Hull City v AFC Bournemouth

Matt Stevenson said:
To add to this discussion, I found this worrying table (prior to the Hull game). It's come through a bit small, but in terms of xG points we are fighting a relegation battle (joint 21st)

View attachment 6294

Although, yesterday's performance in terms of xG was much better. The biggest chance was Marcondes' although not sure if this got a flick from a defender, in which case it was a great block. Then there was Dom's header, his shot after interception from the keeper, although he had to hit this immediately, and Dom again from wide on the right (the xG looks too high for this one). Ironically, yesterday's game was one of our best for creating chances.

FWIW, I thought Mepham had a very good game.

View attachment 6295
Click to expand...

so their free header in the 53rd minute from roughly 8 yards out is 0.25 of a chance?
further proof that this XG thing really is total garbage
 
New Forest Cherry said:
so their free header in the 53rd minute from roughly 8 yards out is 0.25 of a chance?
further proof that this XG thing really is total garbage
Click to expand...
It has its flaws for sure. But generally in seems to be a good indicator, the teams with the highest expected goals last season were the top three in the league. Conversely Reading started the season on fire and were early leaders, despite a low expected goals total ie the were just very clinical. Statisticians we’re adamant that this would eventually catch up with them and they were right.
 
New Forest Cherry said:
so their free header in the 53rd minute from roughly 8 yards out is 0.25 of a chance?
further proof that this XG thing really is total garbage
Click to expand...

yes. I’m not sure it is that far out though probability wise. Quite often it can go wide, or straight at the keeper. I‘d not expect the forward to score more often than not, so my gut feeling is it would be below 0.5. Pens are about 0.8 from memory, and I’d take 1 pen over two such chances, which means less than 0.4. I guess it all boils down to how good we think the average striker is. (which is what the xG people claim to have modelled).

it always throws up interesting discussions though.
 
Waz afcb said:
It has its flaws for sure. But generally in seems to be a good indicator, the teams with the highest expected goals last season were the top three in the league. Conversely Reading started the season on fire and were early leaders, despite a low expected goals total ie the were just very clinical. Statisticians we’re adamant that this would eventually catch up with them and they were right.
Click to expand...

it has it's flaws?
0.25 for free header from the penalty spot!
 
Topfarrier said:
'Big chances'.... 'Massive chances'.....lol what a load of twaddle.
Click to expand...
Just see the expected goals chart that Matt posted. For all the deficits of expected goals, and for all the failures to generate chances in previous games this season, today we created enough chances that we were odds on to score. At Hull it was finishing that let us down, if we had the finishing from the previous games (where we had an insane conversion rate making up for our poor chance creation) we'd probably have won by 3.

That's not to say the performance was perfect and we should do the exact same every game. As others have pointed out, Brooks was silent for much of it and Anthony also had a bit less spark than in previous games, the latter of which may just be fatigue after playing pretty much every minute as soon as breaking into the first team. Marcondes, though he got on the ball more than previous games, which is an improvement, still didn't show much aside from a few crosses and arriving for the one shot, we need more out of him. And the Pearson+Lerma combination was overly defensive, though the lack of Billing (illness) and Stan (injury) did limit options in the center of the park. Creating over 2 expected goals is fairly respectable, especially when the opponent is limited to scraps, but we'd all love to see it be 3 or 4 (and, you know, some of them go in), which improvements in such areas mentioned will facilitate.

And just since no one has really mentioned him, I think Rogers looked okay for his first minutes in the league. Not a ton of time on the pitch, but he showed some hustle and had a good header back toward the penalty spot that we were unfortunate no one got to, I'm gonna stay optimistic and hope we can get something out of him and allow Anthony some rest.
 
darwinsdummy said:
Just see the expected goals chart that Matt posted. For all the deficits of expected goals, and for all the failures to generate chances in previous games this season, today we created enough chances that we were odds on to score. At Hull it was finishing that let us down, if we had the finishing from the previous games (where we had an insane conversion rate making up for our poor chance creation) we'd probably have won by 3.

That's not to say the performance was perfect and we should do the exact same every game. As others have pointed out, Brooks was silent for much of it and Anthony also had a bit less spark than in previous games, the latter of which may just be fatigue after playing pretty much every minute as soon as breaking into the first team. Marcondes, though he got on the ball more than previous games, which is an improvement, still didn't show much aside from a few crosses and arriving for the one shot, we need more out of him. And the Pearson+Lerma combination was overly defensive, though the lack of Billing (illness) and Stan (injury) did limit options in the center of the park. Creating over 2 expected goals is fairly respectable, especially when the opponent is limited to scraps, but we'd all love to see it be 3 or 4 (and, you know, some of them go in), which improvements in such areas mentioned will facilitate.

And just since no one has really mentioned him, I think Rogers looked okay for his first minutes in the league. Not a ton of time on the pitch, but he showed some hustle and had a good header back toward the penalty spot that we were unfortunate no one got to, I'm gonna stay optimistic and hope we can get something out of him and allow Anthony some rest.
Click to expand...
The fact that Hull only had one chance of note (crossbar), and that Nyland didn't make a save does suggest a level of control. However it certainly didn't feel overly controlled in the ground!

Now that might just be my own natural worrying coming out. A more dispassionate observer might have felt it more comfortable. But during Hull's periods in the ascendancy, it felt to me like Hull just needed one bounce of the ball or one above average touch in the final third and they were in. Fact is they didnt get it, of course.

You're spot on in saying that if going into an away game, you offered us 0 or 1 chance for the opposition and 2 or 3 chances for us, you'd probably take that. Knowing the likely outcome was at least a draw or a tight win.

As it is we either need to brush up on the finishing, create more chances, or a little of both!
 
Ebenezer Goode said:
I would be amazed if we didn't get automatic promotion, so don't see us fading badly. However as stated the real test for us will be if Silva can keep us in the Premier, something Ranieri & Parker couldn't do. I've got nothing against Bournemouth & am actually trying to be objective. My comments on our former manager & your current boss is based on 2 years plus experience. I genuinely hope he's learnt & is willing to play football with the handbrake off, but when I saw Bournemouth bottom of the shots on goal stats it was a familiar scenario from what we've witnessed. Anyway I'm not here to argue or slate a decent football club in Bournemouth. I wish you well & hope Parker adapts his style and progresses as a manager.
Click to expand...

I think most people would wish Fulham well - friendly fans and usually play decent football plus one of the best London away games.

as you can tell I am not a great fan of silva but he should get the job done to go up just less convinced of him in the prem.
 
Matt Stevenson said:
To add to this discussion, I found this worrying table (prior to the Hull game). It's come through a bit small, but in terms of xG points we are fighting a relegation battle (joint 21st)

View attachment 6294

Although, yesterday's performance in terms of xG was much better. The biggest chance was Marcondes' although not sure if this got a flick from a defender, in which case it was a great block. Then there was Dom's header, his shot after interception from the keeper, although he had to hit this immediately, and Dom again from wide on the right (the xG looks too high for this one). Ironically, yesterday's game was one of our best for creating chances.

FWIW, I thought Mepham had a very good game.

View attachment 6295
Click to expand...

It was a great block. Nothing Emi could do about that one.
 
AFCBade said:
I think most people would wish Fulham well - friendly fans and usually play decent football plus one of the best London away games.

as you can tell I am not a great fan of silva but he should get the job done to go up just less convinced of him in the prem.
Click to expand...

I don't mind Fulham either but won't go as far as to wish them well in the same competition we're in:):):)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;