Scott Carson

[IlsonDerby]

1 hour ago, therealhantsram said:

That's exactly the point of xG and why it's useful. 

Actual goals is a measure of past performance, xG is a predictor of future performance. Different stats for different purposes. 

 

I'd disagree with this. 

I use xG to decide whether my team have been outplayed or whether they were just unlucky to lose a match. 

 

If the team with the highest xG wins then it can be said that the result matched the performance? 

[David]

2 minutes ago, IlsonDerby said:

I mean if neither of you can see that a high xGoals statistic is a good indicator of us playing well then this discussion cannot go any further. It is a much more in depth statistic than merely looking at 'shots/shots on target/possession' to decide on the performance of a side and whether a result was 'fair' or whether one side was more clinical. And to say 'Actual goals' are the only stat that matters reduces our game to 1/2 moments per 90 minutes. I'm paying a lot to watch my team week in week out. For me, how we play is important. Creating chances is important. Relying on X to bang the only chance of the game for us in is exciting at the time, but always worrying that we don't have enough to sustain a challenge at the top. 

I would agree on the little to discuss, but that’s my point. It would be like having a discussion over a prediction you make in the prediction league. 

We’re adding weight to this stat which isn’t really a stat, it’s just a prediction.

I understand as a fan you want to see goals, chances created, football isn’t cheap you’re right, but what this has to do with xG I’m not sure. It reads like you’re using this “stat” as a gauge of how entertained you should feel. Surely football is more than that?

You wouldn’t say I’m not off this week because we’re not expected to create chances or score. Look at the semi final away leg at Elland Road, everybody pretty much wrote us off, even myself who I consider to be the optimistic/positive end of the football fan spectrum saw it as game over. Those that went probably had one of, If not the, most entertaining game of football they have seen.

Football is more than stats and definitely more than predictions.

[David]

1 hour ago, IlsonDerby said:

I'd disagree with this. 

I use xG to decide whether my team have been outplayed or whether they were just unlucky to lose a match. 

 

If the team with the highest xG wins then it can be said that the result matched the performance? 

Sorry, I know you see no reason for a discussion but I have to say this is nonsensical. 

Football is a tactical game, Burnley haven’t been lucky to stay in the Premier League, they play to their strengths and are rewarded for doing so. 

In 17/18 the xG table says they should have finished 14th, they finished 7th. Expected points 41, actual points 54.

It would actually be quite disrespectful to Sean Dyche if I walked up to him on the street and said you were lucky mate, I’m sure he will argue they work damn hard in training working on taking the chances when they come to them.

[MuespachRam]

3 hours ago, irobinson said:

He is a quality GK underneath!!

i was watching the goal keeping clip last night - and couldn’t help noticing how fitter / trim he looked 

 

lets hope he gets his sharpness back

 

Wouldn’t surprise me if he started as number 1 under Cocu - experience counts a lot in my book for a GK

I watched that clip too and noticed the glu pro gloves...! Hope you all did! 

[Tamworthram]

3 hours ago, IlsonDerby said:

I'd disagree with this. 

I use xG to decide whether my team have been outplayed or whether they were just unlucky to lose a match. 

 

If the team with the highest xG wins then it can be said that the result matched the performance? 

I usually decide whether I think my team has been outplayed simply by watching the game and forming my own judgement (assuming I was at the game of course). Also, how do you determine if a team has been unlucky? If you hit the post, that's not unlucky, it was a shot off target. If the opposition keeper does a great save, then that's not unlucky either it the skill of the keeper out doing the skill of the striker on that occasion. 

[R@M]

Also, any stats that rate Pantyman in the top three of anything can be immediately discounted. 

[Blondest Goat]

Don't know much about stats but the two that I've heard do tally with my impression of last season.  Firstly that Carson was very poor and secondly that for a team that finished sixth in the league it didn't feel like we created many chances.  

[Chester40]

The stats are interesting and food for thought definitely....but only if you consider the facts behind them.

We score an early goal away from home against a decent opposition from a Wilson wonder freekick. Chances are... that chances of further chances will be reduced ? ....

Err....but would that be a worry if we win? And next season can we extrapolate that if we dont have Wilson, that means we have no chance? Obviously not.

But if we can see we regularly created few chances and scored a high proportion of them.. then one of two changes to personnel may more greatly affect us than other teams.  

As for Carson... how do the stats compare to other seasons when 'to the naked eye' he seemed better? He always drove me mad with his unwillingness to come off his line and the change in style and personnel seemed to make this tendency worse..so do the stats back this up? And when you look at the games where this was 'proved' who was playing and can they adjust their game to more similar to the players who played when stats don't show that.

[Jram]

5 hours ago, David said:

Sorry, I know you see no reason for a discussion but I have to say this is nonsensical. 

Football is a tactical game, Burnley haven’t been lucky to stay in the Premier League, they play to their strengths and are rewarded for doing so. 

In 17/18 the xG table says they should have finished 14th, they finished 7th. Expected points 41, actual points 54.

It would actually be quite disrespectful to Sean Dyche if I walked up to him on the street and said you were lucky mate, I’m sure he will argue they work damn hard in training working on taking the chances when they come to them.

I disagree with this and would say XG is an excellent indicator of how lucky a team is... The fact is that looking at a season as a sample size isn't sufficient because 40 games is too small 

Look at Leicester when they won the league... poo, win the league, poo again

I'd suggest this was due to the fact their title win was a fluke and far less to do with all the "reasons" pundits suggested I.e. Ranieri, "momentum" 

Football is a random game and lots of random stuff happens, it's easy to add a narrative afterwards 

I'd say XG is the best indicator of that randomness and you might find Burnley score under their XG next season and finish near the bottom

Not sure what others think? 

[David]

3 minutes ago, Jram said:

I disagree with this and would say XG is an excellent indicator of how lucky a team is... The fact is that looking at a season as a sample size isn't sufficient because 40 games is too small 

Look at Leicester when they won the league... poo, win the league, poo again

I'd suggest this was due to the fact their title win was a fluke and far less to do with all the "reasons" pundits suggested I.e. Ranieri, "momentum" 

Football is a random game and lots of random stuff happens, it's easy to add a narrative afterwards 

I'd say XG is the best indicator of that randomness and you might find Burnley score under their XG next season and finish near the bottom

Not sure what others think? 

So you’re saying xG is best used over multiple seasons..........seasons which maybe under different managers and using different players.

Sorry but this is sounding worse the more people try and convince me this stat is worth taking notice of.

[rynny]

4 minutes ago, David said:

So you’re saying xG is best used over multiple seasons..........seasons which maybe under different managers and using different players.

Sorry but this is sounding worse the more people try and convince me this stat is worth taking notice of.

There is only one good reason for the xG and that is to see how clinical/good a team, or player, is. 

[Jram]

1 hour ago, David said:

So you’re saying xG is best used over multiple seasons..........seasons which maybe under different managers and using different players.

Sorry but this is sounding worse the more people try and convince me this stat is worth taking notice of.

Yes I am saying that.. The whole point is that football is random and full of small margins 

Hence Harry Wilsons form seemed to drop off during the season but really he was scoring above his XG at the start and below it during that period he dropped off 

If you looked at those periods in isolation, he would seem like a world beater when scoring loads of goals (above his XG) and bang average during his off period (below his XG) 

[May Contain Nuts]

4 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

If you hit the post, that's not unlucky, it was a shot off target.

Not entirely true, luck can still come into it as long as football players aren't androids (sorry David, I mean apples) running on programs which calculate to within millimeters whether the ball will go in or not.

There's not a player in the world, no matter good they are, who strikes the ball from 25, 30+ yards knowing with intimate precision that it's either  going to end up in the very top corner of the goal, brushing the post/bar as it goes or whether a slight bit of spin on it takes it 2cm further to one side and bounces down off the stanction of crossbar & post onto the line and away from goal.

There's often as much good fortune involved in the first outcome as there's bad fortune in the 2nd yet one gets praised as inch perfect while the other simply written off as 'not unlucky, off target'? I disagree with that way of looking at it

[Jram]

37 minutes ago, Coconut said:

Not entirely true, luck can still come into it as long as football players aren't androids (sorry David, I mean apples) running on programs which calculate to within millimeters whether the ball will go in or not.

There's not a player in the world, no matter good they are, who strikes the ball from 25, 30+ yards knowing with intimate precision that it's either  going to end up in the very top corner of the goal, brushing the post/bar as it goes or whether a slight bit of spin on it takes it 2cm further to one side and bounces down off the stanction of crossbar & post onto the line and away from goal.

There's often as much good fortune involved in the first outcome as there's bad fortune in the 2nd yet one gets praised as inch perfect while the other simply written off as 'not unlucky, off target'? I disagree with that way of looking at it

Agree with this

[EnigmaRam]

Anybody else not really give a toss about Xg? 

Carson didn’t have his best season and needs to improve to get his shirt back. I’d guess he’s probably number 1 in Cocu’s eyes and played Roos and Mitchell to see who’s going to be number 2 

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Coconut said:

Not entirely true, luck can still come into it as long as football players aren't androids (sorry David, I mean apples) running on programs which calculate to within millimeters whether the ball will go in or not.

There's not a player in the world, no matter good they are, who strikes the ball from 25, 30+ yards knowing with intimate precision that it's either  going to end up in the very top corner of the goal, brushing the post/bar as it goes or whether a slight bit of spin on it takes it 2cm further to one side and bounces down off the stanction of crossbar & post onto the line and away from goal.

There's often as much good fortune involved in the first outcome as there's bad fortune in the 2nd yet one gets praised as inch perfect while the other simply written off as 'not unlucky, off target'? I disagree with that way of looking at it

I would disagree. Luck only comes into it when something that has nothing to do with skill comes into play (for example the famous coffee cup incident).

[SaintRam]

As @rynny says, the xG stat is a reasonable measure of clinicality in teams/players over a form period.

Using it to any other ends is an overreach, in my opinion; and I too am frustrated by how it seems to be cropping up as supposed evidence to statements like "who the best GK was". The stat has a lot of flaws when working in reverse, i.e. a GK vs the opposing teams xG.

[Jram]

Luck definitely plays a huge part in football and I think its always easy to explain things with a convenient explanation in hindsight (e.g. Skill, tactical acumen or some other thing) when in actual fact luck played the biggest part 

With Xg I think it's more saying Carson should have stopped X many goals when in fact he saved a lesser amount based on a robust analysis of thousands of goal scoring chances 

I don't see how anyone can think thats not a useful indicator? 

But, given what I said above, I do think 20 games or whatever he played is nowhere near a big enough sample size to judge him and he may end up far exceeding his Xg in his next 20 games. Again because chance and luck play a huge part 

[IlsonDerby]

21 hours ago, David said:

Sorry, I know you see no reason for a discussion but I have to say this is nonsensical. 

Football is a tactical game, Burnley haven’t been lucky to stay in the Premier League, they play to their strengths and are rewarded for doing so. 

In 17/18 the xG table says they should have finished 14th, they finished 7th. Expected points 41, actual points 54.

It would actually be quite disrespectful to Sean Dyche if I walked up to him on the street and said you were lucky mate, I’m sure he will argue they work damn hard in training working on taking the chances when they come to them.

No but what it did highlight is that they were clearly punching above their weight and they have since regressed back to where their xG might suggest they should be. 

 

Imagine you look at the end of the season and 2 teams finish on identical points. 

One team is roughly where they should be based on xG and the other team is way above where xG would have them. 

Which team would you assume are more likely to repeat that sort of performance in the following season? 

 

 

[RoyMac5]

23 minutes ago, IlsonDerby said:

Which team would you assume are more likely to repeat that sort of performance in the following season? 

Err that's what statistics supposedly foretell - but how on earth can they, at this level of detail, do more than say what the eye could easily have told you. This is just making 'jobs' for the sake of it. Some stats are useful others are merely to provide work.