Match Report: AFCB vs Brentford

punkrockcherry said:
Stacey had been brought on to replace Pearson, and was covering the midfield at that time - Woodgate reshuffled the positions after that
Click to expand...
That wasn't direct a replacement.......Brooks went into the midfield and Stacey replaced Brooks on the right........that chance came about from Brrooks not tracking the midfield runner which was why he was replaced straight after with Wilshere which tbf Woody should have done at the same time as the Stacey substitution ....
 
Last edited:
Monmouthred said:
That xg thing really is a crock of shite isnt it!
Click to expand...

It is better than VAR though :)

I still find it helps me rationalise a game. One of the joys of being a football fan is that even normally thoughtful people do become biased and one-sided, and don't take an impartial view - particularly, as on Monday, after we'd just scored a glorious goal. The xG didn't feel right to me at the time, but it feels less wrong now. When anyone says 'xG is awful', what this translates to, is that it doesn't match their own internal xG. I acknowledge that sometimes the person is correct, as xG has its limitations, so should be viewed with caution.

But, for this game, if I supported Mansfield, which team would I think would have scored the most goals if we didn't see the outcome of the shot? There were v few clear cut chances. (using the data from Infogol)

For us, there was 'Solanke's' header that hit the post, Arnie's goal, Cookie's long-range header and Brook's follow-up.

For them, it was: Mbeumo's miss, Emiliano's chance that Bego snuffed out well, Jensen's shot into the side netting - the stats are also showing two efforts by Norgaard, and one by Toney that I can't really remember, maybe we got good blocks in.

Given that we'd all expect Mbeumo to score, it is hard not to end up with Brentford having a higher xG. If he had scored, and we'd have drawn the game, I don't think we could have felt robbed. Disappointed, Yes, particularly as well played so much better than in the last 3. but not robbed.

I'm a numbers geek though,:sorry:
 
Matt Stevenson said:
It is better than VAR though :)

I still find it helps me rationalise a game. One of the joys of being a football fan is that even normally thoughtful people do become biased and one-sided, and don't take an impartial view - particularly, as on Monday, after we'd just scored a glorious goal. The xG didn't feel right to me at the time, but it feels less wrong now. When anyone says 'xG is awful', what this translates to, is that it doesn't match their own internal xG. I acknowledge that sometimes the person is correct, as xG has its limitations, so should be viewed with caution.

But, for this game, if I supported Mansfield, which team would I think would have scored the most goals if we didn't see the outcome of the shot? There were v few clear cut chances. (using the data from Infogol)

For us, there was 'Solanke's' header that hit the post, Arnie's goal, Cookie's long-range header and Brook's follow-up.

For them, it was: Mbeumo's miss, Emiliano's chance that Bego snuffed out well, Jensen's shot into the side netting - the stats are also showing two efforts by Norgaard, and one by Toney that I can't really remember, maybe we got good blocks in.

Given that we'd all expect Mbeumo to score, it is hard not to end up with Brentford having a higher xG. If he had scored, and we'd have drawn the game, I don't think we could have felt robbed. Disappointed, Yes, particularly as well played so much better than in the last 3. but not robbed.

I'm a numbers geek though,:sorry:
Click to expand...
I am totally no way sirree biased, and my own analysis shows we should have won 3-0 against 9 men
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;