v Wigan (H) Match Thread

[Andicis]

7 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'm not saying my opinion isn't subjective. Of course, it is. I'm saying that using XG to try and derive a statistical fact from our 'play' is mistaken. I didn't think we looked dangerous in the slightest and knew we wouldn't equalise for a second time. I was surprised that we equalised the first time, as up until that point, Wigan had looked really comfortable following an end to end first 15. 

Collins opportunity (when he had defenders next to him) and the Bradley header for me weren't as clear cut as a striker bearing down on goal twice with only the goalkeeper in his way to stop him. But that's just my view and football is a game of opinions. 

XG isn't really a tool for individual games, and should be used to assess performances over a number of months. I would say though it is likely to be more objective than a fan watching a game in which they are invested. It's certainly not a fact though.

[Leeds Ram]

1 minute ago, Andicis said:

XG isn't really a tool for individual games, and should be used to assess performances over a number of months. I would say though it is likely to be more objective than a fan watching a game in which they are invested. It's certainly not a fact though.

If it's derived from opinions, how is it more likely to be correct than opinions? Seems logically incoherent to me, apart from the element of systematic counting over a number of months. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Leeds Ram

[Andicis]

Just now, Leeds Ram said:

If it's derived from opinions, how is it more likely to be correct than opinions? Seems logically incoherent to me, apart from the element of systematic counting over a number of months. 

Well you'd imagine opinions from a neutral and unbiased party is likely to be more reliable than opinions from fans with emotions involved wouldn't you? 

[Leeds Ram]

1 minute ago, Andicis said:

Well you'd imagine opinions from a neutral and unbiased party is likely to be more reliable than opinions from fans with emotions involved wouldn't you? 

Not necessarily no. I'd sometimes say opinions from a person invested in something is more likely to be informative than someone's view who is not. 

[Andicis]

Just now, Leeds Ram said:

Not necessarily no. I'd sometimes say opinions from a person invested in something is more likely to be informative than someone's view who is not. 

Personally, when I watch Derby live I usually form opinions that upon rewatching a day later or so, I change my mind on once the emotion is out of it. I think I'm probably not the only person who finds this. I would generally find an objective neutral source to be more grounded in reality, but that's just my opinion. 

[Leeds Ram]

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Personally, when I watch Derby live I usually form opinions that upon rewatching a day later or so, I change my mind on once the emotion is out of it. I think I'm probably not the only person who finds this. I would generally find an objective neutral source to be more grounded in reality, but that's just my opinion. 

 You don't just turn from a subjective source to an objective source over the course of a day. You still remain subjective in your opinions. What you're describing is acquiring the time to analyse your thoughts in greater detail, but that doesn't make you more objective. Rather, it puts you in a better position to put your thoughts together,  which is true for everyone.

As said before, XG is predicated upon a subjective evaluation of the 'chance' to score. Personally, when forming my opinions and taking into account those whom I value, I generally use a mixture of stats, reflection and expert opinion. 

Edited August 6, 2023 by Leeds Ram

[Andicis]

2 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

 You don't just turn from a subjective source to an objective source over the course of a day. You still remain subjective in your opinions. What you're describing is acquiring the time to analyse your thoughts in greater detail, but that doesn't make you more objective. Rather, it puts you in a better position to put your thoughts together,  which is true for everyone.

As said before, XG is predicated upon a subjective evaluation of the 'chance' to score. Personally, when forming my opinions and taking into account those whom I value, I generally use a mixture of stats, reflection and expert opinion. 

And the last part is a very good way to view it, a mixture of stats, reflection and opinion will always be the best way to appraise a game. That being said I think there is a place for xG, it's far from perfect and like I said previously, I don't think it should be used on a game to game basis but more to look over a number of months, but it seeks to provide context to the provided statistics. You can't ever subjectively discuss how likely a chance is. 

[IlsonDerby]

59 minutes ago, Tyler Durden said:

It's all cause and effect. I stated my thoughts on Bradley in my first point so not repeating them again.

What is more interesting is why did Bradley have to make that backpass in the first place at all from the halfway line when we had the ball in a promising position under no real pressure a third of the way into the opposition half.

As the chain of decisions from them led to Bradley being forced to make his error when in reality he should never have had to be forced to kick the ball back from the halfway line. 

This is my exact point which you seem intent on overlooking - how he handled the pass is a moot point - why was he forced to make that pass and the events leading upto requires far more analysis. 

I agree it isn’t ideal that he was in that position but we force our opponents into the same journey back to the keeper from attacking positions by good defending on a regular basis and Wigan did the same to us. It’s just good defending. He HAS to be able to handle that. It isn’t a moot point as otherwise it’s just keeper gets it, centre backs split and we start again. 

[alram]

4 hours ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

I won’t dispute his part in the game yesterday, but Bradley’s poor performance yesterday doesn’t rewrite history. That’s the point I was making to you before and will reiterate it today. He has been playing at championship level for the last 4 seasons, in a team that established itself in that league with a 19th place finish in their first season, a 12th placed finish in their second season, then pushed for playoffs with a 6th place finish in the third season, and  then won the playoffs last year after finishing third.

I’ll give you the fact he didn’t have the best game yesterday, well done, it still doesn’t prove your theory that he’s not done it at championship level because the historic facts are that he has 🙄 

he has never made an impact at championship level, that is my point all along and its true. 

 

the standard of player incoming is lower than the ones we got last season who had mostly made an impact at the level above. 

 

these are league one standard players that were playing in the championship

[IlsonDerby]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

XG's problems come up against how to calculate the probability of scoring a goal from a certain position. It's treated by many as an objective statistical reality, but its very basis (how likely you are to score a goal from a certain chance) is subjective. For instance, with the time and space he had in the box, I'd have said Forsyth was quite likely to score even with the angle and technique needed, but you would put it at a low xg rating. 

Personally, I prefer to see how many shots we had on target as well as using my own reflections on the day. I'd say Wigan created clearer chances (2 1v1's) than we did all game (0 1 vs1's), and every time they got into the final third, they looked like they could score. I don't think we'd have scored if we'd been out there for another 90 minutes and relied upon pumping and dumping in the 18 yard area. 
Whilst we had more shots, they were of a lower quality chance-wise, reflected by the fact we only had one more shot on target than they did. That was because our shots were often made from either further out or under more pressure, so whilst we had a lot more shots, our 'chances' were much lower quality than Wigan's. 


 

Shots on target can be misleading though. Would we rather a tame daisy cutter from 25 yards scooped up by the keeper or missing a sitter after working it well? 
 

One is a shot on target the other is a shot off target but I know which would make me more excited to watch. 
 

It is objective in that a system with no emotional attachment to any team judges their opportunities based on pre decided criteria. 
 

for example - a shot from 25 yards that goes down the keepers throats gets loudly applauded if we’re winning and piling on pressure. It gets moaned at if we’re losing and struggling to break them down despite being exactly the same chance. Emotion and circumstance play too much part in the way I interpret some of our play which is why I go for the emotionless quality of chances metric to see whether I was wrong or right. 

[IlsonDerby]

53 minutes ago, Jayram said:

Well they have lost 16 players from their first team squad since the end of last season so most of them!

Well I guess Maloney showed Warne a thing or two about squeezing the best out of those at your disposal eh? 
 

Obviously if that clanger doesn’t happen in the second half we probably go on to win the game and we all feel completely different but we can’t change what’s happened. 

[Charlie G]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

@Thameram makes a good point. You can’t blame PW for the defensive errors or missed chances. 

Unfortunately the buck stops with the manager. It always has done in football and always will do. The manager picks the players, picks his coach to train the players, has a massive influence on the style of play before they are sent out onto the pitch. 

Could the mistakes have been avoided. In my book the back pass yes, because I would never leave Bradley isolated on the half way line against a quicker player. He panicked and lost control of the ball. Players at this standard have more weaknesses otherwise they'd play higher up the pyramid and its upto the manager to make sure they don't get exposed. Well Bradley got exposed, so PW must accept some responsibility for this. 

Obviously this doesn't mean Bradley gets off with it but again it's PW decision to make as to where he plays next game or whether he gets dropped. Also the case with wildsmith, so again the manager has full control.

 

[EraniosSocks]

Think everyone’s being a bit over the top, wait until ten games in then we can moan a little 

[alram]

Just now, EraniosSocks said:

Think everyone’s being a bit over the top, wait until ten games in then we can moan a little 

so we should just say everythings brilliant until the 10th game . y

 

yeah makes sense

[Caerphilly Ram]

14 minutes ago, alram said:

he has never made an impact at championship level, that is my point all along and its true. 

 

the standard of player incoming is lower than the ones we got last season who had mostly made an impact at the level above. 

 

these are league one standard players that were playing in the championship

There’s genuinely no logic in your argument. If you don’t think he’s a good player, just say that, don’t qualify it with this stubborn narrative that he hasn’t played at or “made an impact” at championship level.

He has played the last four seasons in the championship captaining a side that got progressively better over those four years to the point they then won the play offs, what more of an impact do you want him to have had?

I don’t care if you don’t like or rate the bloke, that’s your opinion, the rationale your presenting to justify that opinion strikes me as fundamentally flawed. But as I keep realising, you won’t budge in that stance despite the evidence that proves otherwise so I give up once again trying.

Edited August 6, 2023 by Caerphilly Ram

[alram]

2 minutes ago, Caerphilly Ram said:

There’s genuinely no logic in your argument. If you don’t think he’s a good player, just say that, don’t qualify with with this stubborn narrative that he hasn’t played at or “made an impact” at championship level.

He has played the last four seasons in the championship captaining a side that got progressively better over those four years to the point they then won the play offs, what more of an impact do you want him to have had?

I don’t care if you don’t like or rate the bloke, that’s your opinion, the rationale your presenting to justify that opinion strikes me as fundamentally flawed. But as I keep realising, you won’t budge in that stance despite the evidence that proves otherwise so I give up once again trying.

hes a league one standard player which is where we are

 

claiming he is a quality championship player just because hes been a bit part player in the league above has no logic. we have had bags of crap players in that league that clearly playing above their level

 

these arent championship quality players we are bringing in which is what you are claiming

Edited August 6, 2023 by alram

[Tamworthram]

5 minutes ago, Charlie G said:

Unfortunately the buck stops with the manager. It always has done in football and always will do. The manager picks the players, picks his coach to train the players, has a massive influence on the style of play before they are sent out onto the pitch. 

Could the mistakes have been avoided. In my book the back pass yes, because I would never leave Bradley isolated on the half way line against a quicker player. He panicked and lost control of the ball. Players at this standard have more weaknesses otherwise they'd play higher up the pyramid and its upto the manager to make sure they don't get exposed. Well Bradley got exposed, so PW must accept some responsibility for this. 

Obviously this doesn't mean Bradley gets off with it but again it's PW decision to make as to where he plays next game or whether he gets dropped. Also the case with wildsmith, so again the manager has full control.

 

Sorry I have to disagree.

The manager shouldn’t have to take responsibility for an individual player making a serious, and by all accounts uncharacteristic, error that results in a goal. OK, the style of play, team selection and formation may have contributed to Bradley being exposed but, he wasn’t under any great pressure and should comfortably have been able to play a safe back pass to Wildsmith. Poo happens so let’s not crucify Bradley but there is also no way you can blame PW. 
 

Regarding the next game, are you suggesting PW should drop Bradley because he had an average game and made one big error? If that’s the criteria for team selection then I fear we’re going to have a high level of player turnover.

[EraniosSocks]

13 minutes ago, alram said:

so we should just say everythings brilliant until the 10th game . y

 

yeah makes sense

Footballers admit that they aren’t up to speed until the 5th game at least. If you just want a football club that will please you head towards Man City 

[Caerphilly Ram]

16 minutes ago, alram said:

hes a league one standard player which is where we are

 

claiming he is a quality championship player just because hes been a bit part player in the league above has no logic. we have had bags of crap players in that league that clearly playing above their level

 

these arent championship quality players we are bringing in which is what you are claiming

Alright pal, sure. 

[HorsforthRam]

22 minutes ago, EraniosSocks said:

Footballers admit that they aren’t up to speed until the 5th game at least. If you just want a football club that will please you head towards Man City 

That apply to Wigan too?