Jump to content

World Cup: Matches


Genie

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Yeah, but I think our xG is artificially boosted by the fact France gave away a pen when there was no actual threat at all.

Its not like the first one where Saka drew the foul with skill and was lining up a shot.

But it’s not artificially boosted 😂

It still counts as xG. It’s not artificial. Penalties count.

I really don’t understand this argument. If we’d scored then at full time they wouldn’t have said “we’ll that doesn’t count because your goals are artificially boosted by a penalty”

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stevo985 said:

But it’s not artificially boosted 😂

It still counts as xG. It’s not artificial. Penalties count.

I really don’t understand this argument. If we’d scored then at full time they wouldn’t have said “we’ll that doesn’t count because your goals are artificially boosted by a penalty”

Nobody is saying they don’t count, I think that’s why you’re struggling.

Its just explains the flaws in using xG to form a view of who played better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Genie said:

Nobody is saying they don’t count, I think that’s why you’re struggling.

Its just explains the flaws in using xG to form a view of who played better.

Yep I think the 2 penalties diluted the xG for the game yesterday. Yes you have to earn the penalty but it doesnt indicate dominance. The xG if was shots from where the 2 penalties were given would be probably 0.30 combined at best

Cash penalty a few weeks ago he headed onto his arm was not something I think it was Fulham actually created

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

He was fine yesterday. He had to play a weird position to help Walker nullify Mbappe and leave Bellingham free to play more advanced. 
 

It worked

I actually think bellingham was very good yesterday he got criticised abut for his performance but i think his defensive work yesterday was top work. Definitely felt he was more impressive than henderson was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Genie said:

Nobody is saying they don’t count, I think that’s why you’re struggling.

Its just explains the flaws in using xG to form a view of who played better.

That’s not what xG is for. xG is how many goals you’d expect to score from the chances you had. Nothing more.

 

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

I actually think bellingham was very good yesterday he got criticised abut for his performance but i think his defensive work yesterday was top work. Definitely felt he was more impressive than henderson was.

Nobody said he wasn’t 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the point of artificially inflated xG. I get what you're saying @Genie

You see non-penalty xG around a lot, and it's a much better barometer of who's been better in the game IMO.

It's more or less level on the npxG which feels about right. It was an even game. I think England edged it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tomaszk said:

I see the point of artificially inflated xG. I get what you're saying @Genie

You see non-penalty xG around a lot, and it's a much better barometer of who's been better in the game IMO.

It's more or less level on the npxG which feels about right. It was an even game. I think England edged it.

You’re right. npxG is a much better indication of performance. Especially when you’re looking at individual players instead of teams. 
 

But that wasn’t the point being made. The point was regarding the outcome of the game vs the xG. And penalties absolutely should not be excluded from that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Read back a few pages and i think you will see bellingham was getting criticised for his performance by some.

 

Ok not sure why you replied to me then. I agree Bellingham was better than Henderson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Ok not sure why you replied to me then. I agree Bellingham was better than Henderson

I replied to you because it relates to your piint where you thought henderson was execllent and i merely said i didnt think he was adding bellingham was better. I hope that answers your question

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

I posted it in the thread where we were talking about the match. That we all watched. 
 

I didn’t realise I had to clarify that. 
 

So just for you “having watched the game to give me the relevant context, this stat also backs up my opinion that England were unlucky to lose”

Hope that’s ok

 

The pedantry on this website man. **** hell 😂😂

How is it pedantry?!

I’m reading a thread, there’s no comment from you for a couple of pages (at least 6 hours?) and then there’s this…

11 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

xG: 2.59 vs 1.32

Losing that was harsh

I’m sorry pal.

What I should have thought from this detailed post is “oh, Stevo has watched the game and assessed everything and come to the conclusion that xG favours his view (which I’ve had to guess at because he hasn’t **** posted) and has simply posted this to say “look, they back what I was saying up”. There is no WAY I could think he is stating that xG being this way = harsh loss”.

Pedantry?!? Sorry for not being a **** mindreader mate :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, bobzy said:

How is it pedantry?!

I’m reading a thread, there’s no comment from you for a couple of pages (at least 6 hours?) and then there’s this…

I’m sorry pal.

What I should have thought from this detailed post is “oh, Stevo has watched the game and assessed everything and come to the conclusion that xG favours his view (which I’ve had to guess at because he hasn’t **** posted) and has simply posted this to say “look, they back what I was saying up”. There is no WAY I could think he is stating that xG being this way = harsh loss”.

Pedantry?!? Sorry for not being a **** mindreader mate :D

I mean I thought it would have been a fairly safe assumption that an English football fan posting in the match thread for a World Cup quarter final involving England had watched the game. 
 

But sorry, glad I was able to clarify it for you 👍🏻

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without reading too much reaction I just thought it was a really good England performance. Same as how we can play well v likes of Chelsea but still lose the game.

If you break down the match then first 20 minutes it was pretty cagey. Then France scored and England reacted very well with Kane missing the one-on-one and the very good penalty shoot out.

Start of second half England kicked on and from 1-1 it was tight but England looked most likely to score and were more progressive team.

At no stage were France battering England into submission or was Deschamps making endless brilliant tactical moves. He made one sub in the whole game so imo got lucky but then world cup winners can be cut a bit of slack.

Another disappointment for England but imo it dosen't come close to the euros final v Italy when England were at home and winning and Southgate froze when Mancini was making game changing decisions.

I actually think if England generally can keep cool heads over this then they'll be in another euros final in 18 months time and we'll see what happens on that day as they've got a great balance of age and experience in their selection compared to so many other of their european counterparts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I mean I thought it would have been a fairly safe assumption that an English football fan posting in the match thread for a World Cup quarter final involving England had watched the game. 
 

But sorry, glad I was able to clarify it for you 👍🏻

Ah, so I would've had to flick thread as well to decipher your post?

 

This forum is far more work than I thought :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Ah, so I would've had to flick thread as well to decipher your post?

 

This forum is far more work than I thought :D 

This is the match thread mate
 

Bizarre that you’d think I’d just post random stats having not watched the biggest game of the season. Very strange. 
 

Anyway, I’m glad I could clarify again

Edited by Stevo985
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Stevo985 said:

This was the thread people were posting in for the match mate. 
 

Bizarre that you’d think I’d just post random stats having not watched the biggest game of the season. Very strange. 
 

Anyway, I’m glad I could clarify again

I mean, your post very much implied you were drawing on this magical xG.

 

But I'm also glad you could clarify.  I'll remember to flick back 10 pages when responding to a post in future, so it's helped me out for the long run too ;) 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â