chances you created over the 90 mins. Nothing more.

I thought the Everton game might have been higher given we scored almost double the xG and they weren't massively difficult chances, other than Donk's chance. But even then their xG seemed high based on chances in front of goal which were blocked, yet Donk's was in front of goal with no keeper.

So for me after having seen the game, that's the first one I've thought it hasn't accurately represented both team's chances.