The #LUFC Breakfast Debate (Monday 11th March) - Leeds United's destiny in their own hands now

[White Riot]

Now it's all crystal clear, WH So glad you were able to come in a set the record straight--with friends like these where could I possible go wrong

That's it mate

If you keep your eyes and ears open on here you'll see that we can all make America great again

[The Subhuman]

A variety of things will make the Bamford chance harder.

For one it comes from a cross, the xG from a cross is low as the amount of goals that actually come from them is really low, something like 10-15%.

It will also be impacted by him having to take it on his weaker foot.

The position of the opposition when the cross comes in possibly restricting his view and the close proximity of them to him.

And him taking it with his instep.

Gnonto on the other hand had a free run through on goal, time to take the shot on his strongest foot with the laces and no defenders close by.

Clearly the Gnonto chance was harder. there's no way that xG can justify it wasn't. Firpo's cross ball wasn't a cross but a pass across the goal. As for the gnonto one then that needed to be controlled and moved on, anything could have happened there. Poor first touch, second touch, defender had tome to come across. Then we had to excellent touches from Paddy and Geo to play it through.

And this is why I wouldn't trust xG as far as I could push it. Because my opinion is as valid as any and computers don't play football

[Cjay]

Clearly the Gnonto chance was harder. there's no way that xG can justify it wasn't. Firpo's cross ball wasn't a cross but a pass across the goal. As for the gnonto one then that needed to be controlled and moved on, anything could have happened there. Poor first touch, second touch, defender had tome to come across. Then we had to excellent touches from Paddy and Geo to play it through.

And this is why I wouldn't trust xG as far as I could push it. Because my opinion is as valid as any and computers don't play football

Isn't a cross a pass into the box by definition?

Gnonto received the ball in space, with time and open grass to run into and assess his options whilst being able to use his strongest foot with an unrestricted view of the goal when receiving the ball and the pass when receiving the ball.

He also had no defenders near who could alter the course of the ball pre shot forcing him to alter his body position or anything

Free run through on goal, clear view of the ball before receiving the pass and unrestricted view of the goal as he went through as well as having the entire goal to aim at

[AcrossThePondAsh]

That's it mate

If you keep your eyes and ears open on here you'll see that we can all make America great again

Careful now, there's no need to be ugly--you've taken a dark turn there I've said it before, that man wins again and you'll have two American ex-pats couch surfing (okay "sofa" or "settee" surfing does have nicer ring to it) their way around Great Britain

[The Subhuman]

Isn't a cross a pass into the box by definition?

Gnonto received the ball in space, with time and open grass to run into and assess his options whilst being able to use his strongest foot with an unrestricted view of the goal when receiving the ball and the pass when receiving the ball.

He also had no defenders near who could alter the course of the ball pre shot forcing him to alter his body position or anything

Free run through on goal, clear view of the ball before receiving the pass and unrestricted view of the goal as he went through as well as having the entire goal to aim at

No, not really. Not in my opinion but even if that's so then not all crosses are created equal ... Firpo had time and space to deliver that pass across the face, some crosses are under pressure and off balance. You'd have to grade the cross if you're going to include it in the xG...

How many times have we seen footballers, miscontrol the first touch when clean through, over hit, get it caught up in their feet and you're not including the build up for his goal but are for Paddy's .. You cannot pick and choose which bits to use and call them stats

[Cjay]

No, not really. Not in my opinion but even if that's so then not all crosses are created equal ... Firpo had time and space to deliver that pass across the face, some crosses are under pressure and off balance. You'd have to grade the cross if you're going to include it in the xG...

How many times have we seen footballers, miscontrol the first touch when clean through, over hit, get it caught up in their feet and you're not including the build up for his goal but are for Paddy's .. You cannot pick and choose which bits to use and call them stats

I don't make the models

They will count a cross as much lower xg as I've explained. They are graded incidentally crosses, but they still no matter how graded have a very very low xG value.

The Gnonto chance will only take the final pass which is a through ball into consideration same as the final pass into the Bamford goal is a cross (whatever you want to argue that is defined as a cross by football).

Through ball xG will be higher because more goals on average will come from them than crosses (as explained the amount of goals that come from crosses is very very low)

Had Gnonto miscontrol that would alter the xG as its likely to cause other factors, his position on the pitch the position of the defenders the position he takes the shot.

But those are variables that didn't occur so its graded on what happened

[AcrossThePondAsh]

Clearly the Gnonto chance was harder. there's no way that xG can justify it wasn't. Firpo's cross ball wasn't a cross but a pass across the goal. As for the gnonto one then that needed to be controlled and moved on, anything could have happened there. Poor first touch, second touch, defender had tome to come across. Then we had to excellent touches from Paddy and Geo to play it through.

And this is why I wouldn't trust xG as far as I could push it. Because my opinion is as valid as any and computers don't play football

I see your point, Sub, but it sounds like you're talking about variables that are hypotheticals and didn't actually happen, while xG is intended to gauge, or rate, what actually did happen AND compare it to other similar instances that followed the same parameters (i.e. distance, angle, results, etc.). It's certainly not an exact science, for all the reasons we've been discussing, so I understand your hesitation to rely on it entirely, which I think would go against how it is intended to be used. However, I think when used in conjunction with other statistics and metrics, is does offer just one more tool to assist the team, trainers, recruiters, etc.

[weasel]

I see your point, Sub, but it sounds like you're talking about variables that are hypotheticals and didn't actually happen, while xG is intended to gauge, or rate, what actually did happen AND compare it to other similar instances that followed the same parameters (i.e. distance, angle, results, etc.). It's certainly not an exact science, for all the reasons we've been discussing, so I understand your hesitation to rely on it entirely, which I think would go against how it is intended to be used. However, I think when used in conjunction with other statistics and metrics, is does offer just one more tool to assist the team, trainers, recruiters, etc.

For me I'd simply use my eyes and judge for myself how hard a chance it was. I'd also judge a match more by how many good chances, in my eyes, we created. That is why in Bielsa's last match, the 4-0 loss to Spurs, we weren't as bad as the scoreline suggested as I think we hit the woodwork 2 or 3 times, their keeper made some good saves and we missed a couple of absolute sitters, especially Dallas missing an open goal. By contrast Son and Kane were clinical for Spurs. We had more chances in the game than Spurs and it was decent chances too rather than 30 yard hit and hopes.

[CUSSIE01]

Just read some of this thread, don’t suppose anybody on here has a job or are y’all retired & living the dream ??

[Cjay]

Just read some of this thread, don’t suppose anybody on here has a job or are y’all retired & living the dream ??

Personally I'm a football geek this stuff doesn't take long

Can do most of it whilst having ciggy

[Cjay]

For me I'd simply use my eyes and judge for myself how hard a chance it was. I'd also judge a match more by how many good chances, in my eyes, we created. That is why in Bielsa's last match, the 4-0 loss to Spurs, we weren't as bad as the scoreline suggested as I think we hit the woodwork 2 or 3 times, their keeper made some good saves and we missed a couple of absolute sitters, especially Dallas missing an open goal. By contrast Son and Kane were clinical for Spurs. We had more chances in the game than Spurs and it was decent chances too rather than 30 yard hit and hopes.

You are misremembering I think.

We didn't deserve to not score any but we deserved to lose.

Spurs walked through us at will from memory.

Better players and more clinical as you say but we weren't unlucky to concede 4 regardless.

[AcrossThePondAsh]

For me I'd simply use my eyes and judge for myself how hard a chance it was. I'd also judge a match more by how many good chances, in my eyes, we created. That is why in Bielsa's last match, the 4-0 loss to Spurs, we weren't as bad as the scoreline suggested as I think we hit the woodwork 2 or 3 times, their keeper made some good saves and we missed a couple of absolute sitters, especially Dallas missing an open goal. By contrast Son and Kane were clinical for Spurs. We had more chances in the game than Spurs and it was decent chances too rather than 30 yard hit and hopes.

I think that's exactly why xG, or any other statistic, metric, as well as the "eye test," has to be used in conjunction with other information. The example you used is great for a leisurely weekend afternoon, or our own MOTM and player ratings, but to track large amounts of data over time the team needs something more consistent and as reliable as possible. Using our MOTM and player ratings as an example, look at how varied the results are from week to week. We'd have to have some really painful norming sessions to even attempt to get everyone on the same page--talk about herding cats

What we're also not taking into account is that undoubtedly the team have their own xG model that they adhere to. Part of the issue with xG is the various models, with various criteria, results, etc. However, if the team are sticking solely to their own model, and database of previous shots for reference, then the credibility of the statistical results is improved from mere consistency.

[AcrossThePondAsh]

Just read some of this thread, don’t suppose anybody on here has a job or are y’all retired & living the dream ??

All too gainfully employed, Cussie. Although I work from home, so breaks are easy to come by

[andrewjohnsmith]

Just read some of this thread, don’t suppose anybody on here has a job or are y’all retired & living the dream ??

I was off work for 2 months with an injury - so guilty as charged

I did go back last week though. So less time on here for me

[Barlow Boy]

Just read some of this thread, don’t suppose anybody on here has a job or are y’all retired & living the dream ??

I’m retired yes

[weasel]

I think that's exactly why xG, or any other statistic, metric, as well as the "eye test," has to be used in conjunction with other information. The example you used is great for a leisurely weekend afternoon, or our own MOTM and player ratings, but to track large amounts of data over time the team needs something more consistent and as reliable as possible. Using our MOTM and player ratings as an example, look at how varied the results are from week to week. We'd have to have some really painful norming sessions to even attempt to get everyone on the same page--talk about herding cats

What we're also not taking into account is that undoubtedly the team have their own xG model that they adhere to. Part of the issue with xG is the various models, with various criteria, results, etc. However, if the team are sticking solely to their own model, and database of previous shots for reference, then the credibility of the statistical results is improved from mere consistency.

YEs totally agree. It is the reason why although Bielsa used stats, metrics etc he would also obsessively watch hours after hours of videos. It is a case of having the statistics but being able to interpret them. Sort of like how Bielsa is a genius of football as he sees things differently to how failed managers, turned pundits, see things.

Take Bamford as an example and the majority of fans on here would have replaced Bamford several times during Bielsa's time as manager. It was all the usual stuff about him missing chances and of course this was backed up by the stats even whilst he was having a great season in the prem. Bielsa was obviously aware of the various stats relating to Bamford but he also would have analysed what else Bamford was bringing to the team. Bielsa probably had a whole database of stats relating to Bamford's work rate etc and he also would be able to see, with his own eyes, the importance of Bamford even whilst he was missing big chances, and how Bamford made the team perform better, something some fans are finally becoming aware of this season.

Stats can be distorted to prove almost anything. Use them but also use your eyes and determine what level of importance to attach to them.

[Kennyb41]

Just read some of this thread, don’t suppose anybody on here has a job or are y’all retired & living the dream ??

In answer to the last part, that should be in about 3 months all going well.

[Kennyb41]

YEs totally agree. It is the reason why although Bielsa used stats, metrics etc he would also obsessively watch hours after hours of videos. It is a case of having the statistics but being able to interpret them. Sort of like how Bielsa is a genius of football as he sees things differently to how failed managers, turned pundits, see things.

Take Bamford as an example and the majority of fans on here would have replaced Bamford several times during Bielsa's time as manager. It was all the usual stuff about him missing chances and of course this was backed up by the stats even whilst he was having a great season in the prem. Bielsa was obviously aware of the various stats relating to Bamford but he also would have analysed what else Bamford was bringing to the team. Bielsa probably had a whole database of stats relating to Bamford's work rate etc and he also would be able to see, with his own eyes, the importance of Bamford even whilst he was missing big chances, and how Bamford made the team perform better, something some fans are finally becoming aware of this season.

Stats can be distorted to prove almost anything. Use them but also use your eyes and determine what level of importance to attach to them.

You see this is what the average Joe here just doesn't understand, and frequently (stupidly) points out if something like - Bamford (or any player) has an absolutely barnstorming 'team' game for 93 minutes, but in the 94th minute misses a sitter.

He'll remember and comment on - The missed sitter, and nothing else.

[Cjay]

You see this is what the average Joe here just doesn't understand, and frequently (stupidly) points out if something like - Bamford (or any player) has an absolutely barnstorming 'team' game for 93 minutes, but in the 94th minute misses a sitter.

He'll remember and comment on - The missed sitter, and nothing else.

But isn't that what football is all about in the end?

Not Bamford specifically but any player, especially a striker?

If a striker has a great game, works hard, uses the ball well, takes up good positions, links play, does all those things well all game.

But in that whole game you only create 1 chance, an absolute sitter and he misses it and you lose 1-0 then none of that stuff matters as you lose the game and he failed in his primary job which is scoring goals?

[Jaydog]

Personally I'm a football geek this stuff doesn't take long

Can do most of it whilst having ciggy

You smoke Cjay?!?!?
Tell me it’s weed. A great big fat joint