Saturday 6th March

[Robshep]

Keith Hill's pre match interview was very lucid today. Not like him. Usually causes at least one rewind to check he said what you thought you heard.

 

[Monkey Tennis]

Down a pint for every defender in our starting XI.

A shot every time there's a long ball for Luke James to get his head on. Pissed by half-time.

 

[Son of Cod]

Three fingers of wine every time the ball bounces in the Grimsby box.

 

[Chris FGR]

A shot every time there's a long ball for Luke James to get his head on. Pissed by half-time.

Long balls to Luke James? Christ, I didn't realise things have got that bad. Don't think he headed it once for us, certainly not on purpose anyway.

 

[Shrimpurh]

An easier game on paper against Oldham in comparison to our most recent fixtures. These are the sort of games we need to be targeting to three points from although I'd take a point. We need to do more upfront if we are to win any games. Can't rely on scoring screamers

 

[Monkey Tennis]

Long balls to Luke James? Christ, I didn't realise things have got that bad. Don't think he headed it once for us, certainly not on purpose anyway.

Yeah, it's one of many baffling tactics. He's been arguably our best player this season, always gives it everything, but he's minuscule and hasn't won a header in his life. Really can't figure out what the intention is.

 

[Huntsman94]

what a load of bollox as proved

Christ alive I find myself agreeing with Masi!

xG is the biggest load of shite to come out of modern day football.

 

[WilsdenBantam]

Don’t think Luke James touched the ball for us what a terrible player, can’t believe he’s still in the football league. Can’t believe we loaned him when we were top end league 1 but there you go.

 

[Back in the DHSS]

Keith Hill's pre match interview was very lucid today. Not like him. Usually causes at least one rewind to check he said what you thought you heard.

Not giving anything away is he.

 

[chipmunx]

Don’t think Luke James touched the ball for us what a terrible player, can’t believe he’s still in the football league. Can’t believe we loaned him when we were top end league 1 but there you go.

might not score loads or be a 6'2" striker good in the air - but probably one of the most intelligent strikers in L2 who does a lot of work for the team. sort of the total opposite of Andy Cook, whose a great lad (played for us in 4 different spells) - but isn't a team player and is dumb as a box of rocks.....

 

[shoddycollins]

Christ alive I find myself agreeing with Masi!

xG is the biggest load of shite to come out of modern day football.

Now I'll stick up for xG.

The problem is in the way people interpret stats, not the stats themselves. A lot of people seem to be of the view that unless the table ordered by any given stat reflects the actual league table then the stat is worthless. However that's kind of like saying that a stat is only useful if it tells you what you already know. I'd argue that the usefulness of a stat is where it differs from what we already know because then it is telling you something that the league table doesn't tell you.

'Expected goals' gets a bit of bad rap because the term 'expected' gets misinterpreted. A lot of people seem to think it means the number of goals a team 'should have' or 'deserved to' score but I suppose if they called it 'shots on goal weighted by probability of an average striker scoring against an average goalkeeper' then it wouldn't get much attention.

For years the media as listed 'shots on goal' as one of the most important stats from any game, and still does. But this is a really poor way to measure a team's chance creation as it treats a speculative 40-yard lob the same as it treats a shot taken a couple of yards out from the centre of the goal, and I know which type of chance I'd rather my team were creating. Nobody was measuring xG when we played Liverpool in the League Cup a few seasons back and lost on penalties, but the media made a lot of the fact that Liverpool took over 40 shots on goal, yet anyone who was there would have known that probably about 35 of those 40 shots were from outside the area and pretty easily collected by our keeper, and in truth rarely looked close to regaining the lead after our equaliser.

 

[Holty10]

might not score loads or be a 6'2" striker good in the air - but probably one of the most intelligent strikers in L2 who does a lot of work for the team. sort of the total opposite of Andy Cook, whose a great lad (played for us in 4 different spells) - but isn't a team player and is dumb as a box of rocks.....

I thought he would push on from the good year he had at Hartlepool. Remember him getting quite a bit of hype at the time. Not sure if the year after he was out injured, but he hasn't found that scoring form since.

I guess he's still got a good few years in him. Quigley wasn't what I was expecting when we played you, but you'd think they could form a partnership.

 

[Holty10]

Now I'll stick up for xG.

The problem is in the way people interpret stats, not the stats themselves. A lot of people seem to be of the view that unless the table ordered by any given stat reflects the actual league table then the stat is worthless. However that's kind of like saying that a stat is only useful if it tells you what you already know. I'd argue that the usefulness of a stat is where it differs from what we already know because then it is telling you something that the league table doesn't tell you.

'Expected goals' gets a bit of bad rap because the term 'expected' gets misinterpreted. A lot of people seem to think it means the number of goals a team 'should have' or 'deserved to' score but I suppose if they called it 'shots on goal weighted by probability of an average striker scoring against an average goalkeeper' then it wouldn't get much attention.

For years the media as listed 'shots on goal' as one of the most important stats from any game, and still does. But this is a really poor way to measure a team's chance creation as it treats a speculative 40-yard lob the same as it treats a shot taken a couple of yards out from the centre of the goal, and I know which type of chance I'd rather my team were creating.

Yeah I think it's interesting, but can appreciate others who don't. At the same time, if you don't like xG you may as well ignore shots, shots on target etc. As it really is just an improvement on them.

Think it's particular useful to get a quick idea of the balance of play, whether teams created good chance or were just shooting from everywhere.

Is it as good as watching a match? of course not, but it can give you a rough idea in a couple of minutes.

 

[shoddycollins]

Yeah I think it's interesting, but can appreciate others who don't. At the same time, if you don't like xG you may as well ignore shots, shots on target etc. As it really is just an improvement on them.

Think it's particular useful to get a quick idea of the balance of play, whether teams created good chance or were just shooting from everywhere.

Is it as good as watching a match? of course not, but it can give you a rough idea in a couple of minutes.

Yeah, another one is possession which is often presented as 'more possession = good' but this season our record in games where we've had more than 50% possession is pretty awful (not sure we've even won a game this season with more than 50% possession) whereas even after our poor run of form, our record just in games where we've had less than 50% possession looks formidable.

The mistaken conclusion people might draw from this is that having less of the ball somehow benefits us, but it would be absurd to think that if we just start giving the ball to the opposition we'd start winning again. From watching our games it's more to do with how we play. When we were playing well, we would press high and opposings teams would end up just passing it around their defence, unable to get it forward, we would then win the ball and not have it very long before forging a shot on goal, at which point obviously the opponents would regain possession from the dead-ball.

 

[Casey]

For years I've been using my own, made up, version of xG and I think most fans do.

How are your team performing? Weigh up the proper chances each team has created. That smart through ball to an on rushing forward who the sniper gets is worth the same as the corner which drops to your centre half to lash over the bar from five yards. It's a good/proper chance where the attacker has to cock up or the keeper/defender has to play a blinder to stop the goal. A screamer from thirty yards may score a goal two or three times a season but they only count if they go in.

As for possession! Possession in forward areas is good. Going from full back to full back via the keeper more than twice is bad.

Keep the ball in the final third for ten minutes and you are pressurising the opposition. Keep it at the back and you are waiting to see if the opposition is good enough to spring a trap, win the ball back and create a chance.

Casey

 

[valefan16]

Xg appears a relatively load of bollocks.

We beat Southend 5-1 with an XG of 1. Something...

From what I gather it’s calculated on quality of chance... of the five goals

1 was a tap in from an open goal about four yards out with the keeper stranded, another was a tap in where Rodney rounded the keeper and tapped it home... two of the other goals were reasonable chances, and Guthrie had a shot he should score.

So how they judge how good a chance is who knows!

 

[Monkey Tennis]

The problem with xG is that a reasonable chance is determined by some non-footballer somewhere watching it on a screen or from afar - and then they're making an arbitrary call on how good the average striker is. I imagine the people doing it are just stats nerds who have never kicked a ball. Does it take into account things like weather conditions, the condition of the pitch? How about the standard of goalkeepers or opposition? There's too many variables.

At least with the basic stats they are pretty much a statement of fact - but even so, a team can have five shots on target from a corner and it looks like they dominated a match, or Kieran Lee can pass the ball sideways 300 times in a match and have a 97% pass rate... Pointless stats.

It's a cliche, but the only stat that matters is the scoreline.

So, in summary, xG is bollocks.

 

[Holty10]

Xg appears a relatively load of bollocks.

We beat Southend 5-1 with an XG of 1. Something...

From what I gather it’s calculated on quality of chance... of the five goals

1 was a tap in from an open goal about four yards out with the keeper stranded, another was a tap in where Rodney rounded the keeper and tapped it home... two of the other goals were reasonable chances, and Guthrie had a shot he should score.

So how they judge how good a chance is who knows!

Just had a watch and it's basically a coverage/ tech issue. As far as I know, the publicised pages that do xG in league 2 use live text. So it's a lot more limited and highlights a big issue with it as it is only as good as the available data.

The first 2 are a good finish and an OG, so pretty low and 0 xg. The 2 open goals were described on bbc text as;

Goal! Port Vale 3, Southend United 0. Adam Crookes (Port Vale) left footed shot from the centre of the box to the centre of the goal.

Goal! Port Vale 4, Southend United 0. Devante Rodney (Port Vale) right footed shot from the centre of the box to the bottom left corner. Assisted by Tom Conlon.

So you can see the issue.

 

[masi51]

The problem with xG is that a reasonable chance is determined by some non-footballer somewhere watching it on a screen or from afar - and then they're making an arbitrary call on how good the average striker is. I imagine the people doing it are just stats nerds who have never kicked a ball. Does it take into account things like weather conditions, the condition of the pitch? How about the standard of goalkeepers or opposition? There's too many variables.

At least with the basic stats they are pretty much a statement of fact - but even so, a team can have five shots on target from a corner and it looks like they dominated a match, or Kieran Lee can pass the ball sideways 300 times in a match and have a 97% pass rate... Pointless stats.

It's a cliche, but the only stat that matters is the scoreline.

So, in summary, xG is bollocks.

here we go, so i will give you another stat....Bolton have not been beat with Kieran lee in the team
We had a player who passed it from side to side Tom White
If you are making a point against xG fine but your point is baseless when you have a pop at the best midfielder in the division

 

[Robshep]

Not giving anything away is he.

His reply about James Vaughan was a good one. He was asked how long he would be out and said "Time is a cigarette". Top notch vagueness.

 

[Robshep]

might not score loads or be a 6'2" striker good in the air - but probably one of the most intelligent strikers in L2 who does a lot of work for the team. sort of the total opposite of Andy Cook, whose a great lad (played for us in 4 different spells) - but isn't a team player and is dumb as a box of rocks.....

Obviously.

 

[Vanni]

Here, have a look at our recent match at Vale, see the chance that Guthrie fcuked up/or Burton saved (0.11 secs) and then watch O'neil's stunner (1m22s) Are the two goal opportunities the same? No they're not, the chances of Guthrie tucking that one away and (with relative ease as well) are much higher than the O'neil's shot going in giving Brown no chance at all of getting a hand to it.

That's what xG is all about.

As for the more possession thingy, it seems that Carlisle and Cambridge do like to play in a similar way then as I was just thinking the same thing that Shoddy has just referred to after the home defeat to Scunny. We never seem to win when we have over 50% of the possession.

 

[BarraMatt]

xG has us 11th or something. There's the proof that it's bollocks.

 

[Robshep]

xG has us 11th or something. There's the proof that it's bollocks.

I remember a game against Barnsley in the 90s where they had 75% possession 27 attempts and 12 on target. We had 25% possession (clearly) 7 attempts and 6 on target. We won 6-1. Stats mean nothing if you do not score.

 

[Krimzon]

Really not looking forward to Saturday . Tho weve had some belting games against the Bantams (4-4 three red cards) away ,its practically close enough to be a derby . Something has to give and all this talk of the flagship match bollocks is amping up the pressure.
Id take a dour nil-nil but I think this is gonna be a belter with us losing 3-2 , me kicking the dog, locking the kids in the coal shed and battering the neighbors wife.......also its the Old man's 75th Birthday so guaranteed to really piss on me chips an gravy .

 

[Vanni]

xG has us 11th or something. There's the proof that it's bollocks.

Or that you need to sign a better striker. Or two.

 

[Robshep]

here we go, so i will give you another stat....Bolton have not been beat with Kieran lee in the team
We had a player who passed it from side to side Tom White
If you are making a point against xG fine but your point is baseless when you have a pop at the best midfielder in the division

I'd like to know how many of your players you have now said are the best in their position this season, out of interest. Must be all of them except goalkeepers. Can we have a list.

 

[shoddycollins]

Here, have a look at our recent match at Vale, see the chance that Guthrie fcuked up/or Burton saved (0.11 secs) and then watch O'neil's stunner (1m22s) Are the two goal opportunities the same? No they're not, the chances of Guthrie tucking that one away and (with relative ease as well) are much higher than the O'neil's shot going in giving Brown no chance at all of getting a hand to it.

That's what xG is all about.

As for the more possession thingy, it seems that Carlisle and Cambridge do like to play in a similar way then as I was just thinking the same thing that Shoddy has just referred to after the home defeat to Scunny. We never seem to win when we have over 50% of the possession.

When we play you the referee will probably have over 50% possession.

 

[shoddycollins]

The problem with xG is that a reasonable chance is determined by some non-footballer somewhere watching it on a screen or from afar - and then they're making an arbitrary call on how good the average striker is. I imagine the people doing it are just stats nerds who have never kicked a ball. Does it take into account things like weather conditions, the condition of the pitch? How about the standard of goalkeepers or opposition? There's too many variables.

At least with the basic stats they are pretty much a statement of fact - but even so, a team can have five shots on target from a corner and it looks like they dominated a match, or Kieran Lee can pass the ball sideways 300 times in a match and have a 97% pass rate... Pointless stats.

It's a cliche, but the only stat that matters is the scoreline.

So, in summary, xG is bollocks.

That bit at least isn't arbitrary. Different statisticians get different results based on how finely they're able to classify shots based on location and type, but once they've done that then xG is a simple case of how many of those kinds of shots have been taken across the entire division in the past five years (or however long they have data for) and how many of those shots went in. Penalty kicks for example are worth a consistent 0.7xG (assuming you're including them as there's an argument for not counting them as an xG, they distort the figures and don't always imply a team is creating chances) because at this level 7 out of every 10 PKs roughly are scored.

 

[GTFCfish]

Bolton at home - relatively big fixture for this level (if I’m allowed to suggest that).

As mentioned, it’s a crying shame that this one is being played out with no fans. I recall the last time we met at VP, there was close to 22,000 in attendance - but that was the norm back then [ah memories]. @masi51’S Bolton might sell millions of iFollow tickets, but it’s a shame they couldn’t sell out their small allocation (3,000) at VP in 2017.

As I’ve alluded to in the previous match day threads; we’ve become really leggy - fatigue is really starting to creep in. I understand, according to masi51, Bolton have rested a few players midweek, so this is an area of concern for me.

I’m hoping Gareth Evans is back fit. We seem to be better-balanced in that midfield. Taking nothing away from Crankshaw’s efforts - he can become a little erratic at times. In what is an important fixture, I can see his eagerness to impress getting the better of him.

The only other conundrum, for me, is who starts upfront. We’ve rotated Danny Rowe and Andy Cook since they arrived. They’ve both found themselves on the scoresheet the last time out.

Records since arriving:

Andy Cook - 3 goals in 6 games
Danny Rowe - 3 goals in 8 games

GK: Sam Hornby

RB: Anthony O’Connor
CB: Paudie O’Connor
CB: Niall Canavan
LB: Connor Wood

DCM: Levi Sutton
DCM: Elliot Watt

RW: Charles Vernam
CAM: Callum Cooke
LW: Gareth Evans

CF: Andy Cook/Danny Rowe

I honestly can’t call this one. Both teams in fine form and I don’t believe either squad is better than the other (irrespective of what masi51 might say). We’ve beaten them once in the cup and they beat us in the return fixture. Latterly, they were quite fortunate - and we missed a pen. But that’s in the past; both teams are unrecognisable now.

Should be a cracker. The only prediction I have is Danny Rowe scoring an absolute ThunderBastard - it’s gonna happen at some point, it might aswell be against this lot.

You will win this, Bolton have had an easy run of fixtures and still only scraped most of their wins whereas Bradford seem to have played a few decent teams in your great run.
Think you’ll beat this average Bolton side pretty comfortably myself.