MATCH: Aldershot (A) 28/01/23

[nzlatic]

5 minutes ago, League one forever said:

No, he didn’t play a narrow 442, but he was known for defensive counter attacking football. The difference is he had young top players, who could play a 352.  Now he’s got fifth division players and has had to adapt the formation but his style hasn’t changed. 
 

As for it not being what good teams do. Mourinho and Conte have had very successful careers, playing that way. 
 

They’re absolutely nothing to suggest that we can’t do well playing that way. It comes down to ideology. Do you want attractive football and to win- then Unsworth isn’t your man. If you accept he’s unsackable for the foreseeable then we’re all going have to get used to pragmatic, but hopefully winning football. 

There’s a difference between defensive counter attacking football and straight forward route one long ball. 

[League one forever]

11 minutes ago, nzlatic said:

There’s a difference between defensive counter attacking football and straight forward route one long ball. 

Yeah there is, and at the minute we are hard to beat, long ball merchants. But Unsy’s evolution will be to defensive counter attacking. A lot don’t/wont like that, but that’s his style. Which as long as he wins doesn’t bother me. 

[yarddog73]

20 minutes ago, League one forever said:

Yeah there is, and at the minute we are hard to beat, long ball merchants. But Unsy’s evolution will be to defensive counter attacking. A lot don’t/wont like that, but that’s his style. Which as long as he wins doesn’t bother me. 

I don't mind that tactic away but at home it's criminal, all the best teams in this division have a go, granted ball retention is the priority but everyone of them top four take the game to the opposition and dictate the tempo on the back of that.

[Lee Sinnott]

1 hour ago, League one forever said:

This is a really good point.
 

We should have enough now to stay up, and I think people will accept Unsy’s football this season if we finish lower midtable.

 

But the acid test is next season- will people be able to stomach it as the way he plays? Because I don’t he’s good enough to evolve to our style. 
 

We could have another Ronnie- sat in the top ten, but people are restless with the football. 
 

Personally if we do well next season with this football I couldn’t care less. All I care about is winning- especially after the last few years.
 

No style is as good as winning. 
 

 

Next season has to be top 4 or it'll be time to get the placards out...

[League one forever]

4 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

I don't mind that tactic away but at home it's criminal, all the best teams in this division have a go, granted ball retention is the priority but everyone of them top four take the game to the opposition and dictate the tempo on the back of that.

I know.

 

Hence why Spurs fans don’t like Conte. Or why Utd fans didn’t like Mourinho. 
 

But we’re not spurs or Utd. We are a fifth division side who have had two relegations in four years, not had a promotion in over 30 years, and up until last season were the least successful league club in England. 
 

I don’t care how we do it, I just want to win. 

[League one forever]

1 minute ago, Lee Sinnott said:

Next season has to be top 4 or it'll be time to get the placards out...

If/when he keeps us up, he’ll be messiah to the board, and he go from unsackable to building a statue of the great man. 

[disjointed]

15 minutes ago, League one forever said:

If/when he keeps us up, he’ll be messiah to the board, and he go from unsackable to building a statue of the great man. 

Seen the price of concrete. We couldn't afford it. 

[League one forever]

Just now, disjointed said:

Seen the price of concrete. We couldn't afford it. 

[The Greek]

On 1/29/2023 at 9:10 AM, LaticsLegend said:

 

This.

 

Whilst it will grind out some results, the style of play will be limiting and definitely have a ceiling. We will pick up points against the poorer sides but it will get exposed in the midfield against the sides that like to get it down and play football.

 

I do still think there is improvement to be had within this system. Challenging for more headers, pressing a bit harder and competing for second balls are all necessary and something we aren't doing well enough at the moment.

 

Take from it what you will, but given we've ground out some results with Chapman who doesn't really do anything an Tollitt who doesn't work in any 4 man system... it tells you what you need to know about the quality at the bottom end of this division.

 

Would be interested to see the xG of our last few games. Whilst I don't subscribe to these sort of stats being completely telling, they give a good indication of 'under/overperformance'... i.e have we been as lucky as some people are saying we have been on our recent run. I'd probably hazard a guess at yes from what I've seen.

 

Either way, some huge overreactions at a half decent away point on Twitter once again.

xG, the least relevant stat in the history of football. Only one stat counts in football and that’s goals scored. Even percentage possession means nothing. Ask Liverpool after they had 80% possession against Burnley and lost 1-0. Stick to goals scored. None of that “oh we deserved to win” rubbish. You deserve to win if you score more than your opponent.

[Dave_Og]

1 hour ago, The Greek said:

xG, the least relevant stat in the history of football. Only one stat counts in football and that’s goals scored. Even percentage possession means nothing. Ask Liverpool after they had 80% possession against Burnley and lost 1-0. Stick to goals scored. None of that “oh we deserved to win” rubbish. You deserve to win if you score more than your opponent.

 

Hallelujah!  There might be some basis in these sorts of stats at elite level, but at our level?  No!  Anyone know how they are even calculated?  There must be a huge element of subjectivity as someone is essentially being asked to rate the quality of chances.  Many a pub debate on that one!

[deyres42]

1 hour ago, The Greek said:

xG, the least relevant stat in the history of football. Only one stat counts in football and that’s goals scored. Even percentage possession means nothing. Ask Liverpool after they had 80% possession against Burnley and lost 1-0. Stick to goals scored. None of that “oh we deserved to win” rubbish. You deserve to win if you score more than your opponent.

All those successful betting syndicates using such data must be doing it all wrong...

[yarddog73]

1 hour ago, deyres42 said:

All those successful betting syndicates using such data must be doing it all wrong...

You mean the bookies?

[Dave_Og]

14 minutes ago, yarddog73 said:

You mean the bookies?

Brentford and Brighton owners haven't done too bad on stats.  Although the Brighton owner had £375,000 on one of his horses at Cheltenham on Saturday and lost.  He should have followed me - I had shares in two winners there and another at Southwell yesterday!

[HarryBosch]

2 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

 

Anyone know how they are even calculated?  

 

"I don't like it, what is it?"  

 

Each shot/goalscoring opportunity is given a rating on how likely it was to result in a goal.

 

A tap in would equal 0.99 of a chance, a pop from 40 yards out 0.05 of a chance.

 

Or summat like that. 

 

It would be no bad thing to have good xG's (for & against).

 

And if you were regularly winning the xG battle it would point towards current good results being sustainable or current poor results likely to see an upturn. 

And vice versa. 

[Dave_Og]

4 hours ago, HarryBosch said:

 

"I don't like it, what is it?"  

 

Each shot/goalscoring opportunity is given a rating on how likely it was to result in a goal.

 

A tap in would equal 0.99 of a chance, a pop from 40 yards out 0.05 of a chance.

 

Or summat like that. 

 

It would be no bad thing to have good xG's (for & against).

 

And if you were regularly winning the xG battle it would point towards current good results being sustainable or current poor results likely to see an upturn. 

And vice versa. 

 

i was thinking more along the lines of do any of these people quoting it understand what it is   When the day comes that I feel that I want to analyse football that closely I'll take up chess instead

[LaticsLegend]

2 hours ago, Dave_Og said:

 

i was thinking more along the lines of do any of these people quoting it understand what it is   When the day comes that I feel that I want to analyse football that closely I'll take up chess instead

 

Well yes, or I wouldn't have said it and then explained why I did so.

[Worcester Owl]

23 hours ago, The Greek said:

xG, the least relevant stat in the history of football. Only one stat counts in football and that’s goals scored. Even percentage possession means nothing. Ask Liverpool after they had 80% possession against Burnley and lost 1-0. Stick to goals scored. None of that “oh we deserved to win” rubbish. You deserve to win if you score more than your opponent.

I'd double upvote this post if I could. Whenever a pundit starts to talk about xG it's a red flag for me - padding out the commentary and a definite boredom alert.

[Dave_Og]

14 hours ago, LaticsLegend said:

 

Well yes, or I wouldn't have said it and then explained why I did so.

OK, I'll run with it.  Who is it that sits in the stand (presumably?) and grades the quality of chances to come up with the numbers?  Or is it done after the event using video footage?  The nuances between a .05% chance rating and, say a .1% chance rating must be very subtle and therefore prone to inaccuracy and inconsistency.  No?

[oafcmetty]

42 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

OK, I'll run with it.  Who is it that sits in the stand (presumably?) and grades the quality of chances to come up with the numbers?  Or is it done after the event using video footage?  The nuances between a .05% chance rating and, say a .1% chance rating must be very subtle and therefore prone to inaccuracy and inconsistency.  No?

Computers Dave.

[LaticsLegend]

56 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

OK, I'll run with it.  Who is it that sits in the stand (presumably?) and grades the quality of chances to come up with the numbers?  Or is it done after the event using video footage?  The nuances between a .05% chance rating and, say a .1% chance rating must be very subtle and therefore prone to inaccuracy and inconsistency.  No?

 

It's not Chaddy the Owl with a clipboard using his opinion and grading the quality is it.

 

As I said in the initial post, I don't completely live by it, more a supplement gauge on performance. It's never going to be perfect but it's a fairly decent indication of under or overperformance and a much better way of determining if you have been 'lucky' using someone's subjective opinion.

 

In your example above, difference between 0.05 and 0.1 will be minimal to the overall xG anyway wouldn't it.

[Dave_Og]

2 minutes ago, LaticsLegend said:

 

It's not Chaddy the Owl with a clipboard using his opinion and grading the quality is it.

 

As I said in the initial post, I don't completely live by it, more a supplement gauge on performance. It's never going to be perfect but it's a fairly decent indication of under or overperformance and a much better way of determining if you have been 'lucky' using someone's subjective opinion.

 

In your example above, difference between 0.05 and 0.1 will be minimal to the overall xG anyway wouldn't it.

 

Well no. It's a genuine question - who comes up with the numbers?  All these stats are on very fine margins so over a period of time small differences matter.  Re the done by computers  @oafcmetty- even at this level?  From one camera angle?  I can see how that can work at PL 

[TheBigDog]

I worked for many years on IT software that was built to manipulate and interpret historical information to determine likelihood of things happening in the future.

 

These packages use algorithms and similar to ‘predict’ potential outcomes. The outputs typically determine the propensity for things to happen - the accuracy of results depends on two main things:

1. The quality of the data going in

2. The ability of those reviewing the output to apply the insights gained

 

I suspect that at our level, the data gathering will be minimal and therefore the outputs will not provide great insight.

[BP1960]

18 minutes ago, TheBigDog said:

I worked for many years on IT software that was built to manipulate and interpret historical information to determine likelihood of things happening in the future.

 

These packages use algorithms and similar to ‘predict’ potential outcomes. The outputs typically determine the propensity for things to happen - the accuracy of results depends on two main things:

1. The quality of the data going in

2. The ability of those reviewing the output to apply the insights gained

 

I suspect that at our level, the data gathering will be minimal and therefore the outputs will not provide great insight.

 

They use it for horse racing predictions, well many a poor person does.

[mcfluff1985]

1 hour ago, TheBigDog said:

I worked for many years on IT software that was built to manipulate and interpret historical information to determine likelihood of things happening in the future.

 

These packages use algorithms and similar to ‘predict’ potential outcomes. The outputs typically determine the propensity for things to happen - the accuracy of results depends on two main things:

1. The quality of the data going in

2. The ability of those reviewing the output to apply the insights gained

 

I suspect that at our level, the data gathering will be minimal and therefore the outputs will not provide great insight.

Bit like the systems predicting COVID death tolls at the start of the pandemic

[oafcmetty]

1 hour ago, Dave_Og said:

 

Well no. It's a genuine question - who comes up with the numbers?  All these stats are on very fine margins so over a period of time small differences matter.  Re the done by computers  @oafcmetty- even at this level?  From one camera angle?  I can see how that can work at PL 

Down here it's probably less off cameras and more using the data from the bloke in the stand tapping on his phone, providing the data feed to bookies etc. But yes, computers.