It's just word soup from video gamers.
Nottingham Forest 1-0 West Ham Utd (14/8/22)
Moderator: Gnome
Online
- Johnny Byrne's Boots
- Posts: 32135
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Care home dodger
- Has liked: 1788 likes
- Total likes: 2073 likes
- Danny's Dyer Acting
- Posts: 8983
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:37 pm
- Has liked: 642 likes
- Total likes: 1853 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
We created plenty of good chances to score but finishing let us down wasn't good enough. This also won't take into account the chance from the disallowed goal.
Assuming we don't just have a squad of bad players then the type of attacking performance we saw on Sunday would see us win that game more often than not.
- Bubbles Fortuna
- Posts: 17824
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:25 pm
- Has liked: 1934 likes
- Total likes: 4635 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
It gives each shot a decimal chance of leading to a goal based on distance from the goal and some other things, then adds all of those together to estimate how many goals you 'should' have scored.
Essentially on average with the chances we had we should have scored 2.65 goals.
- Doc H Ball
- Posts: 14692
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:29 pm
- Location: on parole
- Has liked: 917 likes
- Total likes: 1919 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
Whoever calculates those stats hasn’t watched us for long.
There’s certain games when you can just sniff the air and know for sure we’re not scoring.
I’d rather we employed a witch doctor than a statistician.
There’s certain games when you can just sniff the air and know for sure we’re not scoring.
I’d rather we employed a witch doctor than a statistician.
- iLoveLasagne
- Posts: 3796
- Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:17 am
- Has liked: 204 likes
- Total likes: 216 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
Or better yet, employ a striker. But a witch doctor won't hurt.Doc H Ball wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:37 pm Whoever calculates those stats hasn’t watched us for long.
There’s certain games when you can just sniff the air and know for sure we’re not scoring.
I’d rather we employed a witch doctor than a statistician.
- sendô
- Posts: 44309
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:41 pm
- Location: rubbing my eyes in disbelief - we've won a European trophy!
- Has liked: 2426 likes
- Total likes: 2637 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
xG is largely a load of subjective b*llocks that should be taken with a healthy grain of salt, but nonetheless having an xG of 2.65 or whatever is a fair indication that we created a lot of good chances.
It's not at all comforting of course. How often did we do similar last season? Burnley away springs immediately to mind, plus Brentford home, Leeds home.
It's not at all comforting of course. How often did we do similar last season? Burnley away springs immediately to mind, plus Brentford home, Leeds home.
- Colours never run
- Posts: 25386
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:46 am
- Location: "Be in no doubt, we are part of the most successful stadium migration in history"
- Has liked: 6811 likes
- Total likes: 2363 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
No witch doctor arrived as of yet but will a witch director, do?iLoveLasagne wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:44 pm Or better yet, employ a striker. But a witch doctor won't hurt.
- bubbles1966
- Posts: 66972
- Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:01 pm
- Location: I'm holding onto nothing, and trying to forget the rest
- Has liked: 2437 likes
- Total likes: 4293 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
Another site reckon our xG was 2.09 and Forest's was almost identical.
FWIW. the professional gamblers/bookmakers/traders running clubs like Brighton and Brentford, and outperforming the market, think xG is a load of cobblers according to some article I read a while back.
FWIW. the professional gamblers/bookmakers/traders running clubs like Brighton and Brentford, and outperforming the market, think xG is a load of cobblers according to some article I read a while back.
- Colours never run
- Posts: 25386
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:46 am
- Location: "Be in no doubt, we are part of the most successful stadium migration in history"
- Has liked: 6811 likes
- Total likes: 2363 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
Of course it's a load of old b*llocks. Means bugger all.
- Bubbles Fortuna
- Posts: 17824
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:25 pm
- Has liked: 1934 likes
- Total likes: 4635 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
It is mostly nonsense as it doesn't take into account the quality of the shooter or the goalkeeper, I'm also not sure it's sophisticated enough to distinguish between a header from a floated cross vs a driven one and the like.
- Colours never run
- Posts: 25386
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 1:46 am
- Location: "Be in no doubt, we are part of the most successful stadium migration in history"
- Has liked: 6811 likes
- Total likes: 2363 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
It also doesn't take in to account Ref and VAR f*** ups either.
Online
- Johnny Byrne's Boots
- Posts: 32135
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 5:19 pm
- Location: Care home dodger
- Has liked: 1788 likes
- Total likes: 2073 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
(Un)fortunately the league table uses real goals, not the xbox variety.
-
- Posts: 26349
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
- Location: Forest Gate
- Has liked: 137 likes
- Total likes: 2357 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
Does anyone know how the 2.75 was comprised?
Apart from the penalty and Soucek's header I can't think of any real clear cut chances hwere the XG would be that high
Yes we hit the bar twice but the xg for those would be low as they were not clear cut chances
Knowing the silliness of it, the calculation probably includes the Soucek effort blocked and the penalty which is nonsensical
Apart from the penalty and Soucek's header I can't think of any real clear cut chances hwere the XG would be that high
Yes we hit the bar twice but the xg for those would be low as they were not clear cut chances
Knowing the silliness of it, the calculation probably includes the Soucek effort blocked and the penalty which is nonsensical
- Bubbles Fortuna
- Posts: 17824
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:25 pm
- Has liked: 1934 likes
- Total likes: 4635 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
I think the penalty is worth 0.75 on its own.Crouchend_Hammer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:52 pm Does anyone know how the 2.75 was comprised?
Apart from the penalty and Soucek's header I can't think of any real clear cut chances hwere the XG would be that high
Yes we hit the bar twice but the xg for those would be low as they were not clear cut chances
Knowing the silliness of it, the calculation probably includes the Soucek effort blocked and the penalty which is nonsensical
- HammerMan2004
- Posts: 26788
- Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:01 pm
- Location: I have no idea.
- Has liked: 500 likes
- Total likes: 1275 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
Zouma’s header cleared off the line for one.Crouchend_Hammer wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 11:52 pm Does anyone know how the 2.75 was comprised?
Apart from the penalty and Soucek's header I can't think of any real clear cut chances hwere the XG would be that high
Yes we hit the bar twice but the xg for those would be low as they were not clear cut chances
Knowing the silliness of it, the calculation probably includes the Soucek effort blocked and the penalty which is nonsensical
- Cuenca 'ammer
- ex 'ouston 'ammer
- Posts: 40715
- Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2002 4:19 pm
- Location: Journey to the dead of night. High on a hill in Eldorado
- Has liked: 1905 likes
- Total likes: 1614 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
didn't Benni have a shot on target, the keeper parried it away only for Tom and their defender to get into a scramble on the goal line and it went for a corner ??
-
- Posts: 26349
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:31 am
- Location: Forest Gate
- Has liked: 137 likes
- Total likes: 2357 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
I get the Zouma one, but the Benny shot would have been a low XG
It would be interesting to see a break down of the 2.75 and the score each 'chance' was assigned
It would be interesting to see a break down of the 2.75 and the score each 'chance' was assigned
- Danny's Dyer Acting
- Posts: 8983
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:37 pm
- Has liked: 642 likes
- Total likes: 1853 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
This is the version used in the tweet on the last page - https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/resu ... -14/954113Crouchend_Hammer wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 6:59 am I get the Zouma one, but the Benny shot would have been a low XG
It would be interesting to see a break down of the 2.75 and the score each 'chance' was assigned
Might not be the same site as bubbles mentioned but this one clearly uses the same model as it has the same lower number - https://understat.com/match/18219
Interesting point on both is that neither of them include the Benrahma disallowed goal or the Soucek shot that led to the penalty. Both would be very high value chances.
None of this is meant as a perfect tool to say "we should have won that game" - we deservedly lost because our finishing was poor - but it does add weight to the argument that the overall performance shouldn't be of huge concern.
- sutts07
- Posts: 13066
- Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:55 pm
- Location: Block 112, a far cry from CR1
- Has liked: 24 likes
- Total likes: 539 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
xG isn't all subjective bollox at all. It gives a very good indication of how many goals a team 'should' have scored in a game.
We should have scored two or three goals in that game from the chances created and the xG numbers back that up.
We had 19 shots
10 from inside the box
5 on target - Soucek x2, Zouma, Benrahma and Rice
Keeper saved 4 and 1 was blocked
Coming away from the game, we were all saying that Soucek should have scored his header and Rice should have scored the pen. We were also unlucky not to have either of the efforts off the bar creep in and Zouma was unlucky with his one off the line.
Could easily have scored 3 or 4 on another day. Just didn't drop for us.
We should have scored two or three goals in that game from the chances created and the xG numbers back that up.
We had 19 shots
10 from inside the box
5 on target - Soucek x2, Zouma, Benrahma and Rice
Keeper saved 4 and 1 was blocked
Coming away from the game, we were all saying that Soucek should have scored his header and Rice should have scored the pen. We were also unlucky not to have either of the efforts off the bar creep in and Zouma was unlucky with his one off the line.
Could easily have scored 3 or 4 on another day. Just didn't drop for us.
Last edited by sutts07 on Thu Aug 18, 2022 1:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 9428
- Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:38 am
- Has liked: 2962 likes
- Total likes: 1975 likes
Re: ⚽ Nottingham Forest v West Ham United: match thread
Yep I have a big question mark about someone producing comparable stats from subjective data.sendô wrote: ↑Tue Aug 16, 2022 10:50 pm xG is largely a load of subjective b*llocks that should be taken with a healthy grain of salt, but nonetheless having an xG of 2.65 or whatever is a fair indication that we created a lot of good chances.
It's not at all comforting of course. How often did we do similar last season? Burnley away springs immediately to mind, plus Brentford home, Leeds home.
How can the xG of a ball dropping to Coufal outside the box be really compared to one dropping to De Bruyne outside the box.
Too many variables to have the same expected result.
I