Liam Rosenior

[Curtains]

 Good xg stats are not going to win you games if you can’t hit a barn door from 10 yards .

Im hoping we win tomorrow but we need to play better than the last 2 games to achieve it 

[Curtains]

If I could ask Liam one question it would be why are you playing Knight at RB .

Makes no sense at all to me unless he thinks Knight isn’t good enough to play midfield.

Where does Knight play in International games !

[nottingram]

12 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

But that's not true. The point is we only create poor chances. "Expected goals" is a very dubious, subjective statistic, but even if we were to assume is has a degree of accuracy, when you divide our expected goals by our number of goal attempts you see why we do not score. If most chances have only a 5-10% probability of finding the net, it's the quality of the chance that's at issue, and not the quality of our finishing. We are not set up to create good chances. That's why we've only scored in 16 of the last 36 away league games. And then only 19 goals in total in all of those matches. Liam has to wake up and smell the coffee. Those are extraordinary stats, and not in a good way. There is something systematically wrong with how he wants us to play.

Derby’s open play xG per shot of 0.09, 8th best in the league. 

Ipswich 0.077 (13th best), Sheff W 0.094 (5th), Bolton 0.084 (9th), Portsmouth 0.0904 (7th), Plymouth 0.065 (21st).

Highest open play xG per shot in the league is Burton with 0.116 but we all know about their defensive record on the flip side of that. Cheltenham 2nd but also conceding a fair few. 

All the above open play only. Our set play xG per shot is broadly in line with Ipswich, Plymouth and a fair bit better than Sheff W.

I guess no teams in the league are “set up to create good chances.”

Source for all the above is https://theanalyst.com/eu/2022/08/league-one-stats-2022-23/

Its not a great statistic, can tell it’s own truth or lies just like most can. But it is also not clouded by any sort of bias which can not be said for you or I or anyone here.

[Jubbs]

3 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

But that's not true. The point is we only create poor chances

Well, this is where it is true. Here's the facts:

We have created 18 (1st in the league) "Big Chances" according to SofaScore and 15 (2nd in the league) according to Footmob.

Big chances are defined as:
"A situation where a player should reasonably be expected to score, usually in a one on one scenario or from very close range when the ball has a clear path to goal and there is low to moderate pressure on the shooter. Penalties are always considered big chances."

So  BOTH  of these websites/apps have Derby as missing 13 big chances, which would put us 1st. That's 2 more than any other team.

 

3 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

when you divide our expected goals by our number of goal attempts you see why we do not score. If most chances have only a 5-10% probability of finding the net, it's the quality of the chance that's at issue, and not the quality of our finishing.

From open play, if you calculate the xG/shot of all League 1 teams, we would be 7th with 0.09xG per shot, highest being Burton with 0.116 xG/shot. So no, the quality of the chances aren't the issue as we are creating a respectable amount of decent chances, our finishing is appalling. 

In fact, we are of one of two teams in the league that is underperforming on our xG (in open play) by more than 1 goal, we are underperforming by 3.38xG, Shrewsbury being closest at 1.96xG underperformance. So I think it is incredibly fair to suggest our finishing has been poor. 

3 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

"Expected goals" is a very dubious, subjective statistic

Again, why? 
It is calculated by comparing it to thousands of shots recorded earlier based on factors such as distance, position of defenders, type and speed of pass, type of shot, shot angles and various other aspects.
By definition, how is that subjective? It's certainly more accurate than John in the West Stand saying "I'd have scored that!"

[Jubbs]

3 hours ago, nottingram said:

Derby’s open play xG per shot of 0.09, 8th best in the league. 

Ipswich 0.077 (13th best), Sheff W 0.094 (5th), Bolton 0.084 (9th), Portsmouth 0.0904 (7th), Plymouth 0.065 (21st).

Highest open play xG per shot in the league is Burton with 0.116 but we all know about their defensive record on the flip side of that. Cheltenham 2nd but also conceding a fair few. 

All the above open play only. Our set play xG per shot is broadly in line with Ipswich, Plymouth and a fair bit better than Sheff W.

I guess no teams in the league are “set up to create good chances.”

Source for all the above is https://theanalyst.com/eu/2022/08/league-one-stats-2022-23/

Its not a great statistic, can tell it’s own truth or lies just like most can. But it is also not clouded by any sort of bias which can not be said for you or I or anyone here.

Damn apologies for this I've basically just copied this without seeing this!!! 

[Carl Sagan]

3 hours ago, Jubbs said:

Well, this is where it is true. Here's the facts:

This is some strange usage of the words "facts" and "true" of which I was previously unaware. The facts are we haven't scored an away league goal all season. In your opinion, what I termed the subjective statistic of "expected goals" indicates the main reason for this is poor finishing. In my opinion, expected goals isn't a sufficiently objective measure to draw that conclusion and watching the games indicates to me the issue is the lack of good chances. I appreciate your efforts but, like Liam, you are pointing to XG as evidence. And because I don't believe it is, I worry that he is using it to justify himself.

[Crewton]

7 hours ago, Curtains said:

Offsides aren’t chances they are bad play 

 

[Curtains]

7 hours ago, Crewton said:

 

Offside in soccer is a rule that stops players from standing near the opposition goal. The attacking players need to be in line or behind the defending players in the opposition half. Offside prevents the game from being a long-ball game from one end to the other.

[Gone]

12 hours ago, Jubbs said:

Well, this is where it is true. Here's the facts:

We have created 18 (1st in the league) "Big Chances" according to SofaScore and 15 (2nd in the league) according to Footmob.

Big chances are defined as:
"A situation where a player should reasonably be expected to score, usually in a one on one scenario or from very close range when the ball has a clear path to goal and there is low to moderate pressure on the shooter. Penalties are always considered big chances."

So  BOTH  of these websites/apps have Derby as missing 13 big chances, which would put us 1st. That's 2 more than any other team.

 

From open play, if you calculate the xG/shot of all League 1 teams, we would be 7th with 0.09xG per shot, highest being Burton with 0.116 xG/shot. So no, the quality of the chances aren't the issue as we are creating a respectable amount of decent chances, our finishing is appalling. 

In fact, we are of one of two teams in the league that is underperforming on our xG (in open play) by more than 1 goal, we are underperforming by 3.38xG, Shrewsbury being closest at 1.96xG underperformance. So I think it is incredibly fair to suggest our finishing has been poor. 

Again, why? 
It is calculated by comparing it to thousands of shots recorded earlier based on factors such as distance, position of defenders, type and speed of pass, type of shot, shot angles and various other aspects.
By definition, how is that subjective? It's certainly more accurate than John in the West Stand saying "I'd have scored that!"

We’ve scored 7 goals in 8 games, that’s the only meaningful stat we should look at to judge where we are. 

[DerbyRevolution]

Starting to have big concerns now, no manager should be talking about xg in pre match interviews. It’s a made up stat by nerds, it’s not a real thing. Says to me he’s feeling the pressure and massively clutching at straws to try and keep people on side. Big day for him today. 

[DerbyRevolution]

I’m apprehensive to see the team sheet at 2 o clock. If we see Bird, Hourihane and no Oduroh I’ll be really disheartened that he’s not learning from repeat bad performances and will persist with something that clearly doesn’t work. 

[Archied]

1 hour ago, DerbyRevolution said:

I’m apprehensive to see the team sheet at 2 o clock. If we see Bird, Hourihane and no Oduroh I’ll be really disheartened that he’s not learning from repeat bad performances and will persist with something that clearly doesn’t work. 

I’m more apprehensive for today in terms of family strife , two season tickets ,wife and daughter take turns comming to the games , a pattern is forming in terms of good results when the wife comes but poor when the daughter is with me , how do you tell the daughter she’s not comming any more as she is the unlucky charm ?,, daughter with me today for two home games in a row as that’s how they’re calendars have worked out ,

please please derby win and save me 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Archied

[Tyler Durden]

15 hours ago, Jubbs said:

Well, this is where it is true. Here's the facts:

We have created 18 (1st in the league) "Big Chances" according to SofaScore and 15 (2nd in the league) according to Footmob.

Big chances are defined as:
"A situation where a player should reasonably be expected to score, usually in a one on one scenario or from very close range when the ball has a clear path to goal and there is low to moderate pressure on the shooter. Penalties are always considered big chances."

So  BOTH  of these websites/apps have Derby as missing 13 big chances, which would put us 1st. That's 2 more than any other team.

 

From open play, if you calculate the xG/shot of all League 1 teams, we would be 7th with 0.09xG per shot, highest being Burton with 0.116 xG/shot. So no, the quality of the chances aren't the issue as we are creating a respectable amount of decent chances, our finishing is appalling. 

In fact, we are of one of two teams in the league that is underperforming on our xG (in open play) by more than 1 goal, we are underperforming by 3.38xG, Shrewsbury being closest at 1.96xG underperformance. So I think it is incredibly fair to suggest our finishing has been poor. 

Again, why? 
It is calculated by comparing it to thousands of shots recorded earlier based on factors such as distance, position of defenders, type and speed of pass, type of shot, shot angles and various other aspects.
By definition, how is that subjective? It's certainly more accurate than John in the West Stand saying "I'd have scored that!"

How can you use the word "fact" in the same breath as quoting the metric as being when a player should reasonably be expected to score?

Then it can't be an automatic fact as there immediately is an element of subjectivity or opinion being used to define it ?

Why not just stick to the facts which are the number of away goals we've scored all season, everything else is just pure conjecture. 

[Day]

21 hours ago, kash_a_ram_a_ding_dong said:

Wouldn't be a sacking though,he's already a member of the coaching staff who in charge on an interim basis.

If we replace him,he still gets paid,as was wassell when he did the same job temporarily.

He's being given a chance but it's not set in stone that he is getting the job....a prudent and wise decision by clowes i.m.o,Mel would have given him a three year contract after 3 games and then paid him compensation next week when he sacked him.

Technically you are correct, however if Rosenior was replaced with a permanent manager I suspect he would leave with immediate effect.

Rosenior has not made it a secret he wants to be a manager and wants this job, losing out on the first time round to Rooney, to miss out again having been in there solo for 2 months +, where the players don’t see you as interim would be a walk of shame too far for him.

Wassall situation was entirely different and easier to return to the academy.

[TomTom92]

20 minutes ago, David said:

Technically you are correct, however if Rosenior was replaced with a permanent manager I suspect he would leave with immediate effect.

Rosenior has not made it a secret he wants to be a manager and wants this job, losing out on the first time round to Rooney, to miss out again having been in there solo for 2 months +, where the players don’t see you as interim would be a walk of shame too far for him.

Wassall situation was entirely different and easier to return to the academy.

Totally agree with this. Wassall stepped in almost as a favour to Mel. LR has been around too long to drop down again. 
 
IMO if LR did go it wouldn’t be a bad thing to have a bit of a overhaul of the back room staff. Bucko for instance would maybe drop back in to the academy but I imagine the others would go.

[sage]

19 hours ago, Curtains said:

If I could ask Liam one question it would be why are you playing Knight at RB .

Makes no sense at all to me unless he thinks Knight isn’t good enough to play midfield.

Where does Knight play in International games !

Because we don't have a right back 

[BramcoteRam84]

19 hours ago, Curtains said:

If I could ask Liam one question it would be why are you playing Knight at RB .

Makes no sense at all to me unless he thinks Knight isn’t good enough to play midfield.

Where does Knight play in International games !

Think he answered that in his press conference. He couldn’t get the right backs he wanted to bring in, we missed out on two and he wasn’t going to sign any old right back for the sake of it.

[Inverurie Ram]

Liam Rosenior will lead us up the mountain.

 

[RadioactiveWaste]

6 minutes ago, BramcoteRam84 said:

Think he answered that in his press conference. He couldn’t get the right backs he wanted to bring in, we missed out on two and he wasn’t going to sign any old right back for the sake of it.

Or put another way, knight at right back is better than the other right back options at the moment, in LRs opinion (which is the one that matters).

As for xG, like all statistics, it's a number. The devil is "what does that number tell you" - and xG tells you less than actual scores and points earned. But it doesn't tell you nothing, nor does it tell you everything, it is, just a number.

[Inverurie Ram]