Vs Southampton (A) 31/08/2019 KO 12:30pm BST

[ScholesEvilTwin]

Sept 3, 2019 5:15:29 GMT Paul said:

Sept 3, 2019 4:50:27 GMT ScholesEvilTwin said:

Its really not.

Its just another shit American invention brought into Britain.

Noticed this shit in the MLS. most pointless stat ever.

Its another step towards doing away with actually playing the game and just running every season on a computer.

[Carbon]

what the hell is an xG stat?

[ScholesEvilTwin]

Sept 3, 2019 6:00:40 GMT Carbon said:

what the hell is an xG stat?

www.bbc.com/sport/football/40699431

"Expected goals" is a metric which assesses every chance, essentially answering the question of whether a player should have scored from a certain opportunity. Put simply, it is a way of assigning a "quality" value (xG) to every attempt based on what we know about it.

I mean, you could just watch the game to tell for yourself whether a player should have scored or not.

[redcase]

Sept 2, 2019 20:01:09 GMT Rustin Cohle said:

xG is a very useful stat, it's just not half as useful as some people think it is.

No. It absolutely, unequivocally is not. It's what some guy who never ever played the game but wanted to seem cool and relevant came up with while he was having his bucket of KFC in his mama's basement. It is an absolutely pointless statistic. It embodies the "if my aunt was a man she'd be my uncle" adage.

At least that's what I think.

[Carbon]

Sept 3, 2019 6:11:57 GMT ScholesEvilTwin said:

Sept 3, 2019 6:00:40 GMT Carbon said:

what the hell is an xG stat?

www.bbc.com/sport/football/40699431

"Expected goals" is a metric which assesses every chance, essentially answering the question of whether a player should have scored from a certain opportunity. Put simply, it is a way of assigning a "quality" value (xG) to every attempt based on what we know about it.

I mean, you could just watch the game to tell for yourself whether a player should have scored or not.

what a stupid stat.

[Bestie]

Sept 2, 2019 20:01:09 GMT Rustin Cohle said:

xG is a very useful stat, it's just not half as useful as some people think it is.

Its only usefulness is telling which fucking morons don't actually watch football.

[Rustin Cohle]

Those Rashford stats are shocking.

www.football365.com/news/premier-league-winners-and-losers-118

Winners and Losers

SPOILER: Click to show

Manchester United’s lack of oomph
Every week another indictment of Manchester United’s dismal mismanagement appears. Ole Gunnar Solskjaer looked to the bench in search of game-changers with the score at 1-1. His first two options were Nemanja Matic, a defensive midfielder who runs as if he is covered in PVA glue, and Jesse Lingard, the attacking midfielder who doesn’t score or assist goals. Colour everyone surprised that United promptly struggled to break down Southampton’s deep defence.

Solskjaer may concede that he made a mistake. Mason Greenwood looked bright when he came on and, having been talked up so much by Solskjaer, would surely have been a better option than Lingard to freshen up the attack. At worst, Greenwood should have been introduced within seconds of Kevin Danso’s sending off. Delaying that call for ten minutes might have cost United the chance of three points.

But there is a general lack of oomph in Manchester United’s performances, and they are becoming masters of ceding impetus. They were dominant against Wolves and allowed their opponents back into the match, and the same applied against Southampton on Saturday lunchtime.

Is this not the one thing that we might have assumed to be Solskjaer’s strongest suit? There were doubts about the tactical nous and coaching ability, but the 1999-inspired motivational bluster at least suggested that United would put faith in young players on an ASAP basis and inspire some evident hunger and desire.

Instead we have witnessed sluggish, insipid football as standard. The summer break has not improved my opinion of Solskjaer. He’s a boy in a man’s world. Upcoming fixtures against West Ham, Leicester and Arsenal will help to determine where realistic expectations lie.

Marcus Rashford
Three goals from open play in his last 21 Manchester United matches. With Anthony Martial injured, the onus is on Rashford to score regularly. But while he had a wonderful two-month stretch between December 2018 and February when he scored eight goals in 13 matches, either side of that Rashford has scored 11 goals in 72 Manchester United games. That must improve if United are to reach the top four.

[Rustin Cohle]

Agree to disagree re: xG. I think it’s useful as one of several statistics, particularly when looking at a wider area (e.g. if Aguero scores 2 but should have had 3 in one game I don’t need an xG of 2.7 to tell me that if I watched, but the xG of a player, whole team or several teams across a long time period can provide insights IMO).

[Carbon]

Sept 3, 2019 10:07:12 GMT Rustin Cohle said:

Agree to disagree re: xG. I think it’s useful as one of several statistics, particularly when looking at a wider area (e.g. if Aguero scores 2 but should have had 3 in one game I don’t need an xG of 2.7 to tell me that if I watched, but the xG of a player, whole team or several teams across a long time period can provide insights IMO).

Found the American

[Tatty]

All footballing stats are useless. Other than the one at the top left of you tv screen.

[_]

Mind you. This one doesn't bode well

Marcus Rashford
Three goals from open play in his last 21 Manchester United matches. With Anthony Martial injured, the onus is on Rashford to score regularly. But while he had a wonderful two-month stretch between December 2018 and February when he scored eight goals in 13 matches, either side of that Rashford has scored 11 goals in 72 Manchester United games. That must improve if United are to reach the top four.

[Tatty]

Sept 3, 2019 14:39:19 GMT _ said:

Mind you. This one doesn't bode well

Marcus Rashford
Three goals from open play in his last 21 Manchester United matches. With Anthony Martial injured, the onus is on Rashford to score regularly. But while he had a wonderful two-month stretch between December 2018 and February when he scored eight goals in 13 matches, either side of that Rashford has scored 11 goals in 72 Manchester United games. That must improve if United are to reach the top four.

I keep saying, he's not a central striker.

[redcase]

Sept 3, 2019 14:41:36 GMT Tatty said:

Sept 3, 2019 14:39:19 GMT _ said:

Mind you. This one doesn't bode well

Marcus Rashford
Three goals from open play in his last 21 Manchester United matches. With Anthony Martial injured, the onus is on Rashford to score regularly. But while he had a wonderful two-month stretch between December 2018 and February when he scored eight goals in 13 matches, either side of that Rashford has scored 11 goals in 72 Manchester United games. That must improve if United are to reach the top four.

I keep saying, he's not a central striker.

I agree with that.

He's a winger for me. He looks a lot more natural doing winger things than he does at trying to be a striker. He tries hard to be a striker but it just doesn't come organically to him. Greenwood is next in line to Martial imo, in terms of most natural finishers we've got. But the boy can't be expected to shoulder all the responsibilities either he's so young..

[Carbon]

Sept 3, 2019 14:41:36 GMT Tatty said:

Sept 3, 2019 14:39:19 GMT _ said:

Mind you. This one doesn't bode well

Marcus Rashford
Three goals from open play in his last 21 Manchester United matches. With Anthony Martial injured, the onus is on Rashford to score regularly. But while he had a wonderful two-month stretch between December 2018 and February when he scored eight goals in 13 matches, either side of that Rashford has scored 11 goals in 72 Manchester United games. That must improve if United are to reach the top four.

I keep saying, he's not a central striker.

yep, same.

[.]

Sept 3, 2019 10:07:12 GMT Rustin Cohle said:

Agree to disagree re: xG. I think it’s useful as one of several statistics, particularly when looking at a wider area (e.g. if Aguero scores 2 but should have had 3 in one game I don’t need an xG of 2.7 to tell me that if I watched, but the xG of a player, whole team or several teams across a long time period can provide insights IMO).

It sounds like someone is trying to introduce the equivalent of the "+/-" rating from ice hockey, which is itself a slippery statistic but aims to show the likelihood of a goal when a player is on the ice.