ap04

says flippantly whilst liking a post on Derby being unlucky and deserving of more points in 07-08

This may or not be true, however coming from you who amidst our freak early Feb run of 4 wins in 4 even games was bragging about points streaks and form and describing it as anything but "luck" it's not going to wash. Also late goals conceded are not especially "unlucky", nor does a missed penalty mean we deserved something from a game.

But I thought only points mattered to you? Or you sometimes care about other stuff too?

Of course, goals are only a quarter of the big moments in a game or a season. That's the same effect as looking at 10 games out of a 40-game season and calling it more fair or representative. But you are free to do so if you wish!

No because they didn't deserve to finish anywhere near fourth (quite similar to this season)

We have had all of the blatant errors in our favour recently (Nelson hand ball Stevenage Sibley swipe Cheltenham), as well as a couple of debatable ones (Hourihane tackle Shrewsbury Sibley hand ball 76' Cheltenham). The only possible one against -not seen it again- was the alleged stamp on Adams.

This has been the most remarkable stat, almost unheard of. Season overall, hardly any home advantage (home +30.5 chances away +27). Last 19 games, similar opponents, an actual hindrance (home +7.5 away +22.5)! Pressure, pitch, opposition setup or what?

This is M-L's shot not Gayle's offside, maybe you should have tried playing it a second further before posting? (just an idea)

So it's not ok to mock someone for their skin colour or sexuality but ok to mock them for their weight, have I got this right? (not expressing an opinion just curious)

Correct, not factored in at all. There is a post in the Football Forum if you haven't read it already. The first thing to counter this is that better players do not have much better goals to xG, there is some difference but not much and it varies. It's more the creating of the situations. Second is that goals to xG is a much bigger reflection of luck (fewer goals than deserved, goals to chances not regressing yet due to the rare nature of goals) than skill. You can see this clearly in actual goals vs xG league tables. For instance on this year's EPL City and Liverpool (just about the best sides) are only mid-table, even Wolves Forest West Ham and Luton are better at 'converting' (despite worse players). Another example, last season we also had one of the league's very top sides, very similar to now if not better. We even had McGoldrick upfront. On the goals for xG not only we weren't near the top like now, we were fifth from bottom. We were unlucky, which fits in with the amount of results we deserved on the balance of play and didn't get.

Says who? I mean everyone says it, but have you got the numbers of how lucky a team usually is or can get after x amount of games and why, or when it eventually evens out, or is it just another cliché? In response to what you said, you would struggle to find more than a handful in their rightful place at the end of a season, it's a complete mess. According to xPoints -just one of the estimates- last year it was one in 24.

Hell yeah for numerous reasons, would be good to know which you personally trust though so that I know how to enlighten you going forward (if I were you I'd go with mine).

I think they should introduce this as a template in seminars and masterclasses, "How to attain 0 attempts and 0.01xG (Cheltenham) in games you target a win". Judging by the resounding approval at dcfcfans it'll be all the rage.

What's mildly infuriating is the nonsense being spouted out as a result of a win although I can't speak for others - someone even had the cheek to mention IQ, meanwhile we've been reading gems such as: "Great win that" - As opposed to the wins that aren't great, guess what the one before was "great" too "It was all about the 3 points" - Whilst certain other games are about something else, friendlies I suppose "We deserved this win" - No comment "Not lucky at all" - No, only 4 flukes out of the last 5 "Our form is brilliant / Warne great job / Others bottling it" - 1 deserved win in the last 7 "So proud of them" - 0 shots at ht at home sure was a new high, not embarrassing at all for an autos contender or Dcfc in L1 according to another poster "They fought til the end" - As though other sides wouldn't try to recover the ball and get it forward drawing at home against a similar or inferior opponent, they would all lie down with "I surrender" placards "Result not performance" - "Alright lads today you don't have to create much or defend that great, it's all about the goal and the clean sheet" "Was always going to be ugly" - Nought to do with us not being good enough to break them down and make it not ugly, it was fate or just one team on the pitch "This year is not about enjoyment" - Ok we might not have enjoyed it today with 2 chances at home but we damn well will when -assuming status quo- we create fa in the Championship! "Ref did very well" - Just the one major decision out of one wrong I despair

None of these are "predictions", they are all measured data from the actual games. Why would I, it was a response to somebody talking about Derby. But I actually posted exactly this about a week ago.

I will try and clarify it for you. We currently are 4th luckiest in the league on this (xG vs actual) 5th luckest in the league on this (same metric) 5th or 6th luckiest in the league on xG points vs actual (-7 excluding today, same source) By my database Chances to goals scored (3.09, avg 3.72) is as lucky as it gets after 33 games Chances to goals conceded (4.17) is luckier than 72% of teams The two combined (1.08) is luckier than 86% of teams - for reference last season was quite unlucky and this was only 0.38 against Finally on results we are 8 points better off, this is luckier than 88% of teams

Mate we were pants (or almost relegation foddder if you prefer).

On a site like understat you can see 2 things: First, how much most players' goals to xG yo-yo even between seasons never mind briefer periods. It's not enough data. Haaland couldn't buy a goal the other month, same as Kane now. Mane Vardy and Aubameyang were top scorers in between 'underperforming'. Second, that even on entire career average hardly anyone outperforms their xG by much let alone 50%, even the perceived very best marksmen in recent history: Ronaldo 229->234 Messi 220->253 Lewandowski 278->271 Mbappe 163->185 Kane 201->234 Benzema 169->166 Haaland 100->114 Salah 176->186 Suarez 166->179 Mane 117->118 Aguero 127->133 Lukaku 147->155 Immobile 165->178 This is less than 10%, or 1 or 2 goals a year, it's nothing. So 'clinical' is a bit of a myth, it's more things like positioning and good teammates that make the difference.

This is perceived this way because of how the goals went on the day. In fact we were more superior on Saturday albeit at home, but because we scored just 1 from nearly as many openings and also conceded from far fewer everyone was moaning. This is a common misconception often repeated in the media, the above usually means overrated, lucky and not evened out rather than a trait. This is the essence of xG, taking the small sample problem out of it. Ideally in assessing a side's prospects you want to have been "underperforming" as it means results are about to improve. The whole point of sitting back is that it usually makes it harder for the opposition to create clear chances (lower probability overall to score ie. xG). Else it wouldn't be done. Sometimes it also leads to more openings on the break.

What that meant was that xG is redundant once you've watched the game, as in giving less info, I didn't doubt you watched it. Call it what you will if 'chances' is wrong, what matters is how close they were to a goal. A disallowed goal or marginal offside or penalty denied is a big 'chance' despite no attempt as we very nearly scored. Their deflection onto the sidenetting is a big chance because of the distance of striker to goal and then of ball to post with the keeper beat, it hinged on tiny margins and was worse defending imo than on Saturday. A missed flick unmarked from 5 yards is much closer to a goal and better attacking/worse defending than a regulation save from outside the box. If I got this right according to you Barkhuisen missing the ball -which I think he did- is not a chance even though we nearly scored, but if he scuffs it to the keeper it suddenly counts as he had an 'attempt on goal'. If a keeper makes a save it counts as a chance, but if it's a defender that saves the goal by blocking a point-blank or a through ball for a 1 v 1 or a cross for a tap-in it does not as there was no attempt. I take it you also think a silly og shouldn't count as to who deserved due to no attempt even though the defending was pathetic?

Exactly, it's not enough that we scored with our second, third and fourth clear chances, which would normally take 11 of these and happens 5% of the time, we were due to score even more! Just about every time we get near it shall be a goal (whilst at the same time our opponents miss all of theirs). Are you for real or just trolling everyone?

Extremely accurate on this occasion which doesn't happen every day. 4 chances to 5, relatively even game, good away performance, joke of a scoreline.

I meant double figures for the clear ones, all in they were on double figures too. As you said we had 5 or 6 big chances (3 goals Collins M-L, Barks not an easy finish imo), they had 4 as big but twice as many 'non-bold' ones. The 3' M-L one was not a chance at all. Us edging it but not by much with the possible caveat it was game over on 62'. A different site gave 1.24-1.24 for the xG - also xG 1.27-0.98 is not enough for a win, and xG does not add anything if you've watched the actual game.

33' woodwork 58' inches away from free header tap in 66' Ebu last ditch a yard wide with Wildsmith wrong footed 93' Sitter inches over (just the clear-cut ones, they also had lesser moments 6' 7' 56' 68' 93' and 96', twice as many as ours but which you can ignore) Now waiting for our count expecting it to reach double figures.

Until these suit Derby at which point they'll pop up again in a flash. But have you considered the possibility it was the scoreline that was "false" rather than the stats? Seeing as they are a broader sample and football is notoriously unfair. More than anything it shows how blinkered fans are by results. On chances created (objective no emotion bias or agendas) we didn't deserve to win the game, yet nobody out of a 100 seems to think so.