Matchday Thread - Derby County v Peterborough United (27/08 15:00)

[Ellafella]

3 hours ago, Archied said:

Watching from the east stand it was hard to tell with certainty whether there was a foul but I really thought the ref looked like he was going to book barks and I was surprised when he booked the defender , don’t know if he changed his mind or if I was just reading his first reaction wrong , just happy it went the way it did

I was SW upper. I think the ref was thinking long & hard about the yellow, as he walked over. I think Barkhuizen said something to the ref & then he reached for the card. Free kicks get given like that all the time - soft. The player goes over often & there’s no obvious foul play. So, the ref would’ve been thinking was it a foul - probably yes. Was the player in an attacking position- yes. Therefore it’s a yellow card. Therefore as it’s his 2nd it’s a red. Thompson had received a very clear and deliberate yellow earlier so on balance justice done. 

[Ellafella]

2 minutes ago, Van der MoodHoover said:

Is it getting a bit more accurate? 

Good question; I’m very surprised that Marriot’s gifted miss doesn’t rate higher & also a free header by Knight and a tap-in by McG don’t rate higher - my understanding of the vertical line gives the rating of the chance’s liklihood score between 0 and 1 so look lower than they should be. And an xG of 1.7 against 2 simple and very scorable goals suggest a lack of fine sensitivity in the xG system; then again Ben Mayhew would totally acknowledge this.

[nottingram]

Just now, Ellafella said:

Good question; I’m very surprised that Marriot’s gifted miss doesn’t rate higher & also a free header by Knight and a tap-in by McG don’t rate higher - my understanding of the vertical line gives the rating of the chance’s liklihood score between 0 and 1 so look lower than they should be. And an xG of 1.7 against 2 simple and very scorable goals suggest a lack of fine sensitivity in the xG system; then again Ben Mayhew would totally acknowledge this.

Ultimately depends how sophisticated the model is really. Marriott’s chance as an example is ultimately a 30 yard attempt with a low probability of scoring, I guess you could start to take into account goalkeeper position but by doing so you probably lose a lot of sample size. Like you say I’m sure this is realised and acknowledged. By no means exhaustive but I think it is a fair reflection of the game whereby despite playing poorly we were good value for at least a point and probably more 11 v 11. A bit more composure at 11 v 10 and 0-0 and it would have been comfortable but ultimately no harm done.

As an aside I also don’t really think that Marriott chance was as good as is made out especially with the type of finish he went for. Hitting it with so much power meant he probably had to find a corner, lob or trying to bend it round Wildsmith would have been better. Easy to say sat in the stands not playing though!

[Srg]

4 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Ultimately depends how sophisticated the model is really. Marriott’s chance as an example is ultimately a 30 yard attempt with a low probability of scoring, I guess you could start to take into account goalkeeper position but by doing so you probably lose a lot of sample size. Like you say I’m sure this is realised and acknowledged. By no means exhaustive but I think it is a fair reflection of the game whereby despite playing poorly we were good value for at least a point and probably more 11 v 11. A bit more composure at 11 v 10 and 0-0 and it would have been comfortable but ultimately no harm done.

As an aside I also don’t really think that Marriott chance was as good as is made out especially with the type of finish he went for. Hitting it with so much power meant he probably had to find a corner, lob or trying to bend it round Wildsmith would have been better. Easy to say sat in the stands not playing though!

It was easier than he made it look. But he was outside the box, where he turns into a pub player, so no surprise really. 

[Ellafella]

3 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Ultimately depends how sophisticated the model is really. Marriott’s chance as an example is ultimately a 30 yard attempt with a low probability of scoring, I guess you could start to take into account goalkeeper position but by doing so you probably lose a lot of sample size. Like you say I’m sure this is realised and acknowledged. By no means exhaustive but I think it is a fair reflection of the game whereby despite playing poorly we were good value for at least a point and probably more 11 v 11. A bit more composure at 11 v 10 and 0-0 and it would have been comfortable but ultimately no harm done.

As an aside I also don’t really think that Marriott chance was as good as is made out especially with the type of finish he went for. Hitting it with so much power meant he probably had to find a corner, lob or trying to bend it round Wildsmith would have been better. Easy to say sat in the stands not playing though!

If he puts it on target hard and low it’s a goal so I’d estimate at least 0.6 to 0.7 probability. Also, I think it was closer than 30 yards…I’d say more like 25 yards max. 

[Ellafella]

11 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Ultimately depends how sophisticated the model is really. Marriott’s chance as an example is ultimately a 30 yard attempt with a low probability of scoring, I guess you could start to take into account goalkeeper position but by doing so you probably lose a lot of sample size. Like you say I’m sure this is realised and acknowledged. By no means exhaustive but I think it is a fair reflection of the game whereby despite playing poorly we were good value for at least a point and probably more 11 v 11. A bit more composure at 11 v 10 and 0-0 and it would have been comfortable but ultimately no harm done.

As an aside I also don’t really think that Marriott chance was as good as is made out especially with the type of finish he went for. Hitting it with so much power meant he probably had to find a corner, lob or trying to bend it round Wildsmith would have been better. Easy to say sat in the stands not playing though!

The model relies on a rater judgment of how “difficult” the chance is. It’s a guesstimate. I’d certainly rate it higher than 3/10. A striker would put it away at least 50% of the time. And Marriot’s reaction says it all really - ie FFS! I should have scored that. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Ellafella

[Tamworthram]

9 minutes ago, nottingram said:

Ultimately depends how sophisticated the model is really. Marriott’s chance as an example is ultimately a 30 yard attempt with a low probability of scoring, I guess you could start to take into account goalkeeper position but by doing so you probably lose a lot of sample size. Like you say I’m sure this is realised and acknowledged. By no means exhaustive but I think it is a fair reflection of the game whereby despite playing poorly we were good value for at least a point and probably more 11 v 11. A bit more composure at 11 v 10 and 0-0 and it would have been comfortable but ultimately no harm done.

As an aside I also don’t really think that Marriott chance was as good as is made out especially with the type of finish he went for. Hitting it with so much power meant he probably had to find a corner, lob or trying to bend it round Wildsmith would have been better. Easy to say sat in the stands not playing though!

The type of finish chosen doesn't make it an easier or harder chance. That was just his choice as to how to take advantage of the chance. If a striker decides to opt for a spectacular bicycle kick when a simple nod in with his head would have been easier it doesn't make the chance harder, it's just the striker chose the wrong option.

[Ellafella]

2 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

The type of finish chosen doesn't make it an easier or harder chance. That was just his choice as to how to take advantage of the chance. If a striker decides to opt for a spectacular bicycle kick when a simple nod in with his head would have been easier it doesn't make the chance harder, it's just the striker chose the wrong option.

Ultimately Marriot had a free shot at goal - no defender on him, time to pick his spot and just an “unset” goalie to beat who was not in the centre of his goal. I would expect to see a goal result at least 50% of the time and arguably 60-65%. 

[tinman]

One of the problems with using xg is there's no one source of the truth. Different websites/analysts have different models and ways of measuring the probability. Some might just take into account the position of the shot, while others will be more sophisticated and take into account other variables like height of the ball, direction of travel for the ball and player, part of the body used to shoot. 

 

[Truckle]

I really like the way we are playing but it does seem that we struggle to get men in the box.  This is the view from behind the goal for our winner- against 10 men we only have 3 men in the box (4 if we include Dobbin crossing) against 8 defenders.

[Srg]

1 minute ago, Truckle said:

I really like the way we are playing but it does seem that we struggle to get men in the box.  This is the view from behind the goal for our winner- against 10 men we only have 3 men in the box (4 if we include Dobbin crossing) against 8 defenders.

I mean 4 out of 10 outfielders isn’t insignificant. 

[sage]

4 minutes ago, Truckle said:

I really like the way we are playing but it does seem that we struggle to get men in the box.  This is the view from behind the goal for our winner- against 10 men we only have 3 men in the box (4 if we include Dobbin crossing) against 8 defenders.

So... 

You are using a still from when we scored to show why we don't score. 

[Truckle]

That's true generally but in this context?  Their most forward player is 3 yards outside of our box.

[Srg]

5 minutes ago, Truckle said:

That's true generally but in this context?  Their most forward player is 3 yards outside of our box.

Think having 4 in the box and everyone else to mop up clearances is perfectly fine. Think stills from earlier in the game and 0-0 may illustrate your point better than this. 

[Rev]

I think a bigger head scratcher is bringing everybody back to defend a corner when you have a man advantage.

[ram59]

34 minutes ago, Truckle said:

I really like the way we are playing but it does seem that we struggle to get men in the box.  This is the view from behind the goal for our winner- against 10 men we only have 3 men in the box (4 if we include Dobbin crossing) against 8 defenders.

Although it all worked out in the end, I thought that Collins should have been kept on, as McGoldrick was playing quite deep and we had Stearman, Cashin and Smith frequently positioned together just inside their half with minutes to go and 1 goal down and not a Peterborough player in sight.

[DavesaRam]

22 hours ago, Woodley Ram said:

It looked minor and not a yellow, but if you allow the opposition to run at you and are not careful with your tackle you give the ref a decision to make.

Having seem it on the Sky highlights and again on the Rams TV highlights, Thompson went for the trip, so a definite foul. There is a well known saying “Live by the sword, die by the sword”. Peterborough played by the foul, so …………….

[DavesaRam]

11 hours ago, WystonRam said:

With regard to the sending off, there does not have to be contact for a foul to be given. If the referee is of the opinion that the player committing the offence was attempting to foul, regardless of contact, it is a free kick. In the Saturday case I am also not sure he wasn’t sent off for dissent. The card was a while after the initial foul was given anyway, and the player was giving the ref a few verbals.

1. Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

charges

jumps at

kicks or attempts to kick

pushes

strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)

tackles or challenges

trips or attempts to trip

 

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Have referees see that list?

[Crewton]

3 hours ago, Rev said:

I think a bigger head scratcher is bringing everybody back to defend a corner when you have a man advantage.

It was noticeable that, even at 1-1 and down to 10 men, Peterborough had 8 players in our area and we had everyone back. It's not just LR though,  apart from the occasional experiment leaving 1, 2 or very rarely 3 players up, every manager I can recall over the last 10 years has done the same. I really don't understand the thinking.

[Ellafella]

8 minutes ago, Crewton said:

It was noticeable that, even at 1-1 and down to 10 men, Peterborough had 8 players in our area and we had everyone back. It's not just LR though,  apart from the occasional experiment leaving 1, 2 or very rarely 3 players up, every manager I can recall over the last 10 years has done the same. I really don't understand the thinking.

Nor me. The % game has been replaced by extreme caution.