FC B
Senior Member
Entirely right.
Well the truth is they didn't do it anymore since VAR was introduced in CL but they profited at maximum from the last three years without VAR in CL... 2016-2018.
Last edited:
Champions League
- Thread starter El Flaco
- Start date
Entirely right.
Well the truth is they didn't do it anymore since VAR was introduced in CL but they profited at maximum from the last three years without VAR in CL... 2016-2018.
El Gato
Villarato!
People routinely complained pre or post VAR. Ajax goal in 1st leg for example. Nothing new at all
Yannik
Senior Member
10 goals (and counting) in two games against Shakhtar.Great job.
Kinda shows you have to give your best vs the weakest opponent in the group and that's already six points and you're with 1 foot into the knockouts.
Makes you wonder why Madrid and Inter can't do that.
Yannik
Senior Member
Salzburg eclipsed Bayern at Allianz, and undeservedly did not get any point (this is a map of a 2-6 scoreline):
Isn't this just 2.4 vs 2.6? Plus Salzburg scored from a goal marginably offside.
It was a very equal game however, Bayern wins how they do so often: Efficiency in front of goal and Manuel Neuer.
Birdy
Senior Member
Own goal not counted.
Sum is 1.4 vs 2.6, but as I have said in the past: Sum says nothing if you don't look at the squares themselves.
There are at least 6 big chances for Salzburg there. Even if we take out the marginal offside, there are still 5 huge ones.
Bayern got dominated at home.
Pity for Salzburg
PS: Under Flick they don't win like that usually. They smash xG records
Last edited:
Yannik
Senior Member
But.. why? It happened, it counts. There's no rational reason to exclude that from any statistical viewpoint..
Especially when you then also go on to include a goal that should not stand.
It just purposely distorts the picture and the impression you try to gain from such statistics.
Last edited:
Birdy
Senior Member
Almost all xG models I have seen exclude them.
Reason is probably that it is not part of the totality of the chances created by the team (that always end in an attempt to score).
It's accidental.
About the goal that should not stand, you are right of course. I said that.
Last edited:
Birdy
Senior Member
Look at this model here: https://www.infogol.net/en/matches/...ue/bayern-munich-vs-salzburg-2020-11-25/84166
It counts Coman's shot. The xG value of the shot is low. That value shows how big was the chance that ended in Coman shooting from there. What went on from that point on-wards until the ball went into the back of the net is not counted as a chance.
IMO that's perfectly sound.
It counts Coman's shot. The xG value of the shot is low. That value shows how big was the chance that ended in Coman shooting from there. What went on from that point on-wards until the ball went into the back of the net is not counted as a chance.
IMO that's perfectly sound.
Yannik
Senior Member
But nevertheless of it being excluded on that map, it is still mentioned in that stat because even xG agrees that it matters.
The whole point of the statistic is to showcase who had better attempts at goal, so you would obviously add the own goal to the hypthesis you make from that stat. Even if it's not added with a value.
That's the whole point after all: To determine "who deserved what". And when the algorithm can't quite figure out yet how it deals with stuff like owngoals, we as humans still can and thus draw a more realistic conclusion than statistics can.
It also says "2.6 goals expected" yet you say
I mean, doesn't 2.6 xG literally say either 2 or 3 goals were expected from Salzburg? That's roughly the same amount Bayern actually had, and it even includes the actual offside.
Statistically this just says it was a somewhat equal game, and that would match the impression I got from watching it.
Honestly I think xG is shit anyway. There's tons of flaws about how it rates the quality of the chances already.
One of them is also how it just assumes everyone is equal in their ability which realistically is of course is just never the case. There are goalkeepers that save better than other goalkeepers, there are strikers that score more reliably than other strikers. And the xG value of Mergim Berisha standing in front of Manuel Neuer can obviously not be the same as the value of Robert Lewandowski standing in front of Cican Stankovic.
I mean this is the type of shit xG gets you at times.
Spurs matching Bayerns xG when you include the penalty (75% of pens are scored; Harry Kane scores even 85%). Actual result was 2-7.
It's sometimes helpful, sometimes just outright weird.
It's still in developement, and lately it has gotten some improvements but even looking at this current map of the Salzburg game, you just look at situations like Lewandowski simply tapping into a practically open net and wonder why the fuck xG thinks this is would be a goal in only 0.4 or 0.5 instances. That's where the math falls.
Last edited:
Birdy
Senior Member
Don't agree, apart from one of your points that I underlined.
1) Point of xG models is to showcase how good were the chances created by each team.
If by own goal you mean the attempt that was mistakenly taken by the player of the opposition and ended up at the back of his own net, I don't see how it shows anything about the chances a team can create.
If you mean the original attempt (like Coman's tonight) that was wrongly-anticipated and badly-intercepted (to eventually lead to an own goal), it should and it is in the Infogol model for example.
But most own goals are failed attempts to intercept passes or crosses, so they inevitably do not get accounted.
Is that fair? Absolutely IMO.
We can say the same about any good passing combination that fails to add up to a final attempt.
xG stats target only final attempts. There are other stats that try to measure dominance before it becomes translated into final attempts.
2) Sum is not informative per se.
Simple example: 20 shots of 0.1 value add up to 2.0 xG.
4 shots of 0.5 value add up to 2.0 xG as well.
0.1 value chances most of the times do not go in.
0.5 value chances most of the times go in.
If you read only the sum you think the two teams created equally good chances. Not at all.
In the first case you have chances to score 0 or some times (with exceptional finishing) 1,
in the second case you have chances to score 4 unless there is some really bad finishing involved.
There is a big difference there. Any good reading of any xG score, should look at the shot-map as well.
3) If you take out the offside goal, and look at the attempts with their xG value: It still gives a good 2-5 or 2-4 scoreline.
Now what you say about your judgment after watching the game: I don't reject it.
But (look what I wrote on 1 above: dominance does not always gets translated into chances. Barcelona was dominant yesterday 1st half against Kiev, but no good chances...)
Salzburg had the better chances, no question about that.
4) Tottenham - Bayern involved some ludicrous finishing by Gnabry and Lewa. Definetely 2-7 did not do justice to Tottenham that night.
I don't see anything weird there. 2 good chances for Tottenham apart from the PK, 4 very good for Bayern.
5) Your point about the value being relative to the player is well taken, and I agree.
I have said that I believe the new generation of xG models will account for that (maybe for the keeper as well, although that's more difficult).
That does not mean it's shit right now.
It's the best tool available to measure quality of chances
Last edited:
El Gato
Villarato!
If it's the same kind of chance, why ever not?
That Spurs example is useless. Total xG being more or less even doesn't imply the match should have ended in a draw. It just means Bayern scored from chances that usually do not end up as goals or tougher positions.
Relative judgement of course comes into it, but it’s near impossible to account for player ability since that in itself goes up and down over time, so you can’t inflate the xG depending who it is the attacker/keeper is facing. Doesn’t mean the ultimate number is crap. Just that you should remember how often elite players score chances most other strikers waste when reviewing a low quality chance. Giving Lewa 5 shots from a random position outside the box which other lot would miss 50% more often doesn’t mean Bayern stat should go up.
Not sure why you'd call it shit on this basis.
Also the Lewa goal was not a tap-in at all, quite close to getting blocked too. Many strikers would miss that.
Last edited:
FinBarcelonafan
Well-known member
Inter and Conte truly are the biggest chokers.
utility73
Senior Member
xG is not perfect, it has lots of more and less obvious shortcomings, but it is the relative best framework which is currently widely available.
Categorically saying that it is shit is absurd.
Also regarding discussion about individual class vs avg. xG for a chance: Don't remember if it was from an article or book, but I remember reading about one analysis regarding how indidividual players were able to out- or underperform their xG in the long run.
The result of this one analysis was that for almost all players their results did not diverge significantly from general xG in the long run.
They only found one player who consistently outperformed his xG. Guess who?
Categorically saying that it is shit is absurd.
Also regarding discussion about individual class vs avg. xG for a chance: Don't remember if it was from an article or book, but I remember reading about one analysis regarding how indidividual players were able to out- or underperform their xG in the long run.
The result of this one analysis was that for almost all players their results did not diverge significantly from general xG in the long run.
They only found one player who consistently outperformed his xG. Guess who?
Home of Barca Fans
