This is true of course but if VAR (or rather its operators) were fit for purpose them potentially we could have another 6 points, even allowing for averaging out you'd expect us to have around 3 points more, thats a lot at this stage of the season for a team like Wolves.
Some of the best players in history have missed penalties, and some of the least technically blessed players in history have been brilliant at them too, it isn't that simple.
I'm really surprised that there are more examples of bribery / corruption / exploitation of referees given how little they earn compared to how much money is involved in the game.
There could have been a penalty each v Villa too.
I didn't say we didn't. We just don't have a penalty taker (that we know of) at the moment as we haven't been awarded one since Neves and Raul left.
Was that, '...there are NOT more examples...'?
But when in open play guys can seemingly arrow the ball round a defender past the outstretched arm/fingers of a diving keeper and get it in a spot equi-distant from the top of the post and the bar, with consumate ease time after fucking time, in fuck about sessions players can fairly regularly hit the bar from the centre circle yet we can't, with rising sense of excitement, have a 90% or more expectation of a player to get it past a stationery keeper into the net from 12 yards?
One of us, one of us...
But that's looking at it wrong. The problem is not VAR itself, is it not correcting bad calls when it should have. The fact that it isn't doing what it should is what subverts the whole thing. Either it never does, and then it is useless, or it does and we need better refs anyway.
Sure, but we can only go on what ifs about the final result we know. Of course it could change the end of those games. But that's the same discussion as it was previously "oh, if we had gotten than penalty at 20 we would have won", or something. It's an assessment based on the end result.
Thanks!
He actually took his one penalty for us well. Albeit it's never a penalty.
I don't really have a problem with xG if you see it for what it is
A tool to be used as a wider element of analysis.
Hope you're enjoying Guedes, my friend...
I think the way to judge players if they are good or bad is to see if they covert at higher or lower rate than the 0.76.I don't really have a problem with xG if you see it for what it is
Just it isn't "unlucky" if your xG is always at odds with your results. It means you have shit players at one or both ends of the pitch.
The xG always being 0.76 actually underlines one of the basic flaws of it as a measure. Because there's a big difference between Raul Jimenez or Nelson Semedo stepping up to take the spot kick, but it's measured the exact same way. Maybe as time moves on they might factor in who's actually taking the shot (this applies to all attempts, not just penalties), it'll be a while though.
