Semi Final 2: Netherlands vs England live from the BVB Stadion Dortmund. Wednesday ITV1 8pm

[skybluedave]

32 minutes ago, arenaross said:

 

 

Something about that goal is really sexy. Just really aesthetically pleasing

[arenaross]

All I'm seeing from those stats is that England performed much better in that tournament than people are trying to let on.

I'm onto you BIG SHOUTGATE shills.

[Rob1981]

1 minute ago, Coulthard's Jaw said:

My memory is we battered Netherlands and then got battered by Spain  

Spain had two goals disallowed, I'm not sure why they have only come out with 0.76 xG

But then I don't claim to understand it, or believe that it's real. 

Do disallowed goals just go through as 0 xG?  Surely the team still has to get the credit for packing the box and being in the position to stick the ball in.

[Lermon]

game of the tournament I reckon today

[Bootador]

1 minute ago, Rob1981 said:

Spain had two goals disallowed, I'm not sure why they have only come out with 0.76 xG

But then I don't claim to understand it, or believe that it's real. 

Do disallowed goals just go through as 0 xG?  Surely the team still has to get the credit for packing the box and being in the position to stick the ball in.

Disallowed goals would be 0 xG because the chance never existed.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

4 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Spain had two goals disallowed

Also had at least one stone wall penalty not given.

[Rob1981]

22 minutes ago, Bootador said:

Disallowed goals would be 0 xG because the chance never existed.

Really? Is this true? Because xG is being thrown around to measure whether teams are attacking or not, irrespective of whether goals are scored.

What about the Foden ”goal” against Slovakia? He drifted half a yard offside. But we still got in behind and put bodies in their box and were briefly aggressive with our passing and movement.

Are you telling me that if he sticks it in but he’s marginally offside it doesn’t register any xG at all? But if he stays onside and puts it wide from a yard out it goes down in xG terms as a massive chance?

The buildup play and the attacking intent is the same either way, surely.

Same as that Denmark goal where he was a toenail offside… nothing for xG? Even though they wouldn’t have been in the position to score if they weren’t aggressive and weren’t taking the game to the opposition.

I am genuinely baffled. If it’s even more pointless than I thought.

Edited July 10 by Rob1981

[TalkSport]

Well, it’s offside. Quite simple.

xg should be used to help provide context to a game though, not used as a standalone measurement, because a team can rack up xg in final 5 mins when chasing for a goal. 

Like against Slovakia, the glaring chance from 50 yards is hardly a footnote on the xg, but in the context of what that chance was, it was probably best one outside of the actual goal.

[Barry Cartman]

 

[Coulthard's Jaw]

Isn't the point here that the disallowed goals were actually legal goals. I don't know how you factor that into xG but as always, context is not a myth.

Edited July 10 by Coulthard's Jaw

[Rob1981]

8 minutes ago, TalkSport said:

Well, it’s offside. Quite simple.

It's offside.  But we already have a measure to show whether a converted chance is offside or not... called "goals".

Then xG is being used as an additional metric to measure the general ebb and flow of the game, whether one team is attacking more than the other... irrespective of the score.

So it just seems odd to me to ignore disallowed goals completely.

I'm not looking to pick yet another argument btw.  But I have always treated xG with suspicion.  And since we are seeing goals ruled out by VAR for the most marginal of marginal offside calls, it doesn't make sense that the xG lads are ignoring these passages of play altogether.  It's clearly evidence of which team is having the better of the game.  If one team is getting in positions to put the ball in the net and the other one isn't.  Whether goals are offside or not.

Edited July 10 by Rob1981

[EdBed]

4 minutes ago, Coulthard's Jaw said:

Isn't the point here that the disallowed goals were actually legal goals. I don't know how you factor that into xG but as always, context is not a myth.

Agree with the point, but just for the sake of accuracy, one of the goals was genuinely offside the other was not offside and should have been allowed.

[outlander]

19 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Really? Is this true? Because xG is being thrown around to measure whether teams are attacking or not, irrespective of whether goals are scored.

What about the Foden ”goal” against Slovakia? He drifted half a yard offside. But we still got in behind and put bodies in their box and were briefly aggressive with our passing and movement.

Are you telling me that if he sticks it in but he’s marginally offside it doesn’t register any xG at all? But if he stays onside and puts it wide from a yard out it goes down in xG terms as a massive chance?

The buildup play and the attacking intent is the same either way, surely.

Same as that Denmark goal where he was a toenail offside… nothing for xG? Even though they wouldn’t have been in the position to score if they weren’t aggressive and weren’t taking the game to the opposition.

I am genuinely baffled. If it’s even more pointless than I thought.

Welcome to real world. xG is a useless stat the way it is used in most cases. It might have some value with really big samples but it is absolutely useless when it is used for individual matches or even some form for half a season.

[Astafjevs]

18 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

It's offside.  But we already have a measure to show whether a converted chance is offside or not... called "goals".

Then xG is being used as an additional metric to measure the general ebb and flow of the game, whether one team is attacking more than the other... irrespective of the score.

So it just seems odd to me to ignore disallowed goals completely.

I'm not looking to pick yet another argument btw.  But I have always treated xG with suspicion.  And since we are seeing goals ruled out by VAR for the most marginal of marginal offside calls, it doesn't make sense that the xG lads are ignoring these passages of play altogether.  It's clearly evidence of which team is having the better of the game.  If one team is getting in positions to put the ball in the net and the other one isn't.  Whether goals are offside or not.

It doesn't get included in xG because the shot also doesn't get included in the generic shots and shots on target stat. 

So you referenced Foden's offside goal - it didn't get included in xG because it didn't count as a shot for England (or indeed a shot on target).

[Rob1981]

So I think what I'm learning is that England's xG against Slovakia wasn't actually a fair reflection of how much they attacked.

This is encouraging stuff.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

 

[Astafjevs]

16 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

So I think what I'm learning is that England's xG against Slovakia wasn't actually a fair reflection of how much they attacked.

This is encouraging stuff.

xG isn't something to use as a 'how much did they attack?' stat. It's a quality of chances crested stat.

Team A can sit on the edge of their own box for the whole game, and then miss an absolute sitter from 6 yards out from a corner or a rare counterattack.

Team B could have all the possession, but their 'chances' are just shots from outside the box, and maybe an opportunity inside but with defenders around. The xG for both teams in game like that won't be too dissimilar. In fact there'll be loads of examples where Team A have a better xG. Man City games are pretty good for examples of this.

Edited July 10 by Astafjevs

[Rob1981]

Just now, InigoPatinkin said:

There's a metric called xThreat which is what Rob is looking for here.

I genuinely can't tell if you are joking or not

What have they done to football ffs.

[Bliss Seeker]

Yea, don't see why xG would include disallowed and non-legal goals. It's pretty logical.

Can't be an expected goal if the shot was illegal in the first place 

[arenaross]

I can't believe the stats nerds have made me agree with Rob.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

Lets talk Field Tilt.

[m_fenton]

xG is measured at the point of the shot. An offside shot never happens, because play is dead at that point. If you included offside goals, would you also include and xG for shots that happen after the referee whistles for a foul?

[Bliss Seeker]

5 minutes ago, InigoPatinkin said:

But it's important to highlight that xG, xT, shots, shots on target, the eye test and every other objective and subjective message of not being **** points to England being absolutely **** vs Slovakia

Too right, and I'm sure that's some sort of consolation as they're all at home now having their back sack and crack waxed in Bratislava.

Edited July 10 by Bliss Seeker

[Craigus89]

10 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

I genuinely can't tell if you are joking or not

What have they done to football ffs.

Games gone.

We just need to want it more than them.

Get our big man up front and put the ball in the mixer.

[Rob1981]

Just now, Craigus89 said:

Get our big man up front and put the ball in the mixer.

Now you're talking.

I want to see where we are against xKnockdowns.

[EdBed]

xHoofs ftw.

[Haguey]

2 hours ago, Rob1981 said:

True.  But luckily some intern has been tasked with re-watching all the Euro 96 games and retrospectively applying it:

https://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/how-england-nearly-brought-football-home/192102

Expected Goals (xG): ENG 1.32 - 1.85 SWI
Expected Goals (xG): ENG 1.55 - 0.98 SCO
Expected Goals (xG): ENG 2.58 - 2.96 NED
Expected Goals (xG): ENG 1.63 - 0.76 ESP AET
Expected Goals (xG): ENG 2.12 - 1.23 GER AET

If only some of this mattered.

What a ****ing nerd imo

[The_jagster]

1 hour ago, Rob1981 said:

Really? Is this true? Because xG is being thrown around to measure whether teams are attacking or not, irrespective of whether goals are scored.

What about the Foden ”goal” against Slovakia? He drifted half a yard offside. But we still got in behind and put bodies in their box and were briefly aggressive with our passing and movement.

Are you telling me that if he sticks it in but he’s marginally offside it doesn’t register any xG at all? But if he stays onside and puts it wide from a yard out it goes down in xG terms as a massive chance?

 

This is why the Brentford and Brighton owners have developed their own stats that incorporates xg, to address this exact problem. For argument's sake,a striker who runs onto a ball 1v1 against the keeper but is offside half the time is much more dangerous in their mind than the xg alone would suggest.

Also, a striker might challenge for a header to such an extent defenders are having to concede corners or throws, but in statman Dave twitter world that's 'duels lost' while the actual clubs are saying that is far more useful than making a token effort for the ball like Harry Kane atm.

[Craigus89]

3 minutes ago, The_jagster said:

This is why the Brentford and Brighton owners have developed their own stats that incorporates xg, to address this exact problem. For argument's sake,a striker who runs onto a ball 1v1 against the keeper but is offside half the time is much more dangerous in their mind than the xg alone would suggest.

Also, a striker might challenge for a header to such an extent defenders are having to concede corners or throws, but in statman Dave twitter world that's 'duels lost' while the actual clubs are saying that is far more useful than making a token effort for the ball like Harry Kane atm.

It's almost as if there is some nuance in stats and we should use them along side the eye test and context to create a wholistic view of things. 

 

[Haguey]

To be fair, the best example of a WTF transfer that turned out well because we are all just fans is the Anthony Gordon transfer. There was nothing to suggest a traditionally great player in there... but his pressing stats and other defensive stuff were excellent. Trust the nerds (except when it fails miserably)

I guess its the opposite for some players too, I bet Joao Felix is very high in most offensive and passing metrics but he's mostly garbage who Atletico now can't get rid of

[hairwad]

25 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Now you're talking.

I want to see where we are against xKnockdowns.

xCorridorOfUncertainty

[outlander]

1 hour ago, Astafjevs said:

xG isn't something to use as a 'how much did they attack?' stat. It's a quality of chances crested stat

Is it? So, imagine an attacker having a one on one with the keeper, rounds hif off and the a defender clears the ball with a last ditch tackls before attacker was able to hit the ball into an open net.

Hom much xG will it be? 

Or byline cross from inside the area and the attacker misses the ball by a few centimers?

That is what @Rob1981is rightly pointing out. If it is just a matter of centimeters (offside, defender clears or attacker misses) between it being a goal or not, that is a very, very dangerous attack. And if you have a few of them, you are doing really great.

Edited July 10 by outlander

[The_jagster]

8 minutes ago, outlander said:

Is it? So, imagine an attacker having a one on one with the keeper, rounds hif off and the a defender clears the ball with a last ditch tackls before attacker was able to hit the ball into an open net.

Hom much xG will it be? 

Or byline cross from inside the area and the attacker misses the ball by a few centimers?

That is what @Rob1981is rightly pointing out. If it is just a matter of centimeters (offside, defender clears or attacker misses) between it being a goal or not, that is a very, very dangerous attack. And if you have a few of them, you are doing really great.

This is all true.

But in general, teams that create these sorts of openings tend to create actual chances too.

[Astafjevs]

4 minutes ago, outlander said:

Is it? So, imagine an attacker having a one on one with the keeper, rounds hif off and the a defender clears the ball with a last ditch tackls before attacker was able to hit the ball into an open net.

Hom much xG will it be? 

Or byline cross from inside the area and the attacker misses the ball by a few centimers?

That is what @Rob1981is rightly pointing out. If it is just a matter of centimeters (offside, defender clears or attacker misses) between it being a goal or not, that is a very, very dangerous attack. And if you have a few of them, you are doing really great.

The xG in that scenario will be 0 if there was no shot. 

Maybe think of it as a quality of the shots taken if you like, but it can be used as a proxy for quality of chances as well. 

What you've described is one of the problems with xG. I don't like when people clearly haven't watched a game, but then quote the xG and talk about it as if they have. Because it doesn't account for dangerous scenarios that weren't converted to shots, but that can reflect how well a team attacked and carved out opportunities.

[Barry Cartman]

It was better when people used to argue whether a shot that hit the post was on target or not 

England were rubbish, they didn't even have a shot on target

What do you mean, they hit the post!

[ceefax the cat]

xG is by no means perfect but, especially with sample sizes big enough for the offsides etc to start to even out, it can be pretty handy. Just got to take it for what it is, in context, and not treat it as some all-singing, all-dancing barometer of attacking potency. It tells you, more or less, whether a side is regularly getting shots away from good positions. Knowing that is better than not knowing it.

[enigmatic]

2 hours ago, Coulthard's Jaw said:

Isn't the point here that the disallowed goals were actually legal goals. I don't know how you factor that into xG but as always, context is not a myth.

should be 1.0 xG for an unambiguously wrongly disallowed goal tbh, but it isn't, and flags went up early in those days anyway. One of them looks like it might actually have been offside, the other... not so much.

think the xG the intern calculated is also barely awarding anything to the "long range shot" which Seaman saves with his feet when in no man's land miles outside his box . Some of the more sensible xG models fix that with keeper position or an arbitrart massive chance fudge factor because dribbling around him in that one on one situation would have been very, very easy and lobbing him not much harder, and even the crap shot he actually took probably scores more often than not

 

[Rob1981]

Another one of these would be nice.

 

[Bliss Seeker]

Gwad, Beckham crossing the ball is just sex. Hot steamy sweaty football sex. OOHHFFFFF! 

[Bliss Seeker]

27 minutes ago, Rob1981 said:

Another one of these would be nice.

 

Didn't see it before, but he was offside

 

[Redshift]

xG always sounds like an energy drink to me. 

[Rob1981]

7 minutes ago, Bliss Seeker said:

Didn't see it before, but he was offside

Miles offside.  So basically, if we'd had VAR in 2002... Vassell's England career might never have taken off.  I remember we gave debuts to Vassell and also to Michael Ricketts in that game.  Vassell scores an overhead kick and squeezes his way into the WC2002 squad.  Michael Rickets is hooked at half time and never plays for England again.

FINE MARGINS.

[EdBed]

Described as "borderline" offside by Andy Gray, which is especially generous when held up against the recent experiences of Danish players.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

 

[Bliss Seeker]

I'm nervous. 

Any team news leaks? 

 

[JJ72]

Weather update: I'm about 30km from dortmund and it's absolutely bucketing down right now. Massive flooding everywhere.

[Rob1981]

11 minutes ago, Coulthard's Jaw said:

There is no way we are getting 14 corners

At least make it believable.

MEME RATING: 3/10

[EdBed]

Considering the amount of rain that fell on the pitch during the Germany Denmark match I was surprised at how well the ball rolled by the second half.  It must have excellent drainage.

[Selwink]

Just now, Rob1981 said:

There is no way we are getting 14 corners

At least make it believable.

MEME RATING: 3/10

I thought it was referring to the Dutch corners

[GunmaN1905]

5 minutes ago, JJ72 said:

Weather update: I'm about 30km from dortmund and it's absolutely bucketing down right now. Massive flooding everywhere.

I'm going to be disappointed if there aren't at least e few videos of English fans water-sliding in the street.