Stats 24/25 Season

AFCB won 6 of 13 aerials duals. Adams won 2 from 3.

Aerial.png

AFCB won 19 of 25 tackles. Semenyo won 3 from 3 and Zabarnyi won 3 from 4.

Aerial.png

Kerkez made most defensive actions with 16. He made most interceptions (5), and joint-most recoveries (7) with Kepa and Zabarnyi, Huijsen made most clearances (6) and Christie and Semenyo made joint-most blocks (2).

IRCB.png
 
The Opta expected goals had Semenyo as most likely to score (0.70) followed by Kluivert (0.68). For expected assists Christie was top with 0.28 followed by Brooks (0.11).

xG and xA.png

The foul count was AFCB 15, Liverpool 8. 5 AFCB players made 2 fouls, with Kerkez fouled three times.

Fouls.png


According to Opta, AFCB made 1 error leading to a chance, but I’m not sure what this was.
 
Matt Stevenson said:
Here is the xG from the Liverpool game. The game started with chances, a minor one for Semenyo, but two big chances (both around 1 in 6) for Liverpool from MacAllister and Diaz, both of which were blocked. AFCb were attacking but the final ball wasn’t there, Semenyo almost created a goal from nothing tricking Liverpool defenders before firing against the post with Allison beaten (rated 1 in 40) before Liverpool took the lead through a disputed penalty (there’s been enough talk about this on the forum) which Salah scored (79%). Liverpool. Liverpool appeared to have a very good chance directly after (1 in 2) when Diaz headed at Kepa, although he was offside, but as play continued the xG countered. Liverpool had a few more presentable chances, from Trent Alexander Arnold (1 in 10) and Szoboszlai (1 in 12), but Brooks had a goal disallowed as Kerkez was slightly offside in the build-up. The xG at the break, was AFCB 0.18 Liverpool 1.88.

AFCB started the second half well, with two good chances, for with a reasonable chance, with Ouattara header (1 in 9) and a Kluivert shot (1 in 7). Two minutes later Semenyo had an excellent chance (1in 2) but couldn’t lift it over the outrushing keeper. Liverpool weren’t offering much and then AFCB had another great chance, a long shot from Tavernier hit the inside of the post, rebounding back to Kluivert, who with nearly an open goal shot wide (1 in 2). This sparked Liverpool into life and following a quick break Salah expertly curled one around Kerkez into the far corner (1 in 20). There were only minor chances after this, bar a late attempt from Jones who headed wide from close range (1 in 3). The final xG was AFCB 1.58 Liverpool 2.52, with understat having a similar margin, at 1.65 vs 2.72.

View attachment 16863
Click to expand...
So basically when you take away the 0.5 for Liverpool that shouldn’t be there as that chance was offside, the true XG was around 1.5 to us and 2 to them, and there’s included a dubious penalty. So essentially, we bettered the best team in the country in terms of XG from open play. Really don’t think we have a lot to worry about in terms of the performance!
 
Matt Stevenson said:
There were no changes to the team who won at Newcastle and home to Forest, which was unsurprising given the good results and the lack of alternatives. An interesting point is that Christie (10) sat in front of Zabarnyi (27) and Adams (12) did the same with Huijsen (2) having two banks of 2, with the full backs, Cook (4) and Kerkez (3) as advanced as the centre midfielders. Ouattara (11) was again dropping deep with the furthest forward being Kluivert (19) and Semenyo (24). In the 67th minute, Tavernier (16) returning from injury replaced Brooks (7) and in the 80th minute (at 2-0 down), Jebbison (21) replaced Christie), presumably playing as centre forward with Ouattara (11) moving to the wing.

View attachment 16864
Click to expand...

Another example of the role of our "number 9" being a complex one, with ever changing tasks given, sometimes he's the most advanced in the traditional sense of a centre forward, other times he's dropped deeper, on this occasion further back than two other players in the form of Kluivert and Semenyo.


Yes he dropped out wide when Jebbison came on for 10 minutes, but I don't think that would have skewed the average position too much.
 
DJ said:
It's down to the same point I've made a few times. Take us as the example, we will take on low xG shots that other clubs simply will not take.

So for example, if we shot on average 10 times more often than other clubs, because we don't mind taking a 0.1% shot, then by the end of the game our expected goals would be 1, despite never creating a real big chance on goal.

Other clubs will clock up lower xG chances over a number of games and so overall as you get deeper and deeper into the season if you add everything up over 38 games it becomes less and less relevant as a statistic.


On a game-by-game basis it can give more of an accurate feel on where the game could have been based on "big chances", for example if the game had finished 3-1 (the xG score) on the face of it no one would have argued that.
Click to expand...

Bet £10 to win £10 (and your stake back), you have two games to chose from
head or tails - 1 spin.
roll a 6 on a dice - 4 rolls

Which is one is a good deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;