Wolves v AFC Bournemouth - Wednesday 7.45 pm

Matt Stevenson said:
I meant that this was the game in which we had our third highest number of penalty area touches, not that we're third in the league for this. Sorry - if I get chance I may look later to see w4here we are.
Click to expand...
My bad!

Not sure on the quality of the source but found this:
www.statmuse.com

Most Touches In Opposition Box By Team | StatMuse

Arsenal have the most touches in the opponent's box by a club in the Premier League this season, with 1,403 touches in the opponent's box.
www.statmuse.com www.statmuse.com

Has us 7th
 
AFCBade said:
Regardless, my original point was more that I thought our margin would be bigger and certainly above 2.4
Click to expand...
Not sure how it works exactly....we had a lot of shots but probably only 2 big chances.....although you could argue that Kerkez had a fairly big chance.
 
Topfarrier said:
Not sure how it works exactly....we had a lot of shots but probably only 2 big chances.....although you could argue that Kerkez had a fairly big chance.
Click to expand...
Here's my write up of the xG timeline and graph (normally confined to the stats thread)

Here is the xG timeline for the Wolves game. AFCB started brightly with two 1 in 10 efforts from Senesi and Solanke and a 1 in 12 from Kluivert in the first 10 minutes. Wolves had one spell where Travers saved well from Sarabia (1 in 15) and Hee-Chan had a header from the resulting corner (1 in 11) but that was their sole attempts in the first 30 minutes. AFCB kept pressing and had good attempts from Kerkez (1 in 8) and Kluivert (28%) before Semenyo scored. A cross from Kerkez was poorly cleared and Semenyo reacted quickest (18%). That was largely it for the first half and at the break the xG was Wolves 0.24, AFCB 1.12. The second half started cautiously, until Kluivert was through but couldn’t beat Sa (nearly 2 in 5). AFCB maintained the pressure and Senesi had another good chance (1 in 6) to double the lead. From nowhere it looked as though Wolves had equalised with a Hee-Chan header, the goal was chalked off for a foul in the build up on Kluivert. It was a foul, but there would be many AFCB fans who would not have been happy if this was the other way. From the moment the crowd seemed to be more hostile and Bournemouth didn’t have another chance. Wolves were pushing for an equaliser, but had not troubled Travers, although the situation became more favourable when Kerkez was sent off in the 79th minute for an over aggressive tackle. Wolves were now dominant and in the late stages of 10 minutes injury time had a goal ruled out for offside that was closer than it originally looked. The cherries held on though and the final xG was Wolves 0.56, AFCB 1.96. Understat had it more in our favour, at 0.48 vs 2.40.

xG timeline.png
 
Last edited:
Matt Stevenson said:
Here's my write up of the xG timeline and graph (normally confined to the stats thread)

Here is the xG timeline for the Wolves game. AFCB started brightly with two 1 in 10 efforts from Senesi and Solanke and a 1 in 12 from Kluivert in the first 10 minutes. Wolves had one spell where Travers saved well from Sarabia (1 in 15) and Hee-Chan had a header from the resulting corner (1 in 11) but that was their sole attempts in the first 30 minutes. AFCB kept pressing and had good attempts from Kerkez (1 in 8) and Kluivert (28%) before Semenyo scored. A cross from Kerkez was poorly cleared and Semenyo reacted quickest (18%). That was largely it for the first half and at the break the xG was Wolves 0.24, AFCB 1.12. The second half started cautiously, until Kluivert was through but couldn’t beat Sa (nearly 2 in 5). AFCB maintained the pressure and Semenyo had another good chance (1 in 6) to double the lead. From nowhere it looked as though Wolves had equalised with a Hee-Chan header, the goal was chalked off for a foul in the build up on Kluivert. It was a foul, but there would be many AFCB fans who would not have been happy if this was the other way. From the moment the crowd seemed to be more hostile and Bournemouth didn’t have another chance. Wolves were pushing for an equaliser, but had not troubled Travers, although the situation became more favourable when Kerkez was sent off in the 79th minute for an over aggressive tackle. Wolves were now dominant and in the late stages of 10 minutes injury time had a goal ruled out for offside that was closer than it originally looked. The cherries held on though and the final xG was Wolves 0.56, AFCB 1.96. Understat had it more in our favour, at 0.48 vs 2.40.

View attachment 14017
Click to expand...
In the second half there was a Senesi chance from a corner, he was central to goal (it looked like) and he put it wide. Do you know what level of chance that was? To me it seemed easier to score than miss but maybe it was because there were defenders in the way?

This chance was about 6 mins after the Senesi/Kluivert chance
 
AFCBade said:
That is close to 2-1
Click to expand...
No way, summarizing that as 2-1 is a farcical rounding job. 2-1 suggests we made about 2x as many quality chances, while the correct numbers show it to be 4-5x as many (having watched the game, that feels much closer to reality than 2x as well)
 
USCherry said:
In the second half there was a Senesi chance from a corner, he was central to goal (it looked like) and he put it wide. Do you know what level of chance that was? To me it seemed easier to score than miss but maybe it was because there were defenders in the way?

This chance was about 6 mins after the Senesi/Kluivert chance
Click to expand...

Opta had it as 16.44%, Understat at 11%. I realised I typed Semenyo instead of Senesi in the write-up (now corrected)

I haven't seen this chance yet, but it is likely to be because players are in the way, and also that we often think the chances of scoring are higher than they really are.
 
Matt Stevenson said:
Here's my write up of the xG timeline and graph (normally confined to the stats thread)

Here is the xG timeline for the Wolves game. AFCB started brightly with two 1 in 10 efforts from Senesi and Solanke and a 1 in 12 from Kluivert in the first 10 minutes. Wolves had one spell where Travers saved well from Sarabia (1 in 15) and Hee-Chan had a header from the resulting corner (1 in 11) but that was their sole attempts in the first 30 minutes. AFCB kept pressing and had good attempts from Kerkez (1 in 8) and Kluivert (28%) before Semenyo scored. A cross from Kerkez was poorly cleared and Semenyo reacted quickest (18%). That was largely it for the first half and at the break the xG was Wolves 0.24, AFCB 1.12. The second half started cautiously, until Kluivert was through but couldn’t beat Sa (nearly 2 in 5). AFCB maintained the pressure and Senesi had another good chance (1 in 6) to double the lead. From nowhere it looked as though Wolves had equalised with a Hee-Chan header, the goal was chalked off for a foul in the build up on Kluivert. It was a foul, but there would be many AFCB fans who would not have been happy if this was the other way. From the moment the crowd seemed to be more hostile and Bournemouth didn’t have another chance. Wolves were pushing for an equaliser, but had not troubled Travers, although the situation became more favourable when Kerkez was sent off in the 79th minute for an over aggressive tackle. Wolves were now dominant and in the late stages of 10 minutes injury time had a goal ruled out for offside that was closer than it originally looked. The cherries held on though and the final xG was Wolves 0.56, AFCB 1.96. Understat had it more in our favour, at 0.48 vs 2.40.

View attachment 14017
Click to expand...
That was the 2 - 1 xg i must have seen

Think the weighting on some of those chances were quite low but, if true, then maybe this shows that the issue isn’t being clinical but the lack of creativity to create higher weighting chances?
 
darwinsdummy said:
No way, summarizing that as 2-1 is a farcical rounding job. 2-1 suggests we made about 2x as many quality chances, while the correct numbers show it to be 4-5x as many (having watched the game, that feels much closer to reality than 2x as well)
Click to expand...
Another rating system gave it 2-1 in any case
 
AFCBade said:
Another rating system gave it 2-1 in any case
Click to expand...
Got a source for that, because the other one Matt mentioned was still 0.56 to 1.96, which is still a >3x bettering of Wolves' chances that your 2-1 claim is off from. Are you really this intent on downplaying our performance???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;